The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTRY OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SPENDING

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The budgetary estimates of the Attorney General show that overall spending has been increased by $122 million, a whopping increase of 19.5%, but the document raises many questions.

First, the legal aid plan projects a 25% increase in legal aid requirements for 1992-93, but legal aid funding in the minister's estimates increased by 50%, or $90 million. Even though the Attorney General can thus increase legal aid funding beyond projected needs, he seeks to punish the Law Society of Upper Canada in recessionary times. Last week's leaked cabinet document says cabinet "did not approve further declines in revenue from the Law Foundation of Ontario," whereby lawyers help fund legal aid, and "directed the Attorney General to seek alternative revenues or expenditure reductions to manage any further declines in law foundation revenues."

Second, the underfunded family support plan, with a 1991-92 allocation of $25 million, spent only $18 million. This government was too incompetent to get $7 million of allocated and needed funds into the support and custody orders enforcement system. The SCOE budget has in fact been cut this year.

The estimates also raised many other questions about the minister's competence which we will deal with at another time.

NATIONAL MENTAL HEALTH WEEK

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): This week is National Mental Health Week in the province of Ontario. The theme for the week has been an emphasis upon housing as a critical community need and a cornerstone of independent community living.

Throughout the week the Canadian Mental Health Association has attempted, and will continue to attempt, to elevate the public's awareness of mental health issues and erode the stigma which surrounds mental illness.

I would like to take this opportunity both to commend the Minister of Housing for attending the Mental Health Week kickoff on Monday and to urge the government to embrace the theme for the week, which is "Accommodate Mental Health."

The needs of Ontario's mental health community are substantial, and they are not being met. Seventy-five thousand Ontarians have a serious mental illness and 1.5 million Ontarians seek mental health care each year. One hundred and forty people with psychiatric problems are discharged every day from hospitals into the communities without adequate community support in place. Thirty to forty per cent of homeless people have a serious mental health problem. In most areas of Ontario there are serious gaps in services and lengthy waiting lists for mental health and addiction services.

National Mental Health Week provides the NDP government with a great opportunity to pay more than lipservice to the need for community-based mental health services. Now is the time for this government to live up to its promises and start accommodating mental health.

HOWARD-HARWICH-MORAVIAN PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): Today I'd like to tell the House about Howard-Harwich-Moravian Public School, whose 25th anniversary ceremonies I attended this past weekend.

I participate in a lot of events celebrating various themes, but the fascinating origin of and unique harmony within this school are very special. I would like to share a little of its history with the members of the House.

Howard-Harwich-Moravian opened its doors in September 1967. This represented amalgamation of 16 one-room school houses from Howard and Harwich townships and the Moravian of the Thames Band.

From the school's origin there has existed a unique bond between natives and non-natives. This is clearly illustrated and perpetuated by the native studies class taught to all the 340 students of the school. Howard-Harwich-Moravian Public School was the first school in the southwest to offer this program.

The groups of grade 5 and 6 students who sang at the ceremonies under the direction of Mrs Cofell exemplified profoundly the harmonious spirit in which the school was founded. One more interesting highlight of the afternoon was the acknowledgement of four graduates of the school. Mrs Mitton was a first-year graduate of the school and her son Peter will graduate this year, 25 years later.

I was then surprised and pleased to learn that a former legislative page for the House, Leah Spicer, and her mother were the other graduating team. Leah served as a page in the House last fall. She will graduate this year, 25 years after her mother, Mrs Spicer, did the same the first year the school was opened.

BUDGET

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I rise today to continue bringing to this Legislature responses to the budget from the people of Ontario. We continue to hear from all areas of the province concerns that NDP mismanagement is ruining the economy.

From Cambridge we have a business response saying, "All business would be happy to trade the business tax decreases for the proposed labour legislation reforms."

From Dorchester we hear that the budget has "no incentives to start and manage business, to increase income, create jobs. This will lead to very serious future repercussions for our young people."

The people in my riding are very concerned with the direction this government is taking with this budget. We must work towards creating an economic environment that is conducive to business. However, this goal will not be realized with this latest NDP budget. The people of Brant-Haldimand and from across the province hope that this government will re-examine its agenda so Ontario can prosper once again.

1340

PLANNING

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): Last week, John Sewell, chairman of the Commission on Planning and Development Reform in Ontario, met with members of my caucus to discuss the findings his group has made so far while travelling the province to discuss the current planning process in the province.

I agree with both Mr Sewell and the Minister of Municipal Affairs that reform in this area is needed. However, as they both know, I do not agree that their way is the better way, as I feel they have little knowledge of and do not understand the hundreds of thousands of people who live outside the greater Toronto area.

Without this understanding, I still believe the government is wasting a great deal of time and a great deal of money. I do, though, agree with Mr Sewell that a non-partisan all-party committee would be an ideal start, and I have written to Mr Sewell to express my support in this matter. I have also made some suggestions as to how this could be done, and I hope he gives them consideration.

Planning is the most important issue in Ontario today. People see decisions being made which are not uniform, which make no sense and which seem very undemocratic. They do not understand why two identical severance applications or development permits are treated differently. They only know that they do not understand the rules.

My hope is that somehow, working together, we can begin to deal fairly with the issue across the entire province and to create a level playing field so that no one is more equal than anyone else.

MIDWIFERY

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): On May 3, Ontario women and their families celebrated the first anniversary of International Midwives Day, with special reason. Bill 56, the Midwifery Act, which was passed last fall, establishes midwifery as a distinct profession. Midwives support women in their choice around childbirth, recognizing that birth is often a normal, healthy event. We can all celebrate that this highly personalized, continuous care provided by midwives will be accessible to more women across the province as part of our health care system.

My wife, Karen, and I have a special place in our hearts for midwives. They have provided truly valuable support during pregnancy, birth and after our son was born.

We would like to thank the interim regulatory council on midwifery for its work in preparing the implementation of midwifery. Consumers, as represented by the Midwifery Task Force of Ontario, have expressed support for the recommendations of the curriculum designed for midwifery education. We are proud of the Ontario government's commitment to bring midwifery into our health care system.

EASTERN ONTARIO

Mr Hugh P. O'Neil (Quinte): I'd like to address my comments to the Treasurer, if I may. It pertains to the budget as it relates to eastern Ontario. A couple of weeks ago I asked the Treasurer about reinstating the cabinet committee for eastern Ontario. He turned to the member for Ottawa Centre, who is the Minister of Housing, and mentioned, "Yes, we'll have her have a look at this cabinet committee."

I think, Mr Treasurer, you failed to remember that you also have two other cabinet ministers in eastern Ontario: the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food; and the member for Frontenac-Addington, who is the Minister of Government Services. So you have a total of three cabinet ministers there.

There are things that need to be done in eastern Ontario. We have an unemployment rate in the Quinte and surrounding area which ranges from 11.8% to 14.2%. We have more than 14,000 people who are collecting unemployment and welfare benefits in the cities of Belleville and Trenton alone.

When we formed this eastern Ontario cabinet committee, we brought in many other powerful ministers to try and do something for eastern Ontario, and I think we did that. Maybe the minister there should be doing something to spearhead some action to get some jobs and get things going in eastern Ontario.

We welcome some of the job creation initiatives you have given us, but we are afraid they are going to be very short-term and we look for some action from you and some of the other ministers of your government to create some jobs in eastern Ontario.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): In her statement announcing that May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month, the minister responsible for women's issues indicated that 50% of sexual assaults happen to girls 17 years old and younger. While I very much support the focus of this year's campaign to change the attitudes which lead to sexual assaults, I am deeply concerned about this government's failure to provide programs and access to mental health services for young women who have been victims of sexual abuse.

I would like to focus on the case of a young woman in my community who has been receiving treatment in the US for three weeks for the post-traumatic stress she has suffered as the result of sexual abuse. Despite the fact that there is no treatment available in Ontario for at least six months, this young woman's family has now been told that OHIP will no longer pay for her treatment, and she will be forced to return to Ontario this weekend.

This family wrote to the Minister of Health on May 4. They are pleading with her to show compassion and to ask that OHIP continue to approve the treatment their daughter so desperately requires. Indeed in her letter her mother says, "Should she be forced to stay at home while playing a waiting game, the possibility of her suicide attempts succeeding increases by the hour."

I am sending the minister another copy of this desperate plea for help. I urge her to take immediate action to help this young woman.

JACK DYKEMAN

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): Today I would like to pay tribute to volunteers who are the strength and success of communities across this province. In particular I would like to commend a volunteer in my riding of Lambton who has served as a volunteer fireman in the town of Petrolia for 35 years and is now retiring.

Jack Dykeman joined the Petrolia Volunteer Fire Department in 1956, and through his dedication became known to always be the first ready and waiting at the fire station when the bell sounded.

He has served in most positions in the department, including chief for three years. Mr Dykeman recalls the early days of the bell on Victoria Hall that would ring to alert firefighters and the telephone operators calling each individual firefighter in case the bell wasn't heard.

Mr Dykeman is credited with assisting in the development of the modern firefighting services the town of Petrolia now enjoys and says the addition of such equipment as the jaws of life and modern fire trucks will serve the community well and help to ensure the safety of the town's residents.

I feel this dedication by Mr Dykeman as a volunteer depicts what serving your community is all about. Even though Mr Dykeman is retiring, he says he will always answer the bell if the department is short-handed. This is truly volunteerism.

VISITOR

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't know if it's under rule 31(f), but perhaps you could give me some guidance as to under which rule I would draw to the attention of the House and to you the presence of the mayor of the city of Brampton, His Worship Mayor Peter Robertson, whom I welcome here today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member does not have a point of order, but indeed the visitor is most welcome.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister of Community and Social Services): Today more than one million people in this province rely on social assistance, at a cost projected to reach over $6 billion during this fiscal year. These figures indicate a system so overburdened that it is not meeting one of its primary objectives: to help people leave the system and attain self-sufficiency.

The social assistance system in Ontario should be a system of last resort, the safety net that ensures that those people who are truly in need and who have no other source of income can get assistance.

Our first priority will be to provide support and encouragement to recipients to help them move towards greater independence and self-reliance. As we help people move from social assistance into the workforce, we all benefit from reduced costs to the system and from the full participation of former recipients within our communities.

In the budget announcement last week the Treasurer announced the new Jobs Ontario training fund, which will create thousands of new jobs and training opportunities for social assistance recipients and for people who are no longer eligible for unemployment insurance. We look forward to hearing further details about this exciting new program from my colleague Richard Allen, the Minister of Skills Development.

Today I am announcing a series of measures designed to reduce reliance on social assistance by helping more people move into the workforce, by increasing the efficiency and effectiveness of the social assistance system and by ensuring that where there are alternative sources of income, such as unemployment insurance, Canada pension and child support, those who are eligible actually receive their income from those sources.

These measures and others will slow the growth in the number of people who need social assistance in Ontario and will realize savings of more than $300 million over the next year. Savings to the system will be significant. I must stress, however, that this government will continue to provide assistance to all those whose basic needs are not being met through other means.

1350

Later this spring, the principal report of the Advisory Group on New Social Assistance Legislation will be released, following which we will act decisively to reform the social assistance system, using the advice we receive from the extensive consultation and consideration of the advisory group.

Let me outline some of the new measures we will put into place.

To help more people move off social assistance and into the workforce, we will hire 450 additional provincial social assistance field staff at a cost of about $18 million. At present, each provincial case worker is responsible for providing services to more than 400 people and their families. That means about half a day per year per client. That is little time to do much more than process applications and keep up with the changes to circumstances.

The additional staff will allow us to improve the service we provide to social assistance recipients and applicants, helping more of them to find alternative sources of income. We'll be strategically placing this new staff in areas of the province where the growth in the numbers of people receiving family benefits has been the highest. By targeting our staffing more effectively, we expect to offer better service to our clients and to achieve greater efficiency in the system.

This new staffing is an investment which will result in significant returns in both human and financial terms and which is essential to implement the measures we are announcing today. Many of the new social assistance staff will be civil servants who will be displaced from their jobs by the current actions of this government.

Consistent with the spirit of the Transitions report, we will introduce assessment of all social assistance applicants in terms of employability and, where appropriate, make direct referrals to other supports and services. We are hurting social assistance applicants when we fail to look at their potential. The service we provide should be more than financial; it should include support in fulfilling that potential.

With the additional staff, we will change the way we deal with applicants coming into our offices for assistance. Instead of focusing solely on an applicant's financial situation, we're going to work with applicants and clients to help them discover their training needs and employment potential. Where appropriate, people will be assisted with information about other programs and services and referred to employment and training opportunities. In this way, we will help people make the transition to self-sufficiency as quickly as possible. Of course, eligible applicants will continue to receive benefits until new sources of income such as wages or training allowances are available.

In response to the concerns expressed by our municipal partners and by social assistance recipients themselves, we will introduce changes to the eligibility requirements for the supports to employment program. STEP was introduced to provide an incentive to people on social assistance to enter the workforce. By allowing certain exemptions to people who secure employment, the program allows participants to retain a larger portion of their social assistance allowance in addition to their income from employment.

This program has been very successful and will continue to provide opportunities to the clients of the social assistance system. However, over the last two years we have seen that some people with moderate incomes and significant attachment to the workforce are supplementing their incomes through the program. The changes I'm announcing today will ensure that fewer employed people with moderate incomes will qualify for social assistance benefits.

For those applicants with earnings who do qualify for social assistance, reduced STEP benefits will apply for the first three months. Child care, disability benefits and statutory deductions will continue to apply. After three months, these participants will be entitled to the full benefits that people who enter STEP from within the system currently enjoy.

I want to stress that these changes will have no impact on people who are already participating in STEP or who are already on social assistance. For these people, the program will continue to operate as before and will continue to provide a positive incentive to enter the workforce.

We will also increase our efforts to make social assistance recipients aware of STEP. We take very seriously the criticisms of consumers who have identified a lack of consistent and clear information about how STEP works and how they can become eligible. We continue to believe in the value of this program to help people ease into the workforce and off social assistance.

We will introduce these modifications to STEP on August 1. That will give us ample opportunity to train our employees in our new way of doing business.

Turning to other measures, we will streamline some of our activities through the establishment of links with other provincial and federal programs. In particular, we will work to find ways of identifying other potential income sources for applicants and clients. For example, we know there are many people receiving social assistance in Ontario who qualify for other income support, such as unemployment insurance, Canada pension or child support. With the addition of staff, we will be able to work to determine who is eligible for support from other sources and to secure that support.

Some of the new staff will focus on parental support work. There are many single parents applying for social assistance who should be receiving child support from their spouses. Parental support workers help these single parents, usually women, get the support to which they are entitled by ensuring that court orders are made and carried out. Our parental support workers will work in partnership with the Attorney General's family support plan to ensure that parents retain primary responsibility for the support of their children.

Fraud exists in any system, and social assistance is no exception. However, popular perceptions of fraud are far in excess of the reality. Studies of the system have found that the rate of fraud in the social assistance system is actually less than 5%. We also know, however, that we cannot afford to have social assistance dollars lost to those few who cheat the system. Social assistance recipients are very clear that they are as anxious as all taxpayers are to ensure the integrity of the system and to see that available support goes to those in need.

We will move to improve efficiency and reduce costs by working to reduce fraud and by making sure that those who are on the system are those who truly need it. With our additional staff, we will be able to do a better job of identifying and reducing fraud.

Overpayments to recipients may occur because of errors by overburdened workers, delays in processing information about changed circumstances and slow reporting by clients. We will make every effort to streamline the system to minimize overpayments and will also increase our efforts to recover overpayments paid to clients who have left the social assistance system.

To further increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the system, we are going to study the usefulness of having family benefits recipients report earnings more often than the current practice of every four to six months. We expect one of the possible benefits of this would be the prevention of overpayment, as recipients' circumstances change frequently. Increased reporting requirements, however, will be done in a manner which is both easy and clearly understood by our clients.

