INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

---

Report continued from volume A.

1753

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Continuation of debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 31, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I recognize now the member for Oriole.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Perhaps for those people who are watching, it might be a good opportunity for me to explain to them what is actually happening in the House right now.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Please take your seat. Order. Those who wish to leave the House may do so now.

Mrs Caplan: If I can, let me try and explain to people who are watching what's happening here, because I think it is important that the general public and those who are interested in these debates --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's impossible for me to hear anything. I would ask your cooperation, please.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, some time ago, as you know, the NDP majority government changed the rules of procedure in this House, which effectively limited debate for members of the official opposition. Part of the debate now as we consider this tax bill, Bill 31, and the wrangling that is going on relates to the frustration that we opposition members feel, not only because of those rule changes but because of the way the government House leader and the members of the government caucus are not only impeding debate but attempting to play what I believe are silly and inappropriate games in this House of important democracy.

Earlier this afternoon, the government House leader, who has been a member of this House many years, for a long time, and should know his traditions well, attempted to table a motion that was clearly out of order. The opposition House leader made his case, and in fact that motion was deemed to be out of order. In spite and in a fit of temper and bad behaviour, the government House leader has made debate on Bill 31 a very significant issue, and that is because in the midst of debate on Bill 31 the government backbencher, the government parliamentary assistant, the member for Oxford, moved adjournment of the debate in order that the government could extend the sittings of the House in an attempt --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There's too much noise in the House.

Mrs Caplan: -- to circumvent the democratic processes and to act in a petulant and arrogant way, which does not bespeak the importance of the bill before us.

As I stand here at this time and speak to an important bill in this Legislature, Bill 31, which is killing jobs in this province, hurting the economic recovery of this province, I'm saddened to say that we have a government led by the House leader at this time, who is making debate in this House even more difficult because of the technicalities and the theatrical antics he is attempting to bring forward into this House to stifle debate.

I feel that Bill 31 is much too important a piece of legislation to see the government respond in the way that it has to this point in time. I would hope that all members of this House would pay attention at this particular time to what I, as the critic for revenue, as the lead speaker on the debate on Bill 31, have to say, because while this bill has been in effect since the last budget, while the people of Ontario and the businesses of Ontario have suffered because of the policies of this government, there is still an opportunity for the Finance minister, who is here in the House at this time, to reconsider the flawed policies of the NDP and the NDP government and amend Bill 31 so that we can support and nurture the fragile economic recovery which is taking place in the province at this time.

1800

It's my view that the key to a successful economic strategy is to create conditions under which individuals and businesses will create jobs. My constituents in the riding of Oriole are concerned about their jobs and the jobs that their children will need to sustain their independence and have a bright future here in the province. They are concerned about the effects of increased taxation. They know that what increased taxation means to them is that they will have fewer dollars with which to purchase those things they need and that they would like to purchase, and they also know that increased taxation in Ontario at this time is hurting business and the business sector, where we know the overwhelming majority of jobs are created.

So Bill 31, as I said, is misguided fiscal policy, it is misguided economic policy and it is certainly misguided tax policy, because at this time the last thing Ontario needs is to see additional money taken out of the economy by additional tax revenues.

To make my point, I would like to point out to the government what has happened as a result of its fiscal policy. We know this is not the first time we have seen tax increases. In fact the cumulative effect of the tax increases are having a very damaging effect on the revenues of this province. Instead of seeing new taxes result in increased revenue, exactly the opposite has occurred.

Let me point out what I mean. In 1990-91, when Bob Rae assumed the government, the total tax revenue in that fiscal year was $33.5 billion. That's in rounded figures. In the estimates for 1993-94, the total tax revenues are estimated at $31.2 billion. Just over $31 billion is the estimate, and some would suggest that this estimate is in fact a very rosy, somewhat too high estimate of revenues. I would agree that the estimate of $31.2 billion is overly optimistic. But what's interesting is that the difference between $33-some billion -- the exact number is $33.615 billion -- and the estimate of $31.220 is $2.5 billion, approximately. That's $2.5 billion less in revenues that the province is estimating it will collect in fiscal year 1993-94 compared to what it actually collected in fiscal year 1990-91.

Let me tell you what has happened as a result of the government's taxation policy in that same period of time. We know that because of the tax increases in the budgets of Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren and the NDP, the accumulated tax increase in the province is over $3.5 billion, the effective tax increases were $3.5 billion. We see $2 billion in this budget alone and we see $1.5 billion out of last year's budget.