We will also be expanding our program of depositing social assistance benefits directly into the bank accounts of recipients who wish it. This too will improve our efficiency and effectiveness and will prevent some of the lost or stolen cheques which continue to cause distress to our clients and stress on our delivery system. We will be working with the financial institutions to ensure that our clients are treated with the respect and dignity due to all customers.

We will implement these measures over the next few months. Our improvements in effective and efficient delivery, coupled with our strong efforts to help recipients move into the workforce, will save resources. These savings represent a significant portion of the more than $300 million in social assistance savings mentioned by the Treasurer in the budget.

We are confident that these measures will reduce costs while protecting the integrity of the social assistance system and the government's commitment to reform. We will continue to ensure that social assistance is available to all those who are truly in need.

1400

RESPONSES

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): I rise to respond to the statement by the minister. I want first of all to note that when I first received this statement, the following line appeared on page 3: "We are the first government committed to managing the social assistance system." I must admit that I took great exception to that.

I accept that the Treasurer came over and said to me that the line was not supposed to have been in there. The minister did not read it, but I am utterly appalled that the line would have managed to get as far as it did in this statement when we consider the contribution that was made by the former member for Kitchener-Wilmot, John Sweeney. Surely if there was an individual in this Legislature who took seriously the job of reforming social assistance, of bringing forward changes to that whole program and of managing it effectively and with a sense of caring and compassion, it was John Sweeney. I don't exclude any of those ministers since he was in and since our government was in, but he was someone who really cared very deeply about reforming the system. I think it is appropriate to give him his due, because indeed a number of the things that flow from this statement were things that he began. I say again that I accept the Treasurer's remarks, but I want to make that comment.

Fundamentally, what we see here in a number of the issues -- the STEP program, the supports to employment program, and the pilot projects that had started in terms of the direct deposit -- build off the plan that George Thomson brought forward in the Transitions report and which John Sweeney then brought to this Legislature. But I think what we have to look at here is how this will in fact be managed, because what we are being asked to believe is that by the expenditure of $18 million and by the hiring of 450 additional people, we are going to save some $300 million. We want to be able to believe that, but one of the grave difficulties is that this government itself -- I'm going to name two programs.

The minister sets out in her statement that she is going to be bringing forward the concept of, in effect, opportunity planning. It was in the Transitions report. The previous minister said she was going to be setting up five pilot projects to work with those on social assistance to get them off and to provide them with the skills and job directions they needed. Almost a year later we see nothing of those pilot projects. Shortly after this government took office, it also stated that it was going to spend $54 million with municipalities on job creation for those on social assistance. We have seen no impact of that as yet.

Those are two fundamental and critical issues where, if we had seen some action, we could see that some of what is mentioned here may in fact see the light of day. But we're being asked to believe that we're going to save $300 million, when what we have seen to date is that this government has not been able in any way, shape or form to manage effectively the social assistance case load, program or support services for those people.

What, then, do we do with all the things that are mentioned here, when we barely have received the budget that came down last Thursday from the Treasurer? No matter what marvellous plans you have for social assistance -- and I say that as a former minister -- unless the jobs are out there, unless those jobs have been created or are created, this is as nothing.

When we look at that budget and when we recognize that through the income tax increases that were announced by the Treasurer we're going to lose some 25,000 jobs, and when we see no real impetus for the economy, then what is it that this program is going to accomplish, when in effect there are no jobs for those people to go to? The huge piece that is missing from any reform of social assistance is, what is this government's priority in terms of job creation? That we did not see in the budget; that we have not seen in the months this government has been in office, and without clear signs of economic recovery, of economic growth, of real job creation, we are not going to be able to help those who are on social assistance. We have to move on both fronts. Mr Treasurer, we need jobs if we're going to make this work.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I listened very carefully to the critic, my colleague the member for York North, make reference to the line that wasn't used in the minister's statement. I just want to assure him that in fact that was a typing error and that it really was, "We are the first government committed to mismanaging the social assistance system." I just wanted him to get some comfort in knowing that it really was a typo, not an oversight.

It's quite interesting that we now have the first statement from this minister regarding social assistance since the budget, and it represents a major conversion on her own road to Damascus, now having responsibility for the million people in this province who are on social assistance.

We find it interesting that we criticize this government for not listening, but in fact there is very clear evidence that in part it has listened to several people. Certainly they listened to the comments of our party, and I dare say other political parties in this province, but our party in its New Directions document indicated last fall that wage subsidies to employers hiring social assistance recipients should be a part of the plan. I noticed when we made that statement, when our leader, Mr Harris, made that statement, the minister herself was quoted in the London area in one press interview as saying, "Having to look for work sort of defeats the purpose of getting on welfare." I thought that was a rather interesting and intriguing comment for the minister to make publicly.

But that was then and this is now, and I commend the minister for her 180-degree turn on the issue of ensuring that social assistance recipients are strengthened in their pursuit of long-term employment. What we're encouraged about now is that all three political parties in this House are starting to realize what the public has been telling them, that chronic unemployment and chronic welfare is no future for our province and our people and that programs such as STEP require strengthening and immediate attention from all members of the House.

I am very intrigued by several points the minister made during her press conference earlier this afternoon. She said she thinks she'll save some $300 million as an outcome of this specific program. That is really highly questionable, given some of the facts that have been shared with members of this House, most notably the document which was so controversial last week, the treasury board minutes. When one examines those minutes, one realizes that a whole series of initiatives for social assistance recipients have been abandoned by this government. I'll briefly make note of them.

The board noted that $8 million was placed on holdback pending review of options to offset a revenue shortfall related to first nations Back on Track initiatives. It goes on to say that $1,036,000 related to native child care on reserves is cancelled. It talks about her cabinet approving a decrease of $5.8 million related to SARC initiatives that have not yet been implemented. It goes on. They did not approve an increase of $200,000 for salaries and wages for staff to support the development of new social assistance legislation. It goes on and on: cuts to the drug benefit plan and another $138 million in social assistance cuts.

The truth is that within these documents is clear evidence that these are not savings to taxpayers as a function of this new program but rather reflect a tradeoff, and it cuts directly at social service recipients. Frankly, that is why the minister suddenly puts across in her message that social assistance recipients at moderate income levels shouldn't fare as well under STEP as low-income. She knows the kinds of cuts her government is about to make.

I am intrigued that the minister thinks that by finding moneys in other programs, most of which are paid for by the same taxpayer, she's going to be able to offset various programs and her total costs. Her total costs are still going to be there, simply shifting recipients from one program to another.

The exception, of course, is child support, and I can't let that comment go by. It has been raised by our Attorney General's critic because your government is very badly behind in terms of having the infrastructure in place in order to have those compliance orders. I do not doubt for a moment, Minister, that you're committed to this, but it's very clear that your Attorney General isn't, and I doubt you have the infrastructure in place. I'm delighted at the change in direction; I'm just concerned at the way the government's going about doing it.

1410

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My question is to the Treasurer. Last Thursday, the Treasurer stood in this House and told the people of Ontario that his budget deficit for 1992-93 would be $9.9 billion. We believe that since then our efforts have shown that already astronomical figure to be nothing short of a rather desperate attempt to salvage the province's already discredited credit rating.

We suspect that the reason Standard and Poor's have once again lowered this province's credit rating is that they, like the Liberal opposition, have some very serious concerns about the Treasurer's deficit numbers. When we add up the numbers, we believe the deficit is probably more in the order of $12.8 billion. I would ask the Treasurer if he would join us in requesting the Provincial Auditor to provide an independent evaluation so that all of us understand the real financial picture of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Interjections.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): We have a fiercely independent Provincial Auditor in this province. Any government that tried to pull the wool over his eyes, so to speak, would be brought up short very quickly, so I don't think we need to direct or ask the Provincial Auditor to do anything in that regard. I can assure the leader of the official opposition that we would be foolish indeed to pretend that our deficit is lower than it really is, because we'd simply have to live with that in-year and we'd have to make very serious reallocations in-year, which are very painful and very difficult to do on the expenditure side. So I want to assure the leader of the official opposition that what you see in the budget is what you're going to get.

Mrs McLeod: We're well aware that the Treasurer, in the attempt to manage what he's called his cash flow problems, has certainly deferred to next year some of the expenses one might reasonably have expected to find in this year's budget, but I do wonder, if the Treasurer is confident that the numbers in his budget add up to his projected deficit, why he would not want to request the auditor to look at these figures now. The Treasurer may want to downplay all this, and I understand that, but last May 16 he told the House that a rating change is estimated to add $2.5 million for every $1 billion borrowed in the public bond markets.

It's quite clear that the Treasurer is indeed concerned about the cost of borrowing to cover the debt. I'd just like to know if the Treasurer has been so concerned about the debt and the cost of borrowing that he's actually tried to hide the true size of his deficit. I would ask when he will add up all the numbers and acknowledge the real financial liability of the province.

Hon Mr Laughren: The numbers that are in the budget are real numbers. I'm sure there are members on your side -- you were in government -- who would support me in the assertion that in the Ministry of Treasury and Economics there are professionals who are accountants and economists who would not be part of any game of smoke and mirrors, the kinds of allegations you are making. We would be very foolish indeed to do that.

We have provided the details as best we can in the budget as to where we expect to get the revenues and where we expect to have expenditure savings. I can assure the leader of the official opposition that, first of all, the Provincial Auditor already looks at the way we conduct our accounting and management of our finances in the province. Second, there is no attempt whatsoever to fudge any of the numbers.

Mrs McLeod: Nevertheless, it is difficult for us still to understand some of the transactions, one of them referred to in the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services today, which suggests that one of the ways in which the government is going to save money is to have people on social assistance look at alternative sources of income such as unemployment insurance. It's hard to imagine that any government would describe that as a real source of savings.

There are concerns being expressed by people with strong accounting backgrounds across the province. I would just share a comment, for example, from an accountant in Hamilton who says that if he engaged in the kind of accounting practices seen in this budget, it would be fraud. Another comment, from an accountant in London who has referred to the budget as "questionable" and "strange," says that if this budget were taken to any bank, that banker would review the assumptions, draw a conclusion concerning their validity and compare the past track record of this government in meeting its forecasts. So once again, I would just ask the Treasurer whether he will simply admit to this House that his accounting practices would not be acceptable in private practice and acknowledge that his deficit is perhaps as high as $12.8 billion.

Hon Mr Laughren: I know the official opposition, in a bizarre if not perverse kind of way, was disappointed when we were able to achieve the deficit numbers that are projected for 1992-93. I want to deal --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, could I deal directly with the first assertion in the question of the leader of the official opposition, which had to do with savings in the social assistance field. Surely to goodness, if there are social assistance recipients in this province who are entitled to either UI or Canada pension, for example, they should be receiving those payments and they should not be receiving social assistance. When that happens, and the minister made the announcement today, that is a real saving to the taxpayers of Ontario from the social assistance pot of money.

When they are in receipt of unemployment insurance, they are entitled to a certain amount of job retraining as part of UI as well. If the leader of the official opposition is saying those people should remain on social assistance, let her stand at her place and say that, but don't imply that there's not real savings to the province when they take advantage of that.

Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: New question.

Hon Mr Laughren: All right.

Mrs McLeod: Mr Speaker, I'm sorry if the Treasurer has not completed his response, because while I am prepared at any time to compare the facts of our track record in projecting the last budget deficit figure versus the Treasurer's, that's not the focus of my second question.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Solicitor General. It is in reference to the fact that it seems to be quite clear that this government is more and more confused about its position on Sunday shopping.

Monday and yesterday, the Treasurer stated emphatically that the government is not prepared to change its position and permit open Sunday shopping, although it seems as though he himself is beginning to feel somewhat differently on the subject. Then this morning on CBC Radio the Solicitor General stated that, "The police have been given a directive to enforce the Sunday shopping law but policing services respond to calls on a priority basis, and if this appears to be at the back of the bus, so to speak, because there's a large priority call for other services," then they would do those first.

The large retailers have figured out what lies behind these rather mixed messages and it's why so many of them have announced their intention to open for business this Sunday in defiance of the law in places like Toronto, Ottawa, London, Welland and others. They know this government has no intention of enforcing the legislation. Since the government seems to have lost the political will to enforce its own ill-conceived Sunday shopping law, may I ask the Solicitor General if he is now admitting that his own law is not enforceable, or at least not worth enforcing?

1420

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I am very pleased to add clarification for the Leader of the Opposition. The responses I made yesterday were responses to questions from the media. I indicated to them that in January I had the policing services division issue a directive to police services across the province that prosecutions and charges were to be laid where the law was being broken. There has been absolutely no change in that direction. There have been no additional directions and that direction stands.

I indicated that the situation in terms of the priority in which the police would proceed with their charges or activities would be based on the need within the community. If there were greater priorities than laying charges with respect to Sunday opening in terms of personal injuries or property damages of some great magnitude, the police, as they always would and do, prioritize those calls, act where the public safety is in question first and then, when those kind of circumstances are concluded, move to the lesser priority calls. That's simply the situation and there's been no change in that.

Mrs McLeod: I'll certainly read Hansard for clarification, but it seems to me as though the Solicitor General's response is even more confusing than the legislation they've presented to this province. Trusted -- as we understand "trusted" -- NDP government adviser himself, Gerry Caplan, has been quoted as saying that, "The NDP Sunday shopping law is the wrong policy by the wrong government at the wrong time."

The Solicitor General will be well aware that the Ontario Municipal Board has just upheld the city of Windsor's decision to have open Sunday shopping. Fortunately the Ontario Municipal Board made that decision, since the community of Windsor clearly believes this is a very important decision for its economic future. I ask the Solicitor General whether he will now start to use some common sense and give other communities the freedom of choice on this issue.

Hon Mr Pilkey: In response to the Leader of the Opposition, first of all, I appreciate her mentioning Gerry Caplan to me and when she sees him next please remind me to him. I'd appreciate her effort in that regard.

Second, in terms of the Ontario Municipal Board and its decisions, simply what has happened is the government provided a situation where tourism exemptions may be obtained by those who apply and where local communities support that application. These applications have proceeded to the board. The board -- quite unlike those who had suggested it would be cumbersome, we'd never get answers within 90 days -- dealt with it expeditiously and rendered a decision almost immediately.

The fact that these communities or the applicants in these communities have been successful in terms of the new process I think speaks well for the rules and regulations this government proffered with respect to this issue.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): The city of Windsor was forced to take out full-page newspaper advertisements publicizing the appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board --

Interjections.

Mr Mancini: You may think it's funny over there, but Windsor didn't think it was very funny.

It also retained the services of four law firms which devoted three weeks of time to the preparation of the city's case. Had the city had to pay the cost of these services they would have been monumental and they would have been borne by the taxpayers of Windsor.

Many communities across this province cannot afford this kind of expense, Mr Minister. Will the Solicitor General offer Ontario taxpayers, merchants and retail employees a chance for survival by repealing the NDP government's archaic and unfair Sunday shopping laws?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I would simply like to indicate that any requirements on applicants with respect to applications for tourism exemptions within municipalities are set by the municipality itself. So whatever the city of Windsor did in that regard would have been of its own volition and understandably, I suppose, at its own expense.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I also have a question for the Solicitor General and it doesn't have to do with Sunday shopping. I'm sure the Solicitor General is aware of the widespread concern --

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Terrible, obstructive, paternalistic.

Mr Runciman: I'll wait until the member for Oriole shuts her mouth.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Although all interjections are out of order, it is not helpful to have a response to an interjection by use of unparliamentary language. I would ask the member for Leeds-Grenville to withdraw his remark and ask all members of the House to allow the member the opportunity to place his question.

Mr Runciman: I withdraw the remark.

PUBLIC ORDER

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): This is an important issue, from our perspective in any event. It's directed to the Solicitor General and it has to do with the widespread concern among most residents of Metropolitan Toronto, I suspect small business people as well as residents at large, about the upcoming demonstrations scheduled for this Thursday and Saturday.

I'm asking the Solicitor General what assurances he can give the residents of Metropolitan Toronto that this Thursday and this Saturday we will not see a repetition of the violence we witnessed on the streets this Monday.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): As I indicated in a statement to the House recently, this matter of violence on the streets of Toronto is of absolute concern to me and to all members of this House and I think to all people in the city of Toronto and our province as a whole. They are actions that are not to be condoned and they are actions that are not to be allowed.

In the discussions I have had with Chief William McCormack and Metropolitan Toronto Police Services Board chairman Susan Eng, the indication to me directly, and subsequently in a press conference yesterday I believe at 2 o'clock, is that the police forces of this city would act very promptly and very deliberately against any hooligans or vandals who are there to purport damage on to the public. I support their actions in that regard. I hope this kind of action would stem this unlawful act and perpetrators of that sort are dealt with in the appropriate fashion.

Mr Runciman: I suspect the residents of Toronto are looking for more than hope from the Solicitor General. They're looking for a strong indication from him today, the small-business people of Toronto who had their windows smashed and their businesses looted, that the violence that occurred in the streets of Toronto is not going to recur. That's the kind of assurance they're looking for him to give today in this House, and we're not getting it.

We saw a reaction on Tuesday, assurances from the leaders of groups protesting at the American consulate that they were not supportive of the type of activity that occurred following the demonstrations. Yet one of the leaders of those organizations, Mr Lennox Farrell, a former NDP candidate in Oriole, was arrested and booked for breach of the peace and participating in the riot. Ms Ziemba not too many weeks ago proudly appointed this gentleman co-chair of the government's Anti-Racism Advisory Working Group.

We're talking about dozens of Molotov cocktails being seized by the police. This was obviously a planned occurrence. There was nothing spontaneous about this. We want to hear some strong words from this Solicitor General that this sort of thing is not going to occur again. Let's hear it now.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think a reasonable way to respond to the honourable member, in fairness, when he asks me as Solicitor General, or he asks any other member of this House, "What are you going to do personally to ensure the stemming and stopping of lawlessness in the streets of Toronto" -- I attempted to do that and I'll attempt to assure members of this House further.

But I want to ask, by what means would the member opposite who asked the question assure us? Could he assure us that no lawbreakers and vandals will commit any actions this Thursday or Saturday or any other night in the city of Toronto? If he could not, which I suspect he could not, nor could any other person, I don't know how he would suggest I or this government could either.

What I can tell him and what I can assure him is that those lawbreakers and that unlawfulness will be dealt with very directly and very promptly by the police of this city. Chief William McCormack has suggested that, and I believe him when he says that. I believe we can trust in the men and women of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force to keep our streets safe.

Mr Runciman: In my view and the view of the Conservative Party of Ontario, that's an unbelievably irresponsible response from the chief law enforcement officer of this province. He should stand up and say that he's going to suspend Mr Farrell from his responsibilities immediately until this matter is disposed of in the courts. But we didn't hear that kind of response.

I'm saying that as the chief cop he should stand up and tell us today that if he can't guarantee public safety on Thursday and Saturday, he should assure the people of Toronto, if not the people of Ontario, that he's going to guarantee a cooling-off period, that he's going to postpone or cancel these demonstrations. If he can't stand on his feet today and assure the people of Metropolitan Toronto that these are going to be safe demonstrations and that we are not going to see the sort of thing that happened on the streets of Toronto on Monday night, he should be prepared to stand up and say: "If I can't guarantee that won't occur again, I'm going to make sure those things don't occur. There's simply going to be a postponement or a cancellation." Let's hear it from him.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I would like to suggest for a moment that this very tone and demeanour we have just heard, and this type of questioning, is exactly the kind of demeanour and approach that is part of the problem with respect to the situation. It's not a time --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member for Leeds-Grenville please resume his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. This House stands in recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1433.

1443

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is obviously a very emotional subject for me. After you left the House, I made some comments in respect to the member for Victoria-Haliburton which I regret. In case they were recorded by Hansard, I want to withdraw those remarks.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I too said some things that I think perhaps are better not said in this place, so I apologize to any member who might have been offended by them.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Last week, during the budget debate, I said some things to the leader of the official opposition which I also regret. I believe they were also recorded in Hansard. I forwarded a letter of apology to the leader of the official opposition, but I'd like to do it here in this House in front of all the members. I regret what I said last week and I would like to withdraw that as well.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I appreciate the many comments.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: In carrying on with the points of order that the honourable members have just made, I was hoping that the member for Simcoe Centre might take it upon himself to withdraw the comments he made during the hiatus, shall we say, that we had for 10 minutes.

I can remember quite distinctly the Treasurer and Deputy Premier of this province getting up and making a very emotional statement in this House about similar comments made by the member for Burlington South once upon a time. It seems that it's fair on that side of the House, Mr Speaker, but over there they don't have any rules and they're not supposed to have any class or respect for parliamentary tradition either.

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): Mr Speaker, I believe that in the time we spent out with the House adjourned many members from all sides of the House made remarks. I say to you that in my own view that is very unfortunate. We could probably spend a great deal of time pursuing this issue further. I am not personally happy with the demeanour of this House over the last few minutes in session.

The Speaker: To the points of order raised by a number of members, I must remind members that while I very much appreciate the fact that they have apologized for unparliamentary language, when the House is in recess there is nothing that any Speaker can do, nor is he knowledgeable of language that was used in the chamber in the absence of anyone occupying the chair.

My observation of course is that especially during very sensitive and difficult issues, it would be helpful if everyone tried not to use intemperate language and tried to discuss the issues at hand. But I do appreciate the fact that members have apologized for a variety of remarks made which were unparliamentary.

We left off with a final supplementary being allowed. I believe the member for Oakville South wishes to ask that.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): This is, I believe, the second question, Mr Speaker. My question is to the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Treasurer tried to tap-dance his way out of the moral corner this government has painted itself into, but retailers are fed up with the moral flip-flops and many have decided to open this coming Sunday. Do you intend to further harass these retailers by cracking down on stores that open this Sunday?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): First, at no time did this government harass any store owners. Second, there have been no directions other than those very sage and important directions that were given some three months ago to police services with respect to enforcement, and there are none anticipated.

Mr Carr: This government's seesaw morality is making Ontario dizzy. It's okay to shop in December, but it's not okay to shop in May, but we're going to have casino gambling 12 months of the year. Mr Solicitor General, we want to see if you can help us. Your Treasurer is short of cash. Border communities right now are crying out for help. Can you explain to us why bringing casinos to Ontario is okay but shopping on Sunday is not?

Hon Mr Pilkey: First, in terms of casinos, as I recall the Treasurer's budget, there was an indication that there would be broad consultations with municipalities, first nations and charitable groups. Certainly the government would not propose to go into any community or area with a casino where it was not welcome or there was not a willing host. My impression, though, from reading some press reports is that a lot of communities are quite anxious to be involved in a government-owned and government-operated casino and would see it as a benefit in terms of job creation and tax revenue for those municipalities, particularly some that are border communities.

With respect to the common pause day and the worker protection legislation, the government acted through proper consultations and debate in committee, which the member opposite participated in, and brought to the question the view it saw appropriate.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): We on this side are trying to find out what exactly you're saying. We had the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, we had the Treasurer, we had the Premier, we had yourself yesterday, we had the budget last week: All those documents say you are going to have gambling in this province. On the one hand you are going to continue the ban on Sunday shopping, and yet on the other hand you're going to allow Sunday gambling, which is a very strange paradox indeed for the highly moralistic NDP. My question to the minister is, will you confirm, one way or another, whether you intend to allow Sunday gambling in your gambling casinos in this province?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not at all aware of any decision with respect to the hours of operation or days of the week that casinos would be allowed. I would suspect that would be in direct consultation with the municipalities and the authorities involved in the specific area.

1450

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Treasurer and has to do with the whole issue of credibility of the budget.

As the Treasurer will know, it is his plan over the next three years to sell off what can only be regarded, I think, as huge amounts of public land, public buildings and public assets. According to the budget, over the next three years you plan to sell off about $4 billion worth of these assets. In fact, you plan to raise more money through this than you do through your tax increases. So far, Treasurer, of that $4 billion, you have identified only about 5%, SkyDome and Suncor. My question to the Treasurer is this: Will you tell the House today what are those assets and those public lands and those public buildings that you plan to sell off to raise the remaining 95% of the funds you plan to achieve?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): What we have done through the budgetary process and through planning for the medium term, is to take a look at what we think is the likely growth in the economy, to look at what's probable for tax increases, although no decisions have been made in those out-years, I think for obvious reasons, and we've looked also at the possibility of selling some non-strategic assets in the medium term.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt is quite correct that we've certainly identified Suncor, which is about half sold now. We've identified SkyDome, which we expect will be sold this fiscal year; I certainly hope so. We've identified about $400 million through the Ontario Land Corp, which is being reactivated, and for 1992-93, I am talking about another $435 million in some other non-strategic assets.

At this point in time, those assets have not all been identified. We are in the process of doing a major review -- that was part of the program reviews of treasury board -- and when the specific assets to be sold have been determined and identified, then we'll make that announcement, but I think it would not be appropriate to identify all those assets at this point. I don't think that would be a very good sales strategy.

Mr Phillips: The problem we have is credibility. You've said that you're going to sell about $4 billion. Surely you owe the public this: at least to say, "These are the assets we own." You don't have to say, "We're going to sell these," but you say: "Here are the assets we own. Here's the possible full range from which we will get our $4 billion." That's my problem, Treasurer, that you refuse to divulge to the House the list of them.

Will you undertake to provide the House with the list of the total assets from which you are going to sell your $4 billion worth? I don't care which of them you're actually going to sell, but I think you owe the House the listing so we can say, "Yes, it's reasonable that you can get $4 billion over the next three years out of that," whatever the total number of assets.

My question is this: Will you undertake, on a very rapid basis, to provide the House with those numbers so that as we look at your budget, we can have more confidence than, frankly, we've got right now in these numbers?

Hon Mr Laughren: It is a fair question. My concern is whether it would be astute business practice to identify the items we were assembling in an attempt to obtain some revenues for the province. I am not sure that's fair. There's no attempt to be secretive. We know the province has literally billions and billions of dollars of assets. I've tried to explain to the member that treasury board is conducting, as part of its program review, an inventory of the government's assets. We know they're very substantial but we don't have them; I can't show them to you at this point. I just want to assure the member opposite that when we do dispose of the assets they'll be non-strategic assets and they'll be disposed of in a very businesslike way.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Solicitor General. On April 21, the headline in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record read as follows: "Caution Way of Life for Young Women: Area Teens Fear They Are Not Safe."

In light of this concern for personal safety, I would like to focus on a letter the Solicitor General received from the Metro Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children. They are concerned, as are people throughout this province, about the lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies concerning the case of serial killers. The lack of sharing of information is resulting in the failure to obtain multiple convictions for serial killers. This has resulted in shortened sentences and early parole of these individuals, who are likely to kill again.

Solicitor General, what are you doing to allay the fears of teenage girls? What is your ministry doing to ensure that information about serial killers is collected and freely distributed among law enforcement agencies? What steps have you taken to collaborate with your counterparts in other provinces and with the federal government?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The member raises a very valid point, and one of concern, where all police agencies condemn this kind of crime, as all of us in the public do. I think all of them have made a very strong effort in apprehending criminals and those who perpetrate these kinds of heinous crimes. I do believe, though, there is additional work that can be done on a collaborative basis, on a national basis.

Officials of my ministry, through the policing services division, will be discussing the matter further to see if there can be an enhancement, a built-on kind of situation, so that there can be further tracking and additional information sharing to all law enforcement agencies across the nation. We hope to enlist the federal government with respect to that kind of initiative.

Mrs Witmer: Solicitor General, I find it totally unbelievable. You received this letter several weeks ago, as I did, and you have taken absolutely no action, considering all that's happened in this province in recent weeks. The fact remains that every day women and children in this province are the victims of violence. The recent murder of Kristen French, possibly by a serial killer, is adding to the concern of people in this province.

It is totally unacceptable that serial killers are convicted of only one or two killings as a result of a failure by law enforcement agencies to share information about these crimes. It is absolutely imperative that much more be done to ensure that these individuals be held accountable for their actions and that they be removed from society so they cannot repeat their heinous crimes.

Solicitor General, will you promise, will you give the women and children in this province your assurance, that you will actually take steps to make the identification and the apprehension of serial killers a top priority for police forces throughout Ontario? I want you to stop the planning and I want you to take action, please.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am assured that all police forces are cooperating with one another and assisting one another on this, and on other issues for that matter. I can say quite simply that I can respond --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I'd like to add in a more positive vein that, yes, I am pleased to assure the member that this ministry and the police forces of Ontario are absolutely committed to working with other provincial agencies and national organizations with respect to further enhancing the circumstance.

Mr Jackson: Why should we pay for Americans to do the forensics?

The Speaker: Member for Burlington South, come to order. New question.

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): I have a question for the Minister of Financial Institutions.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would ask the member for Burlington South to come to order.

1500

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): Again, to the Minister of Financial Institutions. Mr Minister, I have a meeting this evening with the residents of Greenhill Housing Cooperative, and I'd like some information from you about the co-op amendment act you introduced in the House in December. Will these amendments affect the relationship between members of the co-op and the co-op executive? As well, will any of these amendments mean major changes to either the bylaws or the operation of a co-op?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Minister of Financial Institutions): The member's question is one that's been of concern to a number of co-op members across the province who happen to live and be members in non-profit cooperative housing situations.

The amendments we introduced in December will not change in a fundamental way the way cooperatives operate. It will not fundamentally change the relationship between the members of the cooperative as a group and the executive or board of directors of the co-op, and it will not fundamentally change the way in which the bylaws of a cooperative operate.

On the other hand, there are parts of the amendments which deal specifically with the relationship between individual members and the whole membership and the executive or the board of directors, and with the questions of how cooperatives deal with problems internally in terms of the removal of problem tenants or members from their midst and cause them to change their bylaws in accordance with the Human Rights Code and a number of other pieces of legislation. Co-ops will remain democratic institutions where the majority of the membership will make the basic decisions, though.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): My question is to the Minister of Labour. The minister knows well that labour leaders and the NDP government are clearly on record as being steadfastly opposed to Sunday shopping. The NDP has repeatedly stated that its goal is to prevent exploitation of labour and to preserve a common pause day.

In light of this policy, could the minister explain why print shops had to be willing to work on Sunday in order to receive a contract to print the NDP budget?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'd like to refer that to the Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): If I understood the question correctly -- and I perhaps didn't, because at the beginning I thought it was going to be a question dealing more specifically with the Ministry of Labour -- the contract for the budget was put out and assigned to a company that was prepared to deliver the budget on time and was able to put in place the kind of security that is necessary around the budget document. You will recall that a printer of another day allowed some paper to be released and caused great embarrassment to the Treasurer of the day. So the issue of which printer it went to had nothing to do with Sunday shopping or Sunday work.

Mrs Caplan: My question to the Treasurer is not only about policy hypocrisy, but I question the response he's just given. An official of Treasury said an ability to work on Sunday was a condition of the contract; that is a spokesman from the ministry. The shop could not get the contract if they didn't work on Sunday, is what we've heard. Yet the NDP denies shopkeepers the right to open on Sundays, and this NDP government forced non-union print shop workers to work on Sunday simply so it could meet its budget deadline.

I would ask the Treasurer, how can this NDP government make working on Sunday a condition of getting a government contract and deny the opportunity to businesses that want to be open on Sunday? Don't you see the contradiction, the inconsistency and the hypocrisy of that policy?

Hon Mr Laughren: I've never seen such tortured logic in my entire life. I have no idea what point the member for Oriole is trying to make. I would just say that when the contract was put out, there was a very tight time frame, as there always is, in order to get the budget printed on time for the announced day. Who knows? Sometimes the opposition even calls for the budget to be tabled a day earlier. You have to be very careful and make sure the budget is done on time, and that's what we were trying to do -- nothing more.