Yet what has the result been? What can be causing this? You have a $3.5-billion increase in accumulated tax, yet in actual revenues you have a decline of $2.5 billion.

What that tells you is that businesses are going bankrupt, people are losing their jobs and the tax policy of this government is having exactly the opposite effect of the one they had hoped for. Rather than increasing revenues, in fact you have seen revenues decline in absolute dollars over the period of the NDP government. So their tax policy is misguided, it is wrong. It's not in the interests of Ontarians. It certainly is not in the interest of economic recovery.

What's interesting as well is to look at where these declines are occurring. Between the 1990-91 fiscal year and the fiscal year of 1993-94, the personal income tax revenues in this province have declined from $15.4 billion in 1990-91 to $13.9 billion estimated for 1993-94, and I believe that's overstated.

The corporate tax in this province has declined from $3.8 billion to $2.9 billion in the same period. It's my view that is as a direct result -- and you don't have to be a rocket scientist or an economist to figure this out -- of bankruptcies and job loss. Businesses have closed down so their corporate profits are down, so we have lower corporate income tax returns to the province, and personal income tax is way down because there are a million and a half people unemployed in this province.

So tax policy becomes extremely important, and I believe the Treasurer is making a terrible mistake when he discounts the impact of his taxes on the economy, on individuals and on businesses. He is hurting business with his tax increases. He is hurting the individual who would rather be spending. Frankly, if consumers had that money available in their pockets, they would be able to buy more. They could be out this Christmas shopping and spending that additional money, which would stimulate the economy. Rather than taking that money in additional taxes, the Treasurer could have left that money in the economy, which would have stimulated and supported economic recovery.

Yes, Mr Speaker, average Ontarians are paying a very high price for Bob Rae's economic mismanagement in this province. My constituents in the riding of Oriole are telling me how they are feeling overburdened, heavily taxed. In fact, they're also telling me that they don't feel they're getting value for their tax dollars.

Maybe that also accounts for the huge increase in the underground economy. The committee on finance and economics is exploring that issue at this very time. People are openly concerned about the level of taxation because they know that twice in the past two budgets of the NDP government, the NDP has increased personal income tax rates and boosted the high-income surcharges.

The reason people have less money to spend is because the government of Ontario, the NDP, has not been able to keep its own spending under control. There is evidence I'd like to present at this time to members of this House that will make the case and make it soundly. Not only is it mismanagement but it is incompetence, and I can understand the frustrations of my constituents who are paying taxes and are trying to make sure they keep their jobs and feed their families and struggle to pay their rents and their mortgages. I understand how they're feeling and I share their frustration.

Let me tell you what happened. In the first budget tabled by the Minister of Finance, the Treasurer, Mr Laughren, he said very clearly that the NDP was not going to fight the recession by concerning itself with expenditure control. Whereas in his budget of May 1990-91 Mr Nixon had a spending plan of 6.8%, which by many was seen as generous, Mr Laughren's spending plan by the end of 1990-91 was a full 14%. What happened the next year? In 1991-92 fiscal year, at a time when Ontario was in the middle of the worst recession in many decades in this province, what was the spending plan of the NDP? It was 12%.

1810

In 1990-91, we saw a spending increase rise from the predictions and the plan of Mr Nixon and the Liberal government, which was 6.8%, to a full 14%, and then on top of that 14% base increase, an additional 12%. Where did that money go? We know it went primarily to wage increases in the broader public sector, which have trickled through the entire economy, and were the reason and the justification for the tax increases that were contained in the first NDP budget.

We know, and the rest is history, that the effect of those two years, the first 18 months of NDP government and the horrific mistakes they made, resulted in a 30% rate of growth in the expenditures of this province. That was huge economic mismanagement at a time of recession, and the result of that was to see the deficit spiral out of control to reach unprecedented levels of $10 billion and more. Last year it was $12 billion. This year the government is struggling, it says, to keep it under $10 billion, but we know the real number is higher than $10 billion. Today, the taxpayers of Ontario and the economy of Ontario are suffering because of the terrible mistakes that Bob Rae and his Finance minister and his government made in those first 18 months.