NATIVE HUNTING AND FISHING

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Attorney General. When the issue of native Ontarians spearing and netting spawning fish in designated sanctuaries was raised in the Legislature on April 8, you said, "The question contains some assertions which are frankly not true." Minister, I'm sending you copies of some of the recent stories and photographs from the Kitchener-Waterloo Record which clearly indicate this widespread abuse is occurring at the sanctuary at Denny's dam, on the Saugeen River, on the banks of the Napanee River and along the banks of the Moira River.

Attorney General, your government's interim enforcement policy states quite clearly that status native people will not be permitted to harvest fish in a manner which puts conservation objectives at risk, such as in sanctuaries. The information I have given you shows quite concisely that conservation objectives as laid out in your government's interim enforcement policy are at risk. What are you going to do about it?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): This question would be more appropriately directed to the Minister of Natural Resources. However, as he is not here today, I will attempt to respond to the member as best I can.

The conservation officers within the Ministry of Natural Resources have the responsibility to enforce the fish and wildlife regulations and provisions, and they have the duty to interpret, in this context, when fishing and hunting practices represent a threat to the proper conservation and management of a resource. So at the local level, conservation officers have to monitor these situations. If they believe the conservation of the resource is put at risk, then they will have to make a decision on whether to lay charges under the appropriate act and regulations. That is clearly their duty. I suspect conservation officers throughout the province work very diligently and with great effort to ensure that the legislation and regulations are upheld and that conservation is given its appropriate emphasis.

Mr McLean: Attorney General, you're well aware of the pictures. You've seen them spearing and netting fish. In your opinion, do you believe these people who are spearing, regardless of who they are, should be charged?

Hon Mr Hampton: Just to be clear, I do not tell police when they should lay charges or when they should not, and I do not have the jurisdiction to tell conservation officers when they should lay charges or when they should not. The role of crown attorneys and provincial prosecutors within the Ministry of the Attorney General is to take charges, once they have been laid, and determine if those charges should go forth. Likewise, the people who are best placed to most appropriately determine if conservation is placed at risk by some hunting and fishing activities are the conservation officers in the province, who are well trained and very professional in carrying out their responsibilities.

1510

PLANT CLOSURE

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. As not only the member for St Catharines knows but also the other members from the Niagara Peninsula, my constituents have definitely asked me this question, particularly the people from the Canadian Auto Workers, Local 199.

Interjection.

Ms Haeck: If the member for St George-St David would allow me to place my question, my constituents are anxious to know what the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology is doing to save the foundry that General Motors announced in February will close, to assist them or to save the jobs that will be lost in St Catharines.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): As all the members from that area know, our ministry was instrumental in setting up the regional task force which is developing a community-based action plan to respond to the concerns of the region and the economy of the region as a whole. We've also reached an agreement to establish a self-help centre in St Catharines that will assist entrepreneurs, including, potentially, laid-off workers, to establish small businesses and to create new jobs.

Under our leadership an interministerial committee has been established for regional economic adjustment, and the committee coordinates the efforts of all the Ontario ministries to deal with the area.

Mr Speaker, 1,800 positions have been transferred from the Ministry of Transportation and the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation into the area, and the ministry is also intensifying its efforts to meet with the major corporations in this area to create new jobs.

Mr Ian G. Scott (St George-St David): We knew all that last week. Why is this question being asked now?

Ms Haeck: I understand that maybe the member's constituents aren't interested in this --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for St George-St David. The member for St Catharines-Brock, take your seat.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This information was announced last week and I don't see why we have a question about something that's stale news.

The Speaker: The member has a point of interest but not a point of order. The member for St Catharines-Brock may ask her supplementary.

Ms Haeck: I understand that possibly the member for St George-St David is not interested in this, but I do know that my constituents are. Jobs have been lost, and as a result of that February announcement --

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The honourable member is imputing motives. I complained that the announcement she was seeking has already been made and that the announcement is old news. She's not entitled to impute motives with respect to that observation.

The Speaker: At no time is any member of the assembly permitted to impute motives to other members. I invite the member for St Catharines-Brock to place her supplementary.

Ms Haeck: For the information of this House, on Friday at 3:30 there will be a major demonstration in St Catharines to save the foundry. In fact, we are expecting many thousands of people to attend that. I will be in attendance and I suspect that the member for St Catharines will also be in attendance. So these particular bits of information are important to my constituents and I will continue with my question.

Interjection.

Ms Haeck: Thank you, to the member for Oriole. I do understand that, but jobs have been lost; they need help.

The Speaker: Would the member place her supplementary.

Ms Haeck: More jobs are expected to be lost over the next three years and I would like to know what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology is going --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat. Thank you. The member may place her question.

Ms Haeck: More jobs are expected to be lost over the next three years, and I would like to know and I know my constituents would like to know what the minister and his ministry can do to assist the community.

Hon Mr Philip: I know that both the member for St Catharines-Brock and the member for St Catharines, whom I've had an opportunity to meet and discuss this issue with, are interested in this issue and would like an answer --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: -- even though his colleague the member for Oriole wants to constantly interrupt as I'm trying to give an answer.

The Speaker: Would the minister direct his response to the Chair.

Hon Mr Philip: The member for Oriole says she's trying to help. She hasn't helped anybody in this House in years.

The Speaker: I would ask the minister to direct his response to the Chair.

Hon Mr Philip: Particularly members of her own party and the member for St Catharines --

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I would ask the minister to briefly respond, to the question only.

Hon Mr Philip: No doubt everyone will agree with the member for St Catharines and the member for St Catharines-Brock about the very high quality of the workforce in the foundry. Indeed, General Motors, when it announced this decision, said it was a business decision concerned with excess capacity. In fact, it is rationalizing throughout North America.

I have met with the Minister of Labour. We have discussed with the federal government the concerns of the workers in this area and how we are working together as a team to resolve these problems. We are addressing --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister complete his response to the question.

Hon Mr Philip: I'm trying very hard, over the noise of the opposition, to complete an answer.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member for York Mills come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask all members to cooperate and I ask the minister to succinctly complete his response so that another member may ask a question.

Hon Mr Philip: We are working with the Ministry of Labour and the federal government on developing some retraining programs. We are addressing the retraining and placement needs of the affected workers. I've spoken with the mayor, with the president of GM Canada on several occasions, and indeed with all members from the area. These discussions are ongoing. I can assure you that the municipal elected officials and members of all parties in the St Catharines area appreciate that we are working together as a team to deal with the economic problems, which are North American economic problems related to GM. We're dealing with those problems.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): My question is for the Treasurer. One of the cornerstones of the government's job creation program has been the Jobs Ontario homes fund, which the government claims will generate $2.1 billion worth of work for the construction industry over the next three years by the building of 20,000 non-profit homes. I have two questions for you. First of all, can you tell us, of the 20,000 promised in this year's budget, how many units will be built this year? Second, how many jobs in the construction industry do you expect to generate this fiscal year through the 20,000 non-profit project?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I think I'd best refer that question to the Minister of Housing who has more specific information.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Because we are completing units at the level of 25,000 units this year, wrapping up the end of the former Liberal government's Homes Now program, plus the 10,000 units in last year's budget, we'll be moving ahead with the 20,000 allocation from the budget at the tail-end of this year to the extent of several hundred units.

Ms Poole: The Ministry of Housing and the Minister of Housing continue to throw a camouflage net over this entire thing by talking about commitments, allocations, 25,000 units. The fact of the matter is, and the sad news is, that in last year's budget 10,000 new units were allocated and today not one of those is in the ground and not one job has been created.

Given that information, I defy the minister to show how the announcement of 20,000 non-profit homes will generate construction jobs in the coming fiscal year. It's more of the government's smoke and mirrors and voodoo economics. This is not a job creation project for now. What are you going to do in the housing field to create jobs now?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member is simply wrong. The number of units which will be completed this year is 25,000 and the number of people who will be employed creating those units is well over that. What we are looking at is a three-year program which was clearly spelled out in the budget. The allocations will be beginning in the fall of this year, the work will be going on in the fall of this year and I hope the member will enjoy, with all other members of the House, the construction jobs that will be created and the new and affordable housing that will be generated for people in Ontario through this program this year.

1520

CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Attorney General. A short time ago, one of my constituents was assaulted in a non-contact hockey game. As a result of the assault, my constituent was rendered a quadriplegic. The individual has filed a claim, Mr Attorney General, with the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

Although the case has not yet come before the board, the chair of the board has already publicly stated the following: "I am frightened of this one. It would open another floodgate for us in every person who was injured in a sports arena coming to us, and I don't think Ontario can afford it." In light of this negative statement made by the chair of the board, how can my constituent expect to receive a fair and objective hearing?

Hon Howard Hampton (Attorney General): While I have been made aware of the particular case and while I did read a media report about the particular case, I'm not specifically aware of the comment, so I would like to have the opportunity to ascertain if that comment was indeed made. The chair of that board is very concerned about the amounts of money which are available to the board for the compensation of victims of crime and the chair of the board is obviously concerned, and I believe has expressed his concern on other occasions, that the board should attempt or receive some assistance in determining how wide its net should be cast.

Interjection.

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

Hon Mr Hampton: I can tell you that within the Ministry of the Attorney General we are doing a policy review of the board to determine what kinds of injuries should fall within the jurisdiction of the board.

Mr Jordan: I will send over the information I have to the Attorney General. The Criminal Injuries Compensation Board, as I understand it, was designed to potentially serve victims such as my constituent. My constituent's claim before the criminal injuries board has been prejudiced. What is the minister prepared to do to ensure that my constituent receives a fair and objective hearing?

Hon Mr Hampton: Just to be sure, I think it would be unfair of the member to draw any conclusions at this point in time. I do not know if the chair of the board indeed made those comments and I don't know if those comments were made in the context of this particular case.

But let me say in a general way that the work of this board would be much easier if the current federal government had not given notice this year that it is withdrawing funding which was designated for the purpose of compensating victims of crime. If the federal government were not cutting down on its allocation of funds for this purpose, it would be much easier for the board to meet all the claims which come before it.

The Speaker: It seems like an appropriate time. The time allotted for oral questions has expired.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): If I could capture the attention of the members for a moment, members may wish to welcome to our gallery two former members seated in the members' gallery west: the former member for Dovercourt, Mr Tony Lupusella, and the former member for Prince Edward-Lennox, Mr Jim Taylor. Welcome.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwanted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have also affixed my signature.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition also addressed to the Legislature of Ontario:

"Whereas the report of Mr John Brant, arbitrator for the greater London area, has recommended a massive, unwanted and unprecedented annexation by the city of London;

"Whereas the arbitration process was a patently undemocratic process resulting in recommendations which blatantly disregarded the public input expressed during the public hearings;

"Whereas the implementation of the arbitrator's report will lead to a destruction of the way of life enjoyed by the current residents of the county of Middlesex and will result in the remnant portions of Middlesex potentially not being economically viable;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I had phone calls from people in that area this morning and they are very concerned about the undemocratic way that this is being done.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of approximately 250 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

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

"Whereas the current government is considering legalizing casinos in the province of Ontario; and

"Whereas they will cause a decline in the racing industry; and

"Whereas studies show these proposals could affect some 50,000 jobs within the industry;

"That the government stop looking to casinos as a quick-fix solution to pay down the deficit."

I have affixed my name to that petition.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There are too many people standing up. I can't identify who wants to speak. The member for S-D-G and East Grenville.

LIVESTOCK REQUIREMENTS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I also have a petition to the honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislature of Ontario. It's signed by 115 very concerned rural residents in my riding and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to not change the requirements for the slaughter of livestock for consumption by the grower or producer."

I fully endorse this petition and have signed it.

1530

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that reads as follows:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

This concludes the hundreds of petitions I've had sent to me on this issue.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have thousands of names on petitions that have been gathered in my area for a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

These are a number of signatures, as I said, of the thousands we've received in Grey county.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): This morning I received an additional some 3,000 signatures to bring them to a total of almost 120,000 on the petition. These are predominantly from the Peterborough-Hastings area ridings in this province. This petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of this adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, rather leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister of francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under this act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

It has my signature of support.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr McLean from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's third report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Does the member for Simcoe East wish to make a brief statement?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Not at this time.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr White from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr1, An Act respecting FaithWay Baptist College of Canada;

Bill Pr11, An Act to revive 372595 Ontario Limited;

Bill Pr26, An Act to revive The Peterborough Club.

Your committee recommends that the fees and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes be remitted on Bill Pr1, An Act respecting FaithWay Baptist College of Canada.

Your committee further recommends that the following bill be not reported, it having been withdrawn by the applicant:

Bill Pr23, An Act respecting the Borough of East York.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA / LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for third reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The member for Ottawa West, I believe you had the floor yesterday.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): I spent a considerable amount of time yesterday and I am going to wrap up in short order today, but just to put in context my comments of today, I very, very briefly want to summarize what I touched on yesterday, which is available in Hansard.

First of all, I want to reiterate that we are dealing with Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, and I want to underline that this is a budget bill from last year's budget, that is, the budget of April 29, 1991, and we're addressing its provisions today on third reading.

One of the points that I did make yesterday is the tremendous impact on costing the province jobs of the hundreds of millions of dollars that are being taken out of the system by this particular bill. I also mentioned yesterday that the impact of this bill really ignored a lot of regional realities with respect to the price of gasoline, in particular the impact on cross-border shopping and the border communities. I also spent considerable time yesterday dealing with the situation in Ottawa-Carleton and the price of gasoline.

With that, I want to refer particularly to the explanatory note in Bill 86 which indicates:

"The amendments implement the Treasurer's 1991 budget proposal to increase the tax on unleaded gasoline, effective the 30th day of April, 1991, by 1.7 cents to 13.0 cents per litre and, effective the 1st day of January, 1992, by another 1.7 cents to 14.7 cents per litre."

What that does is exacerbate the very serious situation with respect to the price of gasoline in Ottawa-Carleton.

I addressed in a very detailed way that particular provision yesterday, and I indicated, and I want to underline again today, that the provincial government regularly surveys gasoline prices across the province. The Ottawa area, for example, in 22 out of 23 weeks had the highest or second-highest gasoline price across the province. In fact, regularly the gas prices in Ottawa-Carleton are about 10 cents a litre above the price of gasoline in the Metropolitan Toronto area.

I wanted to bring to the attention of the Legislature the very significant concern of the people in Ottawa-Carleton and I did introduce and refer to yesterday very extensive articles of investigative journalism dealing with this particular issue.

I referred to a letter of the mayor of the city of Ottawa, the capital of Canada, to the Minister of Energy concerning his very great concern about the impact of these high gasoline prices on the residents of Ottawa. I also referred to a unanimous resolution of regional council of Ottawa-Carleton. I also put on record letters and comments from various unions that are very concerned about the price of gasoline and the particular geographical problem in Ottawa-Carleton.

I also put on record yesterday a letter from the federal member of Parliament in Ottawa Centre expressing his concern, in a very thoughtful and researched way, to the Minister of Energy, which is very unlike the provincial member for Ottawa Centre, from who we have heard nary a peep on this particular issue on behalf of the people in Ottawa-Carleton.

When the debate adjourned yesterday, I had just concluded reading the response of the then Minister of Energy, Mr Ferguson, to the federal MP's letter. I want to make a few brief comments on his letter and then very briefly refer to another piece of correspondence in response to that.

What we're talking about here is a very significant discrepancy in the price of gasoline across the province and particularly how Bill 86 really exacerbates the situation, from a geographical perspective, for cross-border communities in one instance and, in this instance, for the residents of Ottawa-Carleton.

First, in the minister's letter to the federal member in Ottawa-Centre he indicated that one of the best ways to solve the problem was "by improving the level of competition." Very briefly, that letter was dated August 19, 1991, and this government and the ministry has done absolutely nothing to improve the level of competition to ameliorate the gas pricing discrepancies across the province.

The minister also said in his response, "Within Ontario, the only tax which contributes to regional tax differences is the federal GST." That's totally and absolutely untrue. This very government has addressed gas pricing inequities by providing a subsidy through the licensing provisions for motor vehicles in the north, so this government itself has absolutely acknowledged the gas price discrepancies in this province, that they do in fact exist. It is inconceivable that the Minister of Energy himself would say, "Within Ontario, the only tax which contributes to regional tax differences is the federal GST."

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I really hate to interrupt my colleague, because he is so interesting, but there is no quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: I will ask the table if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex D. McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1543

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

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. The member for Ottawa West.

Mr Chiarelli: The then Minister of Energy in his response also indicated that he would continue to monitor pricing. How hollow. The record shows quite clearly that week after week gasoline prices in Ottawa-Carleton basically are the highest in the province, with one or two occasional exceptions. Those exceptions occur in the north, where they already receive what amounts to a subsidy for gasoline prices.

The minister's response also indicates that, "It is our intention to investigate ways to ensure that a highly competitive gasoline retail market exists in Ontario." I again hark back to the fact that this letter is dated August 19, 1991. There has been absolutely no evidence whatsoever that this government has done anything to ensure that a highly competitive gasoline market will exist in Ontario. The plight of the Ottawa-Carleton driver or motorist continues. The high gasoline prices continue in Ottawa-Carleton and this government continues to totally ignore the representations being made by people and interest groups from Ottawa-Carleton.

In response to the minister's letter, which in fact is addressed to the federal member for Ottawa Centre, the member for Ottawa Centre responded with a brief letter. I want to put that on record because I think it is very enlightening. It says:

"Dear Mr Ferguson

"Please accept my thanks for responding to my letter about the gas price disparities between the Ottawa area and southern Ontario. I was happy to receive a reply so quickly.

"With your indulgence, I ask that you expand some of the comments you made in explaining regional marketing conditions. Specifically, you partially blamed regional disparities on the goods and services tax. However, as you know, the 7% GST applies all across Canada with no regional concessions. I fail to see how the GST causes the regional tax differences to which you referred and would appreciate an explanation of your reasoning."

If I can digress, of course there was no explanation because the statement was completely inconceivable in the first instance. To go on with the letter:

"As well, you mentioned that your ministry is monitoring the price of gasoline across the province on a weekly basis. I would be interested in receiving details of this monitoring mechanism and how it operates.

"Similarly, you stated that your ministry intends to investigate ways of ensuring a competitive gasoline market in Ontario. When do you intend to start such an investigation and how will you execute it?"

If I can digress again, there simply has been nothing forthcoming from the government on that particular point. To go on with the letter:

"Finally, I ask that you share with me your plans with regard to the federal government. Do you plan to work with the government of Canada to eliminate the pump price disparities that exist between regions of Ontario? If yes, when do you expect to initiate such a partnership?"

That's the end of the letter. Of course, there are absolutely no answers whatsoever from the government as to how they are going to ameliorate the impact of Bill 86, this very significant price of gasoline for the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

I want to conclude with a few more words. The issue very simply is that there has been very significant outcry, very significant representation made to this government about the price of gasoline in Ottawa-Carleton. There has been no responsiveness whatsoever. The case has not been made in cabinet; the case has not been made in the NDP caucus by the member for Ottawa Centre. That is one reason I took some pains and effort to put various matters on the record in this particular debate.

I want to conclude by putting in a few quotes to reiterate what the record shows versus the promise of this government and how it relates to Bill 86. In particular, on August 17, 1990, just over a year and a half ago, the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, told the Thunder Bay Times-News, and I'm quoting:

"He restated a campaign promise made last week that the NDP government would empower the provincial energy commission, as he called it, to bring in a one-price system for gasoline in the province. 'I really think consumers are being ripped off by gas companies,' he said."

Two other very brief quotes from the Premier before I conclude: Not only did the Premier promise a one-price gas system for Ontario, but on August 13, 1990, not that long ago, he told a radio audience that he would ensure the province had the legal power to prevent gas price gouging. Finally, even after he was elected, several days after the election, the Premier told the Toronto Star that he "vows to bar price gouging by oil companies."

The residents of Ottawa-Carleton very simply want to know why there's a 10-cent gas discrepancy between Toronto and Ottawa-Carleton. This government refuses to investigate or answer in any way, shape or form. It is absolutely unacceptable. Even though we're beyond the point where amendments can be made to Bill 86 to address the concerns of the residents of Ottawa-Carleton, I would encourage the government quite simply to second several experienced people from one or two of the ministries, perhaps do a consultant's contract and respond to the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

I'm making that request on their behalf. They've been living with this problem for a long time, and I urge the government to try to solve it.

1550

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I've listened to the comments made by the member. Many of his comments appear to deal with price fixing in the Ottawa-Carleton area, which may be a relevant issue as far as his riding is concerned, but I think as far as this bill is concerned it really is not relevant and perhaps should be brought in in the form of other legislation.

I will say that of course the concern our party has is with the overall effect of the gas increase of essentially 1.7 cents last year and 1.7 cents this year. The bill does deal with a couple of other measures to combat tax evasion. That has been referred to in other matters in this debate.

I think the fact of the matter is that this bill will result in an increase in gasoline of 56.6% relative to the gas rate that existed when our party left power in the early 1980s. That's a tremendous increase -- 56.6%. I think that's something we need to look at. The price fixing certainly is an issue I sympathize with my friend the member for Ottawa West about -- I do sympathize with him on that -- but dealing strictly with this bill it's a matter that does affect the overall economy. He did start to deal with it, but really started to get into another area which probably has very little to do with this particular bill. Hopefully in his response he will summarize in a more relevant fashion how this bill is going to affect the overall economy of this province.

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Very briefly, I think the member for Ottawa West points out a rather perplexing problem that there doesn't seem to be an easy solution for. I think the member for Ottawa West will know that in fact a local citizen from his community spearheaded a drive to lower oil prices and gasoline prices in that community and had the support, if I recall, of the local newspaper. That drive didn't gain a lot of momentum, didn't gain a lot of support from the consumers, because I think after a week with much support, much public support, much media attention to the problem, gas prices fell about two tenths of one per cent. So although there is considerable concern about the price of gasoline in this particular area of the province, that concern obviously is not widely shared by everyone in the city of Ottawa, given that this campaign was not as successful as some had hoped it would be.

I think the member knows that Ottawa is somewhat further distant from the refineries in places in southern Ontario. That contributes of course to the price. Generally, not only in the eastern part of the province but in the northern part of the province as well, gasoline is more expensive than it is in the southern part of the province, primarily because you don't have as many consumers and you don't have as many retail outlets. In other parts of the province consumers do shop the price and buy the lowest price going. That in turn drives the price down. That, combined with the distance from market, makes a considerable difference in the price.

I also want to point out that in the eastern area of this country they have regulated a price only to see the price rise.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Your time has expired. Questions or comments?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I'm going to comment on the comments from the member for Ottawa West, but I do find it curious that a member opposite could stand and make the comments about distance and consumers and reflect the prices of gasoline. With all due respect, it would be hard to believe two or three years ago that you'd find a socialist in this House becoming an apologist for the oil companies. You'd never think the day would come.

When in opposition -- and maybe this is the trouble -- some of the members who sat in the previous term should explain to the members who were recently elected what your opposition party policy was with respect to the price of gasoline in northern Ontario and eastern Ontario. It is exactly 180 degrees opposite to the speech we just heard from the member for Kitchener. I'm shocked to hear this coming from an avowed socialist, and I'm shocked that their policies have changed so dramatically from one price for Ontario, right across Ontario, to becoming public apologists for the gas companies.

Having said that, we can cast our minds back to those days in opposition when this government was steadfastly committed to assuring and promising the people in northern Ontario and eastern Ontario that they wouldn't be gouged at the pumps again. We've heard nothing about that promise until today when one of their backbenchers from Kitchener stands and becomes a public apologist for the gas companies. Shame on you.

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology): I find it absolutely absurd that the very party that bought Suncor -- that kind of flat-headed socialism that wanted to own a major oil company -- they promised us then that everything in the oil companies would be satisfied and glorified and beautiful with that kind of flat-headed socialism that, of course, we are now taking care of. I find it quite absurd that the member who lives just south of my riding would advocate things like that.

Mr Chiarelli: I am not interested in getting involved in the right-wing/left-wing rhetoric. I am only interested in trying to advance a case on behalf of the residents of Ottawa-Carleton.

If I can respond very briefly to the member for Dufferin-Peel, the question of disparate gas prices in the province is very relevant. In fact the government, when it brought in this particular increase --

The Deputy Speaker: Excuse me. Would you please refrain from debating from one side to another? If you want to address the House, just stand up and I'll recognize you. The member for Ottawa West.

Mr Chiarelli: When the NDP government introduced Bill 86 in the last budget, it acknowledged that there were price disparities in the province and it made an accommodation with the north by giving concessions on the licensing fees. I think that was worth something like $50 million, and I am saying that, if they recognized the disparity in the north in connection with Bill 86, they should at least look into the price disparities that exist, and the member for Kitchener has no answer.

As a former Energy minister, I am absolutely appalled that a former Energy minister would make the comments that he did. What he basically did was say: "The problem is yours, Ottawa-Carleton. If you don't know how to organize a boycott, well be damned, you can live with the high price of gasoline in Ottawa-Carleton." Totally and absolutely giving up the responsibility of government, and coming from a former Minister of Energy, that is absolutely appalling.

There are widespread gas price disparities. This government must assume the responsibility. It must simply say to the people of Ottawa-Carleton: "We understand you have a problem. We will look into it. We will research it on your behalf. We may be able to solve it, we may not." That's all we're asking for Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr Tilson: Mr Speaker, before I commence, I don't believe there's a quorum.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1601

The Deputy Speaker: A quorum is present. Member for Dufferin-Peel, you have the floor.

Mr Tilson: It's a pleasure to speak on the subject of Bill 86, which is the Gasoline Tax Amendment Act. I must say at the outset I was disappointed the Minister of Revenue had no introductory comments, having considered the fact that we have a bill that was first introduced as a result of the last budget, the fact that a tax of 1.7 cents on our gasoline started April 30, 1991, and a further 1.7 cents started January 1, 1992, and the effect I am sure she has been receiving from all areas of our economy -- the trucking industry, the tourism industry, the farming industry; many, many industries. It is fortunate, of course, that the current budget did not result in a further tax increase, but certainly this is something I think the minister should take a long, hard look at as to what she is doing as part of a very serious economic recession, and this is part of it, the taxes that are going on in this province, the many taxes that have developed really in the last 10 years. The people of this province have probably had as much as they can take, and this is just one of many.

As I have indicated, this bill does increase the gasoline tax 1.7 cents a litre, from 11.3 cents to 13 cents, effective April 30, 1991, and an additional 1.7 cents, to 14.7 cents, effective January 1. This will push the rate to 16 cents and 17.7 cents with respect to leaded gasoline in January of this year. This, as I indicated in my response to the member for Ottawa East, is a total increase of 56.6% in gasoline tax since our government was in office. That's an unbelievable increase. Ontario's current unleaded gas rate is the third highest in Canada, ranking only behind the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland. In January of last year, Ontario's unleaded gasoline rate was the highest in Canada.

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): That's terrible.

Mr Tilson: It is terrible.

I've indicated the effect I submit this increase in gasoline is having on some of our industries, specifically the tourism industry. We count on people from the United States and other provinces to visit our province and all the wonderful resources we have for people to spend their vacations on and entertainment on. If we took an example of someone who came north from the United States in his motor home, crossed the border, filled up his motor home with gasoline, purchased some alcohol, purchased some cigarettes, stayed at some of the hotels, stayed at some of the restaurants, I think the results are evident. They're turning back. They're not even coming because of the effect.

We clearly have a cross-border shopping problem. We clearly have that. People from Ontario are going to the United States to spend their vacations, and they're going there because the gas is cheaper. There are a number of other reasons, but one of the reasons they're going to the United States is because of the gasoline. They're certainly not coming here.

Hon Peter North (Minister of Tourism and Recreation): They are.

Mr Tilson: The Minister of Tourism and Recreation says that they are. The statistics from the various tourist agencies around this province are differing with the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. The fact of the matter is that tourism is down and he knows it. Tourism is down in this province. We count on these people to come.

I can mention my own riding of Dufferin-Peel. We don't have the areas of Niagara Falls and other, perhaps more remarkable tourist sites and nature sites. But in my riding we do have a number of events that people travel to, and it's down. Tourism is down in these areas. In Shelburne, Ontario, for example, there's the fiddle contest which occurs in the month of August. People travel from all over North America to visit that contest, and it's down.

Hon Mr North: It's excellent.

Mr Tilson: It is excellent. It's an excellent festival. But the difficulty is, when you put taxes up, Mr Minister of Tourism and Recreation, which the minister sitting next to you does, people are more reluctant to visit these events. The fact of the matter is, they're not. They're not, to be fair to the government, for a number of reasons, but I submit that one of the reasons is the cost of gasoline. It's costing more and more to travel in this province.

Fall fairs occur all over this province. In my riding we have a number of them, people travelling within the province, not just from outside the province. We count on those fairs to bring tourism and improve the economics in our own individual ridings. I mentioned the fall fairs. The Caledon fall fair, the Orangeville fall fair, the Shelburne fall fair: We can go on and on listing the various fall fairs, as I'm sure many of you, in your own ridings, have those fairs.

People go in our ridings to conservation areas. We have a conservation area where people go and picnic, they camp and they visit for day-long sessions. They're travelling less and less. One of the reasons they're travelling less and less is because of the cost of gasoline. So if the Minister of Tourism and Recreation gives the impression that everything is fine in the tourism industry, it's not, because people are travelling less and less. They're staying home.

How do you encourage people to get out there? You don't raise the cost of gasoline. You don't raise the cost of enabling people to go to different events, not only within our province, but people from outside the province, from other provinces -- Quebec, Manitoba -- and the United States to come to our great province. They're being discouraged as a result of some of your policies.

I guess one asks the question, "Why do you raise the cost of gasoline?" Why do you? What're you going to do with that money?

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): Why do you?

Mr Tilson: I'm looking forward to your response and I hope you do give that, because the difficulty is, normally when you raise the cost of gasoline, you think that you'd be doing something with respect to our transportation policy, our roads. The roads in this province are deplorable. I would like to know what percentage of the revenue you're receiving from this tax, this Bill 86, is going to go into the construction and redevelopment of our roads. I'll be looking forward to you standing in your place and giving comments as to what you're going to do with the revenue.

My guess is that your Treasurer told you, "We're going to have to have a gasoline tax because we need money to finance this province." He didn't take into consideration the effect on the agricultural industry, the effect on the tourism industry, the effect on cross-border shopping, the effect on investment, the effect on unemployment, the effect on the general economics of this province. You did so because your Treasurer told you to, because you needed money to finance this province.

I would hope, Madam Minister, that when you put forward a bill such as this you would give good reason for doing so; that you would tell us what you're going to do with the revenue you're going to be receiving from this tax. Is it going to be like their tire tax? Is that what you're going to do? Is it like the $5 tire tax that goes into the general fund? Has that solved the environmental problem of what we're doing with our excess tires? I challenge you to tell us exactly what you intend to do with the revenue you're going to be receiving from this tax, which will be substantial. Somewhere I had an estimate of what it was going to be.

1610

The tax rate increases will raise an additional $205 million in 1991. That's considering this bill hasn't even passed, and that's already been raised. I hope she will tell us whether that figure is accurate, because I hope she now knows how much it raised. A bill that hasn't even been passed is enforcing a tax, a total of $410 million in the two-year period that this tax is being levied for. I don't know whether that's more or less, but that's the estimate that has been provided to me. I hope the minister will clarify that.

I hope the minister will tell us what she has done with the taxpayers' money. Where has it gone? Is it going into other things? Is it going into social services? There has to be a reason as to why you do these things. When you look at what it is doing to our economy and what it is doing to our various industries, it does give us grave concerns as to the rationale you're putting forward.