What's particularly tragic is that low-income Ontarians, many of whom reside in the riding of Oriole -- there are many low-income people living in the riding of Oriole, which spans the whole economic spectrum. I've often described the riding of Oriole as a microcosm of Ontario; 5% of everyone, people in every socioeconomic bracket. I know that the low-income people in the riding of Oriole are hurting particularly because they know they are being forced to pay more taxes because of NDP incompetence. People living in Oriole, earning as little as $20,000 a year, must pay higher income tax and higher retail sales tax in these tough times.

Asking the least-well-off in our society to pay more to reduce the government's deficit as a result of its mismanagement clearly, in Bob Rae's words, is "just simply unfair." I say to the Premier, how could you? You've broken every one of your promises, you've jettisoned every one of your principles, but how can you hurt low-income Ontarians when in fact they're the ones on whom the recession has taken the greatest toll?

In the riding of Oriole, we see a very large percentage of single moms, many of whom are struggling to make ends meet. To them, this income tax increase is especially painful. The NDP tax hikes in Bill 31 more than wipe out the increased assistance to low-income Ontarians.

We know the government has increased the amount of assistance for low-income Ontarians under the Ontario tax reduction program by $30. However, the government considers that a family of four earning $23,000 falls within the definition of "low income." A family of four earning $23,000 is paying more income tax in this legislation, Bill 31, and that is just fundamentally wrong.

The extra tax bite, because of this budget, amounts to $60 for a family of four earning $20,000. I mentioned just a moment ago that the government considers that a family of four earning $23,000 falls within the definition of "low income," yet Bill 31 adds $60 income tax to a family of four earning just $20,000 a year.

As I said, the government has wiped out any of the extra assistance that could help needy families with its own policies, its ill-advised tax grabs contained in Bill 31. In other words, as I've said so often in this House, the government says one thing and it does the opposite. In this case, the government has given with one hand $30 in its Ontario tax reduction programs and it is taking $60 back in Bill 31, and that's wrong.

I remember the impassioned speeches from Mr Laughren, the now Treasurer and Minister of Finance, as he stood on this side of the House as a member of the official opposition. I listened to him as he talked about the need to assist low-income families in the province of Ontario. I agreed with him then and I had always wished we could have done more than we did, but I was proud because the Liberal government was at least going in the right direction. The problem is that we've now seen that direction reversed and we see low-income people paying higher taxes as a result of Bill 31.

The other thing that happens is that Bill 31 not only hurts individuals, I think Bill 31 also sets a climate and a tone which makes it less attractive to businesses to move to Ontario. Businesses employ people, and the people who are here look at the tax environment and are concerned that Ontario is becoming less competitive as a tax environment.

I'll state very clearly that I believe we still have competitive advantages here. Our health system is a significant competitive advantage as we compare ourselves to our neighbours in the United States. Our education system has been a very significant competitive advantage. Our level of taxation, when you consider the other elements of our social policy, have always attracted business as a place to come.

But the cumulative effect of tax increases, the cumulative effect of the policies of the NDP government, whether it's been labour amendments, Bill 40 and others, or whether it has been tax policy or many of the anti-business messages that have been going out, have sent a very wrong signal. People in Ontario want jobs, people are hurting, and this government doesn't seem to be hearing that message.

Unlike the NDP government, I do not believe a balanced fiscal policy would permit increases in taxes at this time. I don't believe their policy is balanced, I don't think it's reasonable and it certainly isn't achieving its objectives. We have seen a history from the NDP since 1990-91 fiscal year of personal income tax increases, surtaxes, increases in fees and levies. The effect of all of these tax grabs and revenue increases, the net effect of all of these, has been to undermine confidence in the economic future in this province.

Every day I talk to people in my constituency office; I meet people when I'm out and about; they come to see me here at my office and I'm saddened by the despair, by the concern and by the general lack of hope. More and more people say to me: "Elinor, how long until the next election? How soon can we get rid of these guys? We know they're hurting the economy. We know their taxation policy, their spending policy, their social policies are not what we expected from the NDP. We are frustrated and disappointed and we want them out." I agree with those people who express that concern, because I can understand their disappointment.

1820

Certainly the Agenda for People said nothing about the kinds of policies -- gambling. That was never in the Agenda for People. That ran totally contrary to anything that Bob Rae had ever offered. We heard Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren and the front bench of the now government stand in opposition, defenders of the ordinary working person in Ontario, and what they've done is destroyed the jobs of those people. It's a sad time for Ontario that this is the result.

Unfortunately, the number of jobs lost on an annual average basis since Bob Rae and the NDP took power in Ontario is a net annual average of minus 41,000 jobs annually. I compare that with the record of the Liberal government of the years 1986 to 1990, and it was 112,000 jobs each and every year that was created during that time frame.