I had a meeting with the Ontario Restaurant Association. I believe they've been visiting all three caucuses. If they haven't, they will. They've given us figures that show what people are spending in Ontario and in the United States, specifically corporations which operate in both Canada and the United States. Red Lobster, for example, has shown tremendous increases in the United States, yet in Canada there are decreases. Why is that? This is just an example of many restaurants and hotels in North America.

I'm sure they'll point their fingers at the federal government's GST and other policies, but there's no question that the gas tax is a relevant factor as to why people aren't travelling around as much in the tourism industry. Common sense tells us that. You'd better have a good reason to cause the tourism industry and other such industries to decline when you make those financial decisions.

They also gave us other information which came from Tourism Canada. I'm sure the Minister of Tourism and Recreation has this same information. They talked about tourist expenditures in Canada. Some 45% of the expenditures of tourism in Canada goes to transportation. I don't know what it is in this province, but I would suspect it's that amount, if not more. When you realize what tourism counts on to develop the industry, you tax it. Is that the way to solve it -- to tax it, to discourage people from travelling around and seeing the sights of this wonderful province? Is that what you do? Surely not. Surely there are other ways of raising money. If you are going to raise money in that fashion, I would hope, Madam Minister, you would give very good reasons as to why you're going to do that.

What do you do now to solve the tourism industry? You're saying there's a problem in the tourist industry. Now you're going to get into gambling casinos. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation stood in his place and talked about how he's going to solve the tourist industry by bringing gambling casinos to Ontario. That's how he's going to solve it. On the one hand he taxes people from other countries and other provinces who are travelling around this province by taxing gas, yet he brings forward some cockamamy story, saying he's going to bring gambling casinos to improve the tourist industry. Operating this province on games of chance: that's how the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Revenue intend to do things in this province. That's not the way to improve the tourist industry, Mr Minister. You're seatmates together. I hope you will whisper in her ear and tell her specifically that this is a bad tax; it's a bad move.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): It's already been moved.

Mr Tilson: That's the joke of it all. You delay, you delay, you delay, and now we're debating a year later a tax that was introduced last year. How preposterous. I would've thought you would have seen what this tax has done to this industry, and if you haven't, that you would look at it. You have now had an opportunity; a year has gone by. What effect has this tax had on these various industries I have listed? Has it had any effects? Has it been a benefit? What has it done, and what have you done with our money?

The answer, of course, as I say, is that you're going to solve the problem you created by your tax and you're going to bring in gambling casinos to improve the tourist industry. This House has been assured by the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that we're going to have legislation to deal with gambling casinos and at that time, hopefully, this whole area will be revisited. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation will stand in his place and the Minister of Revenue will stand in her place and we'll talk about this some more. We'll have an opportunity to talk about what this tax has done to tourism in this province.

There have been all kinds of studies done and reports made from the tourist industry and the tourist associations around this province that have talked about what this tax is doing in our province. It's creating grave concerns as to the resorts, the hotels, the restaurants. People simply aren't coming; restaurants are empty, hotels are empty. People are not spending their summer vacations in northern Ontario. People can't afford to drive there.

To be fair, there's no question there are other reasons, but you have to look at this as a component part of the reason they're not going there. They're not going there because of the high cost of transportation; 45% of the expenditures of the tourist industry is because of transportation.

We get into other areas. People --

Hon Mr North: This isn't reality.

Mr Tilson: To the member who says this isn't reality, I suggest you start looking at what you've done. The reality of it is that you've caused a problem.

Now I'm going to get into another area because it's clear that the subject of tourism has created grave concerns, and I'm glad the Minister of Tourism and Recreation is here. I hope he stands in his place to say how this gas increase is not going to affect the tourist industry. I'll be looking forward to his comments. He's doing lots of heckling over there and I'll be looking forward to his standing in his place and justifying this tax and saying to us that this tax does not affect the tourist industry. I can't believe you can do that.

Hon Mr North: I didn't say that; you did.

Mr Tilson: That's right. I did say that, Mr Speaker, through you to the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. I want him to stand in his place and to justify why this bill is being passed at all when he knows it's creating grave concerns and problems in the tourism industry.

Many of us in this province, many of our constituents, many of the people in this chamber commute to work. That is a fact of life. We're moving ministries all around this province. We're trying to encourage people to be more mobile, to get everything out of the Toronto area, to create jobs in other areas, but the fact of the matter is that many of us and many of our constituents commute to work and spend, as a matter of travelling on the roads, as much as half an hour to an hour or more, in some cases two hours.

One of the concerns, of course, is the quality of the roads. I mentioned the fact that I doubt very much whether the almost $500,000 that's being raised by this tax is going to go towards the construction and the redevelopment of our roads. I doubt that very much. I'll be looking forward to your statistics that say it is, but I doubt very much whether that's the case.

But we count on our roads. We need to spend a great deal of money to develop our roads and to improve our roads to enable our constituents to travel from where they're living to their place of employment, because that's the fact of life. That's not being done. So where is the money going? Who knows where it's going? It certainly isn't going into roads.

Now we do get into other areas. The Minister of the Environment made an announcement the other day, which I found very interesting as to why she made it and not the Minister of Transportation, but she announced the extension of the Burlington to Hamilton GO train service. Actually I apologize. That was announced by the member from Hamilton on behalf of the Minister of the Environment. The whole subject of GO obviously surfaces in this government, presumably because people are having trouble with transportation.

1620

It has become more and more expensive to travel to and from work. Gasoline goes up. I tell you, with the 56% increase that's developed since the early 1980s, people are having trouble. We're keeping wages down, but we add to these expenses. Every dollar counts when they're forced to live -- we all can't live in Toronto or Mississauga or other areas where there are larger cities; we all can't afford to live there. Most of us have to commute. When you make it expensive for us to commute, it affects the overall economy, with the money we're actually putting in our pockets.

As a result of this budget, we're going to now be working six months of the year before we can put any of the money that we're making in our own pockets -- six months. We're now into July before we start putting money in our pockets as a result of this last budget, and this tax adds to that.

The Minister of the Environment, of course, is encouraging the subject of the environment when she announces these GO extensions. I can say that in my riding of Dufferin-Peel people are finding it more and more difficult to commute to work for a number of reasons: (1) our roads are deteriorating; (2) it's becoming more and more costly to travel.

There's no GO service in my riding. There's GO service all around my riding but not in my riding of Dufferin-Peel. For some unearthly reason, the Minister of Transportation refuses to provide a GO service to our riding, so people are forced to travel by automobile and they're forced to pay this dreaded tax. What are they going to do? Why can't you treat everyone the same? I suppose you say: "I'm going to tax them. I'm going to tax the heck out of them. That's how I'll treat them the same." But if you're going to tax them, you've got to provide transportation and you're not providing transportation. I don't mean to be pointing to you, Minister of Revenue. I should be pointing to the Minister of Transportation because the fact of the matter is that transportation in this province is unequal. My riding has none of that service -- none. Yet they're paying this dreaded gas tax.

Constituents from all over my riding travel great distances to work. My riding consists of a basically urban-rural type of community. There's agriculture in my riding and there are other small industries, but basically the large percentage of my riding commute to Toronto and Mississauga and areas such as that.

For example, the statistics I've received from the town of Caledon are that approximately 45% of the town's labour force is employed outside of the municipality. They have to go to work outside of the municipality. They have to pay this tax because there's no GO service. There's no adequate commuter service, so they have to pay this tax. Why are people in my riding being treated differently from people in Toronto, who can take other means of transportation or who have GO services in other communities? They can take those services, but they have to pay this tax. They're being forced to pay this tax. Why is that? It's most unfair of the government to take that position.

It is estimated that approximately -- these are last year's figures and my guess is thay have changed; they're estimates, but they've been given to me by the municipality of the town of Caledon -- 6,700 vehicles commute from Caledon to other destinations within the GTA for employment purposes. That's not considering entertainment. People travel to the urban centres for entertainment -- to see a Blue Jays game, theatre -- and it causes them great concern by paying this tax. Everything goes up as a result of this tax, so no wonder the tourism industry and the entertainment industry are complaining about this tax and other such taxes.

Concluding on that point, I estimate that people live in my riding -- many of them live in my riding for a number of reasons, but one of them is that the cost of housing is less. They are forced to because of the high cost of housing in the larger urban areas. When they do that, come up to my riding, they find they're commuting, and all of a sudden the Minister of Revenue and her government slaps on this tax. Many complaints come from my riding, and I imagine many ridings in your own caucus, from people who do not live in the cities and are forced to commute. The commuter is not pleased with what you are doing, Madam Minister.

Agriculture counts on fuel. They have to have fuel to transport feed, to transport vehicles, to transport animals, just to run the general agricultural operation. The cost of fuel, which you have put up, is causing them concern. Very little is being done for the farmer in this province. There's been some mention of it in the budget, which has been scoffed at by members of the agricultural community, but people all across this province in the agricultural community are concerned about this tax, a tax that is being levied when the bill hasn't even been passed. They're most concerned. I hope the minister will respond and justify why she is taxing the agricultural community with this tax. The subject of running a farm indeed has increased as a result of this tax.

I would like to list some of the fuel tax facts, just to illustrate why I hope members of this House will not support this tax.

Ontarians pay two to three times more for fuel tax than most Americans. The difference between what Americans and Ontarians pay in 1992 is rather startling. Ontario, for unleaded gas per litre, pays 14.3 cents with respect to tax. For diesel fuel it's 14.7 cents, and that gets into a whole other area. We saw last year the demonstrations around Queen's Park of truckers concerned about the trucking industry and how they're having a great deal of difficulty competing with the truckers in the United States. Admittedly, there are a number of reasons for those competing facts, but one of them is the cost of gasoline.

I repeat, in Ontario it's 14.3 cents for unleaded gasoline and 14.7 cents for diesel fuel. In Michigan the cost of unleaded gasoline is 4.6 cents compared to 14.3 cents in Ontario, and it's the same for diesel fuel. No wonder the truckers are upset and continue to be upset. How can they compete? More and more truckers are going out of business, for a number of reasons, and certainly one of the reasons is the gasoline tax. In New York they pay 14.9 cents for unleaded gasoline and 5.8 cents for diesel fuel. In Pennsylvania it's 5.3 cents for unleaded and 5.3 cents for diesel. In Ohio it's 6.1 cents, and 6.1 cents for diesel.

These figures of course are in Canadian dollars, as of January 1, 1992, and are given on the assumption that there have been no changes in the United States sources. But they're a long way from the cost of gasoline in Ontario. No wonder that the truckers, and other people in the transportation industry who rely on transporting our goods and other matters back and forth across our border and within our province, are complaining as to how they are going to compete; no wonder.

1630

As a result of this government's first budget -- what irony that we haven't even got to debating the second budget, that here we are debating the first budget -- Bill 86 represents a 31% increase in tax on unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel and a 24% increase for leaded gasoline when our rate of inflation is what? When our wages are going up -- are they going up 31%? Are they going up 24%? They're not even close to that.

That's what this tax is doing. It's not fair. It hasn't been thought out. The Treasurer simply says: "We need more money. Therefore, we'll hit the gasoline tax, that's what we'll do."

One of the major points I wish to make in my presentation this afternoon is that there's no question that the amount of subsidization motorists and the transportation industry of this province are putting towards this government is astounding. The budget that was given -- I'm speaking of last year's budget -- and spending estimates show that the province expects to collect $2.8 billion from road users this year while they only expect to spend $1.9 billion on road and highway maintenance and expansion.

Where's the rest of the money going? Why are they collecting so much money from people who use the roads when the people who use the roads count on them to be in proper condition? They count on them to exist. They count on them to be properly constructed. Why are we doing that? Is there no other way we can raise money without penalizing people outside the cities who use the roads?

Those figures mean motorists are subsidizing the government by about $900 million. That's not fair for people who count on using automobiles and our roads, not only for work but for entertainment and pleasure. It's not fair. The third-highest fuel tax rate in North America now exists in the province of Ontario. You ought to be proud: the third-highest fuel tax rate in North America.

As of January 1, 1992, Ontarians will be paying the highest taxes on unleaded fuel in North America and the third-highest in diesel fuel tax rates. No wonder people in the tourism industry, the trucking industry and people who count on transportation are complaining. Those jobs are going out, they're moving to the United States, because the costs of operating, labour, transportation and taxes aren't as high as they are in this province. Why are you adding to the problem?

I have indicated clearly that truckers can't afford the increases. Statistics show that, on the average, truckers will be shelling out an additional $2,000 a year per truck in diesel fuel tax. No wonder the truckers are upset. For many carriers, fuel costs make up as much as 30% of their operating costs, yet we're taxing them to death, we're taxing them out of existence.

We need our truckers. Why tax them? Why force them out of business? Why force them into bankruptcy? You know perfectly well that 30% of their operating costs -- and that's just the operating costs -- is fuel. Why would you tax them? This is clearly a cost that's being put forward by Bill 86 that the people in the trucking industry can't afford.

Truckers have demonstrated, they've made presentations, I'm sure, to the various ministries, and they're not pleased with the conduct of this government and the economic policies of this government.

As an example, I have a brief quote from the Hamilton Spectator last year which talked about the family life of the trucker, how he has to work harder, how he has to spend more time away from home. That's another factor: They have to work harder to make money to pay this tax. They have to work longer hours because their operating expenses have increased -- most unfair.

This is a quote from an individual by the name of Bob Janzen in the Hamilton Spectator in May of last year: Unless the government takes steps, "Mr Janzen and other Ontario truck drivers fear the Canadian trucking industry will end up like the bugs that decorate the front of their rigs after a long haul -- flattened by deregulation, taxes and American competition." Of course there are others reasons the truckers are upset: deregulation is certainly something, and there's the American competition, the labour costs, but there are taxes. Why is this government continuing to penalize the trucker?

Mr Janzen says, "I'm working harder today than I was 20 years ago," and "I'm away from home more than ever." His family life is deteriorating. "The trouble is, he's making less money than ever, while his costs have skyrocketed." One of those costs is the cost of taxes to his vehicle.

The Hamilton Spectator did spend a great deal of time, as did other newspapers around this province last year, with the trucking industry and the emphasis on the cost of taxes and comparing the difficulties they're having in competing with the Americans. Again I quote from the Hamilton Spectator last year: "Everyone -- industry, government and labour -- agrees the US truck companies have lower costs and can easily outbid Canadian competitors. The advantage comes mainly from lower taxes, cheaper equipment and labour costs.

"As a result, many Canadian companies have shifted all or part of their operations to a US base."

One of the reasons Canadian industries are moving to the United States is this bill. It's not the reason, but it's one of the reasons they're moving to the United States. In this article, Raymond Cope, president of the Ontario Trucking Association, estimated that these moves account for half the 5,000 jobs lost. That is something I hope the Minister of Revenue will comment on when she responds in this debate.

We need some encouragement in this province. We need some encouragement to lift up the economy. We shouldn't be taxing them; we should be encouraging the trucking industry, we should be encouraging those in the tourist industry. The Minister of Tourism and Recreation is still here. I challenge him to rise and say how he's doing that to combat this problem. What are the signs of encouragement? How is the government going to encourage the trucking industry, the tourist industry? They said gambling casinos; that's one of the things they're going to do. But you don't do it by levying taxes.

The Toronto Star commented last year as well that in 1990, 556 of Canada's 6,000 or so trucking companies closed for good, an increase of 74% from 1989. I appreciate that the sole cause of that wasn't this bill.

Interjection: What was the cause?

1640

Mr Tilson: Well, it was one of the reasons. Look at the statistics. Talk to the people in the trucking industry as to why they have gone under, why they've left this province. One of the reasons is the cost of fuel. The Americans can operate their businesses a lot more reasonably than the Ontarians can. Why? Because of taxes being higher in this province than in the United States.

In Ontario, where trucking employed about 200,000 people at its peak, 146 carriers went bankrupt in 1990, compared with 57 in 1989. The industry lost about $16.6 million before taxes. Truck driving positions and related jobs have continued to evaporate at an alarming pace. The exodus of work has become even more infuriating for truckers when they see where the jobs are going: to the US border states.

So this bill has an effect that I don't think the Minister of Revenue ever dreamed it would, if she ever did even think it out. I believe she introduced the bill because the Treasurer told her to. I don't believe she sat down with the Treasurer and told him: "If you put this bill forward, this is what it's going to cost. It is going to cause a great deal of difficulty to the overall economy of this province. It's going to add to many of the problems."

The subject of the 1991 budget, which this bill has stemmed from, has already caused great economic concern to the people of this province. The deficit, according to the Treasurer, has gone up to $10 billion. My guess is that when we start looking at the books, when we start looking at the fancy bookkeeping, it will be closer to $13 billion or $14 billion, so that the whole problem has escalated since last year. Part of the reason is because industry has failed; the businesses have failed; people have lost jobs.

There's the Treasurer's own admission: Less revenue is coming in. Why is less revenue coming in? Because people in the trucking industry, the tourism industry, the agricultural industry and all the industries that use the roads in our transportation systems are having great difficulties. It is one part of a serious problem that this province has found itself in.

Why are you making it more difficult for people to operate in this province? Why would you do such a thing? Is there no other way of raising taxes? Yes, there is: You can cut back. You don't keep adding and adding. We've got too much government in this province. We've got too much government in this country.

It gives us all grave concern when we see the programs that are being added, programs that we can't afford. One of the ways of paying for those programs is taxes, and we've seen the effect of what you are doing. You are killing the middle class with your 1992 budget.

You've probably taxed the transportation industry as much as you can. I hope you have. I hope there are no more taxes with respect to the transportation industry. In fact, I hope you will start to think of ways to solve this problem you've created through your taxes in Bill 86.

The government, in its 1991-92 budget, indicated it would be spending $52.76 billion. That's up 13.4%. Revenue, when this budget was being put forward, was expected to drop, so we knew there was going to be a deficit coming. Who are you trying to kid? We've seen what deficits have occurred in the 1970s federally. We are paying for that dearly now through the debt that's been created in this country, and you're doing the same thing in this province.

You blamed the Liberals; you talked about how dastardly the Liberals were with respect to their funny bookkeeping that occurred around the last election. They're angels compared to your conduct.

How realistic is it for the government to expect its revenues to fall only 1% when the government has lost about 250,000 jobs and bankruptcies are running at an all-time high? Jobs are being lost, the overall economy is shrinking and yet you continue to tax with such bills as this gasoline tax bill.

I don't know what to say. I don't know how to persuade you. You've got the votes. You've been charging the people of this province the tax increases, which occurred last year and again on January 1. They're already paying for it.

I hope some of the ministers -- I've named some of them: the Minister of Transportation, the Minister of Tourism and Recreation and the Minister of Revenue -- will speak to this bill and how it has affected their own industries.

To many people in my riding, the commuters and the people who count on the tourism industry, the worst tax is this gasoline tax. It's the two-stage increase, which we're already paying for, of 3.4 cents a litre. That's 15.5 cents a gallon, the provincial gasoline tax, which is, as I have indicated, already higher than in any US state.

I wish to conclude my remarks by simply hoping that the government -- I mean, they may say they've gone too far. They may say: "It's already been paid for. We can't take it back. We've charged them in 1991 and we're charging them in 1992. It's too bad. Even though the bill hasn't been passed, they're already paying for it, so we can't give it back." But I look forward to hearing the comments from the various ministers as to how you're going to rectify the very serious problems you have caused as a result of this tax, Bill 86.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: I think the member's comments were both enlightening and insightful. It's of interest, having seen the comments both here and downstairs in my office, that some of the issues we've addressed over the last number of years have not been addressed. The issues we are debating again today regarding this piece of legislation are as large a problem as they were a few years ago when the members opposite were in opposition.

How they've addressed the issue and how they've attacked the problem is very significantly different, once again, from the way they suggested they would. We often hear the comment, "That was then and this is now." It gives you pause to reflect on some of the comments made by members by the government and how diametrically opposed they are to what they're purporting to carry out in government.

It's both interesting and informative. I think the member deserves a pat on the back and applause for offering these insights for his constituents in his riding.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? The member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr Tilson: The summary of my message today is that we have too much government. We've got too many taxes. We're taxed to death on everything from gasoline to personal income tax. The next thing we're going to hear -- it was hinted at in rumours leading up to the current budget -- is that we're going to have a form of GST. That was suggested, a GST on certain services now that we've created this deficit.

We've got a deficit, we're taxed to death on everything, on food, on gasoline. People are going crazy. No wonder you're hated so much, no wonder the federal Tories are hated so much, no wonder the municipalities are hated so much, because we're taxed to death. Somewhere along the line the taxing has got to stop, and I would suggest that one of the things you can start doing is to start withdrawing your services.

1650

People don't want the services you're offering. You're putting all these services forward but you can't pay for them, so you implement this tax, and you have no idea the effect this tax is going to have on this province. You have no idea the effect it's going to have. You're just taxing for the sake of taxing because you need money. You need funds to operate programs the people don't want. The bureaucracy's increasing. How are you going to pay for it? One of the ways is this tax. Who knows what you're going to think up next? The people have had enough.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Hon Mr Philip: This has been a fairly long debate on this bill. It received first reading on April 29, 1991, and there were some comments at that time. There was second reading debate on December 4, 1991, in which there was debate for one hour and 21 minutes. There was further debate on December 11, 1991, for six hours and 10 minutes. There was further debate on December 12, 1991, for nine hours and 40 minutes. There was second reading on December 16, 1991.

The Deputy Speaker: Debate is on the third reading.

Hon Mr Philip: Yes, Mr Speaker, I'm getting to the third reading. I want to give a history of how we've arrived at this third reading, though, if I may. On December 19 it went to committee of the whole for debate, and May 5 we spent one hour and 30 minutes. The total time spent on this bill, a bill that relates to a previous budget, in fact was over roughly about 20 hours. Considering the very urgent business this House has to deal with on a number of matters, I therefore move that the question be now put.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I feel that there hasn't been sufficient debate on this third reading; therefore, the debate will continue.

Hon Mr Philip: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have had over 20 hours of debate on this bill. It is a bill that is not even dealing with this budget that we have introduced and I would ask that you reconsider your decision.

The Deputy Speaker: The ruling has been made and the debate, therefore, shall continue.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'm not trying to provoke you or members of the House, but the question has been put very clearly by the member and I am asking if you can direct me to the proper place in the rules which say that we should continue this debate. My understanding is that we should proceed with the vote.

The Deputy Speaker: I would just like to remind the House that it's not necessary for the Speaker to give a reason. I've ruled on it. But for the benefit of the House let me read standing order 45:

"A motion for closure, which may be moved without notice, until it is decided shall preclude all amendment of the main question, and shall be in the following words: -- 'That this question be now put.' Unless it appears to the Speaker that such motion is an abuse of the standing orders of the House or an infringement of the rights of the minority, the question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate. If a motion for closure is resolved in the affirmative, the original question shall be put forthwith and decided without amendment or debate."

I have ruled that the debate shall continue. Minister, you still have the floor.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, I have the floor and I move that the question be now put.

The Deputy Speaker: That question has now been decided. You cannot challenge the Chair. If you have any further discussions on third reading of the bill I will allow you to do so.

1700

Hon Mr Philip: I am not challenging the Chair. I have a right, since I have the floor, to put the question. I am now putting the question.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The decision has been made, and if you don't want to continue to debate third reading, I will continue in rotation.

Hon Miss Martel: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have read the section very carefully and I understand that you have the prerogative to rule that the debate should continue if you believe there is an abuse in terms of the question being put or if there appears to be some kind of infringement of the rights of the minority. I am asking, Mr Speaker, if that is the case and if indeed that is the reason why you will not allow --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. For the moment I feel there wasn't sufficient debate. Nothing prevents me later on from reconsidering. My decision at this time is that debate will continue. I ask the minister: Do you wish to continue debating the third reading? If not, I will continue in rotation.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, I find it unusual that you would give a ruling without giving the reasons you feel I have moved the motion prematurely. I ask you, Mr Speaker, if you would kindly share with the House the reasons for your --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. It is quite easy to understand and the procedures are very clear. Minister, I am speaking to you. It is very clear that the Chair has made a decision and I would ask you not to challenge the Chair.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, I will speak on the bill, although I find your ruling somewhat unusual. Having been in the Chair a number of times myself, it would certainly not be a ruling I would have made, or indeed that anybody I know of who would have been in that position would have made.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): Speak to the bill or sit down and shut -- Mr Speaker, I would be pleased to withdraw that remark, and I don't need any smart-ass remarks.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would please ask for your cooperation, the member for Oakville South.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I ask for your cooperation. Minister?

Hon Mr Philip: On this bill, I would like to point out to --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I can't speak over the noise of the opposition.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Let's make sure we continue the debate. The decision has been made; a ruling has been made. Minister, you have the floor and I would ask the rest of the House to refrain from heckling. The member for Etobicoke West -- please.

Hon Mr Philip: I would like to talk about some of the things that were done last year, since that's what this debate seems to be all about. The anti-recession capital program of my ministry, for example, had a commitment of some $700 million for short-term projects during 1991-92. It had --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: After the display by the minister, he is now not debating the bill at hand.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Minister, you have the floor.

Hon Mr Philip: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It was a good ruling in this case.

The manufacturing recovery program, for example, which a number of the members' constituents have taken part in, has had a $30 million commitment toward the recovery of companies that were affected by the recession, a recession largely effected by the very actions of the federal Conservative government in Ottawa.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Philip: A recession that was largely brought about, as manufacturers will tell you, by the very fact that the federal government introduced the free trade program without any kind of consideration or consultation with the companies of Ontario.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable members of the Conservative Party so believe in the democratic process that they don't want me to speak and to tell the public the truth.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister, you have the floor. Make sure that you address your remarks on the third reading of the bill.

Hon Mr Philip: On third reading I want to put the bill in the same context that the members of the opposition have put it in, and that is, where does it fit into the economic scheme of things in this province? Indeed, if we look at what has happened under previous governments, such as the Conservative government that had the --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: This House will recess for 10 minutes.

The House recessed at 1707.

1718

The Deputy Speaker: Minister, you have the floor.

Hon Mr Philip: The members particularly of the Conservative Party who wanted to drown me out and didn't want me to speak asked me to speak directly to the consequence of the bill. They spoke to the consequences of the bill as they saw it and they painted the doom and gloom and said that Ontario was having an economic crisis as a result of this bill. Let's look at the facts.

In 1991 the Ontario gross domestic product per person was higher than any other province and the second highest of the G-7 nations. That was under our government, and I ask them to compare that to any government in Canada that was run by any Conservative or Liberal government in this country.

In the doom and gloom of the Conservative Party, which is so far to the right now that it is falling to the right of the Reform Party of Canada, they want to tell us that businesses are leaving Ontario. The fact is of course that there is more investment in Ontario than in any other province and indeed there is more foreign investment in Ontario than all the other provinces combined. The member for Mississauga West, my good friend Mr Mahoney, recognizes that, because --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Throw him out.

The Deputy Speaker: I ask that you give me your full cooperation.

Mr Mahoney: Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Just on a point of order: The minister, in trying to add some credence to his argument, mentioned me by name as well as riding. If he wants to add credence to his argument, I wish he'd try to do it from his own perspective and leave me out of it.

Hon Mr Philip: He always liked me to introduce him before. Certainly when I open up plant after plant in Mississauga, in Mississauga West, he's the very member who likes me to introduce him from the stage. I don't know why he wants me not to introduce him from the House. Hazel McCallion, that great mayor of Mississauga and that friend of the honourable member from Mississauga --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's your time.

Mr Remo Mancini (Essex South): Can we use the word "goof"?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your chair. Minister, you have the floor.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: I would just remind the House that there are rules in the Legislature about heckling not from your chair and remind the member for Essex South that he is heckling from outside his usual spot.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, in the very --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please take your chair.

Mr Mancini: I have a point of order.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. When the Speaker stands up, members remain seated. The member for Essex South.

Mr Mancini: I was unable to take my own seat because the NDP member for Oxford was sitting in my seat. We welcome him over here, but he can't have my seat.

Hon Mr Philip: I understand why the member's incensed. He heard the false rumour that Brylcreem was going out of business. It's not true. I can assure him that everything will be okay.

Those people want to paint a gloomy picture of Ontario. Those people fail to recognize that exports from Ontario at this time are 30% of the gross domestic product and higher than in all the other G-7 nations. Ontario's GDP is forecasted by every respected group, be it American or the Conference Board of Canada, to be growing faster than any other province's, and indeed faster than in all the G-7 nations in the next three years. Those are the facts that the opposition, with their gloom and doom as they try to scare business from this province or scare it about what this government is doing -- they don't like to tell those facts, but around the world we're telling that to business. That's why there are more businesses investing here than in any other province.

If we look at what the previous governments have not done, we see why this government has had to act in so many ways. Ontario investments in machinery equipment have been lower since 1974 than in any of the G-7 nations. You ask why we are not competitive compared to Italy, Germany, Sweden, Denmark --

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Let me remind the minister what the debate is all about: Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Hon Mr Philip: What I am trying to put into context is that the opposition has been trying to paint the picture that somehow this piece of legislation has caused grave economic problems to this province. In fact, if you listened to the previous speakers, you would know that was what they were speaking about. I didn't notice you call them to order for what they were saying, and therefore I think you would agree that I have a right to correct any misinformation which they may have conveyed to the public, and that is precisely what I am doing, Mr Speaker.

If we look at the context in which this bill is found, we see that at a time in which this government has been able to act, having inherited government at the base of a recession, the base of a recession in which we had to take over and manage the deficit left to us by the previous government, a recession that would have been certainly less had the previous government -- or the previous governments, I should say -- had any kind of industrial strategy that would have looked at exactly what was happening to business in this province, we wouldn't have had these problems to such a great extent.

To blame this government for getting us into the present recession with one, two or three pieces of legislation is simply absurd. We have performed better than any other province in Canada. We are performing better and we have policies that are helping to get us out of a very, very difficult recession.

I listened to the Conservative members speak. They said the problem was that we had too many taxes -- and I agree with that -- and that is why our government has, at the present time, some 21 separate studies evaluating the programs of the government, that are saying to the government, "These are the kinds of ways in which we can evaluate value for money," which those members who have shared my concerns long enough as members of the public accounts committee know is very dear to my heart and to my interest -- 21 separate studies.

In the present budget we have been able to save, through our efficiencies, some $3 billion; $3 billion we've been able to cut out of programs as a way of saving the taxpayers some money.

The Conservatives love to talk about how terrible the present recession is under the NDP government. Well, we've shown that we have been outperforming every other province. But let's talk about the last recession in 1981. In 1980-81, in fact there were an equal number of companies going into receivership and bankruptcies as there were last year in the province of Ontario.

When one examines how the economy has expanded in the last 10 years by natural growth, one has to say that businesses performing under this government last year were actually outperforming, doing better if you like, than under the 1980-81 government of Premier Bill Davis.

I know the Conservative Party in this House don't like to remember Bill Davis because he was far too progressive for them. He introduced policies. I've met with him. I've met with Phil Gillies who served in that government. I've met with Susan Fish who was part of that government. They have nothing to do with these rascals because they don't want to be associated with them. They say, "We were a Progressive Conservative government; we were a Progressive Conservative Party at that time." Compared to the lot we have in this House, Brian Mulroney is a democratic socialist, so I wouldn't expect them to agree.