Granted, this is a time of recession, but I believe Ontario has suffered and suffered more because of the policies of the NDP government, that the job loss has been greater and the damage has been greater than it ever was anticipated or ever dreamt would happen to the province of Ontario. I believe Ontario has been and is fundamentally sound and strong and that with a government that expressed that kind of support and confidence, whose taxation policies and economic policies fostered confidence in the economy, you would see the kind of growth and the kind of economic support that might have attracted business to Ontario.

But one of the things I know from speaking with business leaders is that businesses that might have been attracted to Ontario may have been discouraged by the province's high corporate and personal tax levels, including, I might add, the NDP government's recently announced initiative to bring in a corporate minimum tax. I'd like to use today's debate on Bill 31, which deals with income taxes, to plead with the Treasurer to please stand in his place and say that he will not do that, that he will not bring in a corporate minimum tax.

Just standing in his place and saying that, I believe, will give business greater confidence in Ontario, and we may well see more business activity than we will if businesses are saying no. They say to me: "Elinor, we're not going to invest in Ontario as long as we have an NDP government that is threatening more taxes. We're not going to invest in Ontario as long as we have an NDP government that is increasing our deficit. We're not going to invest in Ontario as long as there's an NDP government which is increasing personal taxes and surtaxes at the rate this NDP government is doing, because we don't think Ontario's a good place to invest."

I hear that from businesses. I'm sharing it with you. That's what they are telling me. They're in a hold, wait-and-see attitude.

We know as well, and there is a strong body of opinion that is expressed by both individuals and businesses, that the tax burden in the province of Ontario has reached a limit, that what has happened is that our once-competitive tax advantages have been eroded and that we are on the verge of becoming uncompetitive in a global environment where, as businesses look to invest, they look at the tax rates compared with the neighbours, as well as the services and so forth which are provided.

I believe that sound fiscal management requires that we do reduce our burden of deficit and that we make sure that the level of debt in this province is manageable. But government cannot hope to restore the province's financial help if it persists in increasing the burden of taxes on individuals and business alike, and that is exactly what Bill 31 does.

Bill 31 is An Act to amend the Income Tax Act, but in fact it raises personal income to an all-time high. If I can, in the time given to me, I'd like to go into some detail about what the bill actually contains so that people watching this debate will understand why I am so opposed to Bill 31, why I am so opposed to tax increases at this time, particularly because of the fragile recovery, and also because people need confidence and tax increases do not give people confidence.

Why do I say that? When you take money from people in the form of personal income taxes, they don't have that money available to spend. In fact, they see less on their paycheque, and when they see less on their paycheque and they know that they have fixed expenses -- rents, mortgage, heat, hydro, telephone, all of those fixed expenditures; they have to feed their family and clothe their family -- they are making decisions to make do on those things that can wait another little while. They're making do even if the kids' shoes are a little bit tight. They're making do if the pants are a little short on the children. They're making do because that extra tax money is going to the province instead of the consumers' wallet, which they could then go and spend. That's what consumer confidence is all about.

I'd like to take a few minutes and go over Bill 31 so that people watching understand exactly what it does.

Bill 31 hikes Ontario's statutory income tax and surtax rates. It also makes a series of technical amendments to the existing Income Tax Act. The technical adjustments made by this legislation mainly concern changing titles and making some alterations, such as calling the Ministry of Treasury and Economics the new Ministry of Finance. The bill makes some changes so the provincial Income Tax Act will be consistent with the federal act.

In federal budgets, we know that Ottawa, sometimes without consultation with the province, will alter definitions or make changes to its own income tax acts. Ontario usually mirrors those kinds of changes, and rightly so, because it's important that we be as clear and consistent as we can be in definitions. Also, it's helpful, particularly to businesses and individuals who are making our their tax returns, that there be a consistency of approach. I see the parliamentary assistant nodding. I think it's important to let people know that those changes are contained in this bill.

Now, I want to make the statement that I would be very willing to support a change in name of the ministry from the Ministry of Treasury and Economics to the Ministry of Finance, and I would be very willing to support those kinds of technical amendments and adjustments that would make it easier for businesses and individuals to understand the tax changes and to bring some consistency between provincial definitions and approaches and federal definitions and approaches.