1730

The point I am making is that even under the Progressive Conservative Party of 1980-81, there were actually an equivalent number of bankruptcies as there were under the very hard times that we took over as the government. I am very proud that as a government we have met the challenge and we are moving in with some progressive policies which are assisting business. This year my budget, which actually serves the business community, is up some 93% compared to an equal year under the last year of the Liberals. Those are the kinds of programs we are developing.

We are developing programs that are working with business. We are developing programs that are so progressive compared to the reactionary policies of the Liberals and even some of the Progressive Conservative policies under the Davis government, that of course I agreed with.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Essex South.

Hon Mr Philip: The Liberals don't like to hear the facts, but the facts are that we are moving ahead with a number of programs that are actually not just dealing with the present economic problems we inherited from them and their predecessors, but rather with some of the very structural problems they never addressed whatsoever.

The $1.5-million sector partnership fund is a good example of how this government has been able to move with the times to help business join together and create new innovations, new partnerships in this province.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Order. I want to remind all members that we are on third reading for Bill 86. The honourable minister has the floor and I would ask him to please limit his remarks to Bill 86. We can then proceed, and address your remarks to the Chair.

Hon Mr Philip: The honourable members of the Liberal Party and Conservative Party are saying that somehow this bill of course has nothing to do with the present economic conditions; it relates to a previous budget. They want to spend over 20 hours discussing that, but that's fine.

The fact is that if you look at what we are doing, Mr Speaker, we have been able to have the lowest percentage increase in government spending of any government --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. We are dealing with Bill 86. It has to do with the previous budget. It has to do with tax increases in gasoline. Please, your remarks on Bill 86, and interjections are out of order.

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It has always been the convention in this House on debates on taxation bills, and I would ask for your interpretation, that the latitude is somewhat wider because one taxation bill can't overlap the other.

The Acting Speaker: This is Bill 86, a specific bill, for the member for Cochrane South's edification. Bill 86 pertains to An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, period. That's what we're dealing with, third reading.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There are a number of people in this House who are heckling and they're not in their own seats. I would ask you to take some action.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The Speaker is aware of this. Heckling is out of order, particularly when the member is not in his or her seat. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, of course I will abide by your ruling. I'm sure you will realize, though, having watched on television at the very least the comments of the previous speakers from the Liberal and indeed from the Conservative Party, that they were talking about the relationship of one tax to other taxes and indeed to the total economy of the province of Ontario and they were talking about tax increases.

I'm pointing out that this government has actually decreased taxes. As a matter of fact, we've had tax decreases on manufacturing, resources, companies and small business. Those are the kinds of things which the opposition does not like to talk about because it spoils the doom-and-gloom image which it wants to paint of this province.

I give credit to the member for St Catharines, because he says, "Yes, Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, you are working in my community and I'm pleased to be part of the economic renewal team that is making progress in that area." I guess not every member on that side of the House has the statesmanlike qualities of the member for St Catharines.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. I'm sure many members are very statesmanlike and I'm sure they appreciate hearing it. However, we are on Bill 86 which pertains to, I will again emphasize, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act. It does not have to do with statesmanship or anything like that.

Hon Mr Philip: The Gasoline Tax Act deals with the whole area of the petroleum industry, and a very important part of that, which of course the member for Sarnia would want to be aware of, is the whole plastics industry. We, as a government, were able to sign a memorandum of understanding with the plastics industry that creates a partnership between business, labour and the industry so that we can go ahead. That's the kind of thing this government does.

I would love to talk about the plastics industry because we are making so many advances in that area and it is part of the petroleum industry, but if you want to look at the history of the gasoline tax rates, though, if you look at the increase of gasoline tax, maybe you start off with 1981. You have 4.6 cents on May 19; on May 20, 5.4 cents; on July 1, six cents, and on October 1, 6.3 cents. That was in one year, 1981. Who was in power then? Not the NDP government. It was too bad we weren't. If we had been, you wouldn't have had those kinds of increases.

Interjection: Who was it?

Hon Mr Philip: Who was it? I believe --

The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister, I realize, has got some political marks to make. However, he's being heckled by his own members, he's not addressing the Chair and he's creating a great deal of disturbance all around. Please, Bill 86.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, my colleagues in the New Democratic caucus and cabinet simply have a very good memory. They remember that there were more gasoline tax increases in 1981 under the Conservative government than under the NDP government last year and they don't like to remember that.

Let's take a look at 1982. Who was in power then? I believe it was the Conservatives who were in power at that time. What did we have? On January 1 we had 6.3 cents on regular leaded; April 1 we had 6.6 cents; July 1, 6.7 cents, and October 1, a whopping 7.2 cents. That was in the middle of a recession. No wonder so many of the companies went downhill under the Conservative government of Bill Davis in comparison to what's happening here in Ontario now.

1740

Interjection: When did the Liberals come in?

Hon Mr Philip: When did the Liberals come in? 1985.

The Liberals weren't as bad. They came in in 1985, with a certain amount of help from my friends, as they say.

But we raised it 1.5 cents. This is what they are having a 20-hour debate on, a 1.5 in last year's budget. This is what the Liberals and the Conservatives want to have a 20-hour debate on.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: You don't even know the right number.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Heckling is definitely out of order. You will have a chance to participate in the debate if you so desire when your party's turn comes. At the present time, the honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has the floor.

Hon Mr Philip: If you compare that 1.7-cent increase --

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I would just hope the member who is speaking at the present time would relay to us the difference between a litre and a gallon.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order; it's a point of debate or a point of something.

Hon Mr Philip: I can tell the honourable member that the figures I used were litres. If he wants to check them out, we'll be happy to supply you with the figures. They were litres I was using, and I suggest that if he doesn't know the difference between the kind of price increases, the gouging that the Conservatives did at the very bottom of the 1980-81 recession, then he had better get his facts straight, because we have the facts straight. Those were litre figures that I was giving.

Let me talk about the Liberals. The Liberals can't be blamed as much as the Tories because they weren't increasing gasoline by such large numbers at the bottom of a recession the way the Tories were. None the less, in 1985 the Liberal government raised it by eight cents a litre. Now they want a major debate on 1.7 cents that was last year, not this year, because of course we didn't raise it this year.

The Liberals weren't content that they raised gasoline eight cents a litre in their first year. In their second year -- and you might like to compare that, because this is our second year and we haven't raised it -- they said, "Well, that was good last year, so let's give them another eight cents this year," and that's what they did. They wanted to be original, so they said: "We can't raise it eight cents, because eight cents was last year. So we'll raise it 8.3 cents this year. That makes it a little different." That's how original the Liberal government was.

Unfortunately, with the Liberals originality doesn't continue; one good idea isn't followed by another good idea. So while they were original in 1986 by raising it --

Mr Turnbull: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask that the minister would correct the record, because he is now misleading this House talking about taxes --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The language used by the honourable member is not parliamentary and I would respectfully ask the honourable member for York Mills to withdraw.

Mr Turnbull: I'm happy to withdraw it, Mr Speaker, and I would ask you for direction as to how I would phrase it in parliamentary language --

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology has the floor. Indeed if he has anything to correct in his own speech, he can do it. Otherwise, he can continue on Bill 86.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, 1986 was not a good year for the motorists, or for the trucking companies either in this province, because the Liberals, not being content with the eight cents in 1985, then had to go up to 8.3 cents in 1986. In 1987, 8.3 cents again is the figure.

In 1988 of course they had to do it not just once but twice: January, 8.3; April 21 -- can you guess, Mr Speaker? There are a number of new members in the House. Maybe we could have a lottery. I'm rather open to those things nowadays -- would you believe 12.3 cents? So we have in 1988 8.3 and then April 21, 12.3.

In 1989, under the Liberals, again it was 12.3, but not just once. That was only in January. They had to bring us a Christmas present in January of 12.3. But then of course they had to have the summer or spring present, and the summer or spring present was on May 18.

What was May 18? It was on Mother's Day. That was Mother's Day. Give a gift to mother. You know what the Liberals' gift to mother was? I hope mother wasn't driving when she got the gift; she would've careened off the road. It was 13.3 cents. Happy Mother's Day from the Liberals. That's their idea of fairness. I can tell you that the trucking companies in this province have mothers and they didn't appreciate that kind of Mother's Day gift.

The point I am making is that those who would want to debate and filibuster this bill that relates to a very small increase last year, albeit a serious increase, one that we were concerned about, in comparison to the kinds of increases the Conservatives introduced at the bottom of the 1980-81 recession, in comparison to the kinds of increases the Liberals continued to impose on the trucking industry in this province and on the drivers of this province, is very, very small.

I will give the floor to them if they want to filibuster some more, but I can say to you, that kind of debate is not in the interests of the taxpayers of Ontario. I wanted to at least put it in the context in which it is.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I was hoping we would've dealt more specifically with the provisions of this bill in the last period of time -- that the member would've addressed those. I was quite surprised that we saw a closure motion, a guillotine motion, coming from a party which over the years has defended the rights of the Legislature to debate at some length the legislation that comes before the House.

In addition to that, I'd hoped we would've dealt with the issue of cross-border shopping. There have been tax increases by this government and other governments in certain periods of time. What we have seen very recently, however, that I'd hoped the member would've dealt with was the phenomenon of people having loss-leaders attract them to the other side of the border.

There were three taxes that used to be fairly easy to increase. One of those would have been the tobacco tax, the second would have been the alcohol tax, and the third the gasoline tax. They were considered to be somewhat, let's say, sin taxes in one way or another, or some might even characterize some as environmental taxes.

However, those of us who represent the Niagara Peninsula -- and the member for Niagara Falls and the member for St Catharines-Brock and the member for Lincoln are all here -- would recognize that there is a problem in that every time we increase that tax during a time when there's extreme competition just across the border and in the midst of a recession, we tend to promote people heading to the other side of the border to make those purchases.

I was hoping that the government might consider and that the minister was going to get up to suggest that the government would be withdrawing this tax measure so we could send a signal out there at this specific point in time that we wanted people to shop on this side of the border, that we would see them then, by shopping this side of the border, paying more taxes on this side of the border and we could help to address the many revenue problems that are confronting the government at this time.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Further questions and/or comments.

1750

Mr Stockwell: This issue is very important. It's very important to the border communities. Every day the retailers in border communities are losing business that is crossing the border into the United States. They're losing business because of the high taxes on alcohol, because of the high taxes on cigarettes and because of the high taxes on gasoline. This issue is killing border communities -- these kinds of tax hikes.

If the member wants to cast his mind back to 1971, which is ancient history, not one member of this party sitting opposite that he blames for the tax hikes in 1971 was here in this House, and in 1981 the vast majority of this party was certainly not here in this House to argue or defend those decisions.

If this minister wants to live in prehistoric ages and debate with the likes of Bill Davis and Larry Grossman, he may well do that, but we're talking about the taxpayers today. We're talking about the retail operators in border communities. They've spoken in unison. They've said, "No more gas hikes."

Last year this Treasurer increased taxes on gasoline, increased taxes on alcohol and increased taxes on cigarettes. He went back to the well again this year to increase taxes on beer. If you want to stand in this House and talk about the 1970s and 1980s, you can, but every day in the 1990s, Mr Minister, people cross the border to shop because of these taxes. Retailers close down and Ontarians are out of work.

Mr Bisson: I'd like to rise in support in regard to the debate that my colleague did. I think what he was saying was very important, that we have spent 20 hours debating a bill in regard to the budget of last year. There are a number of issues, as the minister pointed out, that are crucial to Ontario, such as cross-border shopping, such as what's happening with the economy and a number of other issues that are affecting the daily lives of the people of this province.

What the minister was saying, and I think it really has to be echoed, is that the members of the opposition, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party, could stand here in this House and try to put down the government for a tax increase last year of 1.5 cents on gas, when we know that when the Conservatives were in power, there were four increases per year. One thing they had going for them, at least the increases were fairly small; they only doubled them over a period of three years. The Liberals did the same thing. They came to power and the minister made the point rather well, that they did less tax increases but they made a bigger whopping profit every time they did it.

The point is, we have business in this House to attend to. We're in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s. The people of Ontario want this government and this Legislature to deal with the issues affecting the people of this province.

To have the opposition stall, deter and try to slow down every piece of legislation that we're putting through for their own political means is not appreciated on the part of the people of this province, because -- a secret for the opposition -- there was a democratic vote in 1990 and the New Democratic Party won the election. We have the right and we have the responsibility to govern this province over the next four years. The quicker the opposition can realize that, the quicker we can get to the business of this House and deal with the issues that affect the people of this province, day by day.

They will all have their turns. But for them to sit in this House and to call down this government over a 1.5-cent tax increase on gas, when they quadrupled it in a short period of time, I think is quite interesting on the part of the opposition to raise.

The Acting Speaker: One final participant.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Just about five years ago at this time, this Legislature introduced televised proceedings. This is very unfortunate for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, who I think this afternoon, in the tone of his comments and the demeanour of the debate, advertised to thousands and thousands of people around Ontario the fact that they can have very little confidence in the minister, I say to you, Mr Speaker, in this government who is responsible for taking the case of businesses all around Ontario into the counsels of the chamber and debating those counsels.

The fact that he could go on and on in the face of rulings by you about sticking to the bill, in the face of the fact that the entire province is just reeling under the weight of taxation right now, and for him to try to justify a closure motion in this House and to somehow suggest that the people are just dying out there to pay this additional tax and that somehow the opposition, based on past history, ought not to get in the way of this bill, in my view scandalizes not only the members of this House but the thousands and thousands of people who are watching.

He stood up here for well over an hour with the noise and the shouting and the screaming from his own members, making light of the fact that yet another tax burden is being put on the province. I don't know what brings this about. Perhaps it's the fact that the Premier is off in New York, trying to explain to New York bankers the economic situation of Ontario. If this is the way ministers conduct themselves while the Premier is out of town, we had better pass an order making sure the Premier never leaves town again.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and/or comments. The Minister for Industry, Trade and Technology has two minutes in reply.

Hon Mr Philip: I don't need a sermon from the member for York Centre, whose government raised taxes in this province 33 separate times. That's how much they cared.

I don't apologize for the fact that while he is talking doom and gloom about the economy of this province, we are selling this province, along with the business community. They are saying, "Why have the doom and gloom of the Liberals, who are trying to defame the province and the value of the industry in this province?" In fact, we have come in with a budget that gives the lowest increase in spending in some 40 years. Where were the Liberals when good times happened? Where were the Conservatives?

The member for Etobicoke West talks about the fact that there were not any of the members of his group in the House in 1981. I agree; there were Progressive Conservatives in this House then. That's something we don't have in this House right now.

Mr Turnbull: Keep talking. You are going to get more of us elected next time.

Hon Mr Philip: Mr Speaker, I can tell you that the member for York Mills doesn't like to talk about the GST and what effect that has on border communities. He doesn't want to talk about that at all.

The member for St Catharines made some interesting comments, and he usually tends to be somewhat more statesmanlike than his colleagues.

The member for York Centre talked about cross-border shopping, the policies we have introduced to fight cross-border shopping. Here's what the cross-border communities say. Thunder Bay: "Most appreciative of the financial assistance of the province; opportunity for local groups to decide the best way to spend dollars with provincial guidelines; work well done." That's what Thunder Bay says, and that's what all of the cities are saying.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on third reading of Bill 86?

Mr Sorbara: I look forward to the opportunity of speaking on this very important bill. I might just begin by saying that I trust and hope that as we hear from other members of the government party, their defence of this measure will not be in the tone and of the quality of what we've just heard from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, or it will indeed take a very long time, I say to the Minister of Revenue, to get this bill through the House.

I just want to begin by reminding my colleagues of what it is we are debating. We are debating a 3.4-cents-per-litre increase on the purchase of gasoline in the province of Ontario. I remember when this measure was introduced in the budget of the Treasurer, just over a year ago now. It was a budget which was not, to tell you the truth, a great success for the minister.

I see that by my reckoning it is 6 of the clock, so I think the procedure is to adjourn the debate for the time being.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to all honourable members. It is now 6 of the clock. This House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 o'clock in the morning.

The House adjourned at 1800.