But that's where my support for this bill ends. If the government would bring those sections of the bill into a separate piece of legislation, I would happily support that legislation, because I think we have to reduce the burden on business and simplify things for business.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This is a really important debate and it's equally as important that there should be a quorum here to hear this debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify if there is a quorum.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole.

1830

Mrs Caplan: I'm pleased that there's now a quorum present so I can continue on with this very important debate. As I was saying, I think it is very important that we reduce the red tape, the hassles and the burden on business and individuals when it comes to filling in tax forms and making sure the federal and the provincial levels of government work closely together, coordinate their efforts, to try and not only eliminate the kind of duplication that we often see, but also, when it comes to filing forms, that they should be simplified. I think that's one of the things we could do to foster an environment that provides an attractive place for businesses to invest. However, as I speak to Bill 31 I say that should be done but tax increases should not be done.

We can do a lot of those things cooperatively with the federal government and with other levels of government that would particularly assist businesses and individuals as they fill out their forms. We in fact could reduce the forms. It seems to me that both individuals and businesses are overgoverned with paperwork and that the numbers of forms they have to fill out for all levels of government are onerous and time-consuming and confusing.

I was pleased to say that I could support some of those aspects in this bill that in fact bring consistency in approach between the provincial and the federal levels. However, as they are part of the package of this bill, I won't have the opportunity to support those initiatives. If I tried to support those initiatives, because they're included in this bill, I'd have to also support the horrific tax increases that are included in the bill, and that I will not do. But I wanted to be on the record that I do support anything which will streamline, clarify and assist individuals and businesses as they report or make their income tax statements to the government.

One of the things many people don't realize is that Ontario personal income tax rates are adjusted as a percentage of federal income tax payable. In the NDP's May budget, the government increased Ontario's personal income tax rate as a percentage of the federal income tax rate.

Let me tell you what is contained in Bill 31. This is what the budget stated and this is what is contained in Bill 31: Starting July 1, provincial income tax will be collected at a rate of 58% of basic federal income tax payable for 1993 and subsequent years. Under Bill 31 the net increase the government expects to collect in 1993-94 as a result of the tax increase is $960 million. That was information contained in the budget of May 1993. That means that just in personal income tax alone the tax hit is almost $1 billion. Because of the higher tax rates, in a full taxation year the provincial government will get an additional $840 million in higher personal income tax.

I'd like to explain what that means, because I know that's confusing for people watching. You see, Bill 31 sets the rate at 58% for the full year of 1993-94, but the government is actually collecting the higher income tax for this fiscal year at a rate of 61% of basic federal tax. Such a level allows the new Ministry of Finance to receive a full year's worth of tax revenue in the last six years of 1993.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The last six years of 1993?

Mrs Caplan: In the last six months of 1993. I thank the Minister of Labour.

Let me repeat again, because it's important, that at this level it is not at the rate of 58% that the government is collecting personal income tax as a percentage of federal tax revenue; this new level of taxation increase allows the Ministry of Finance to receive a full year's worth of tax revenue in the final six months of 1993. The effect of that is retroactive taxation.

I've had calls to my office from irate and angry constituents who understand not only what that means but the precedent that sets. It's a precedent of double taxation during one year, because this budget was not established until May. They backed it up and said, "We're going to collect that as though this tax was started in January." In fact, it is a double burden to the taxpayer and it sets a precedent for retroactive taxation which I believe should be of concern not only to the taxpayers of this province but to legislators, because this Parliament and our democracy are based on precedents. I've said to the NDP before, you will rue the day in the future when the very precedents you've brought forward are continued in a way which perhaps had never been contemplated.

As I mentioned, this budget increase is the second hike in the provincial income tax rate in the past two years.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask for a quorum call.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole.

1840

Mrs Caplan: As I was saying, this budget increase, the one in Bill 31, is the second tax hike in the provincial income tax rate in the past two years. Last year, the government increased the provincial tax rate to 54.5% of basic federal income tax. In the 1992-93 budget year, the tax rate was supposed to increase to 55% of the federal tax rate in 1993. That's what a lot of businesses and individuals did their planning on. The 58% tax rate contained in Bill 31 is a three-percentage-point hike in the rate compared to the 55% rate which was established in last year's provincial budget, and I would point out that the rate established in last year's provincial budget was an increase over the previous year.

Bill 31 also increases Ontario's high-income surtax to 20% of provincial personal income tax in excess of $5,500, up from the current rate of 14%, and 10% on income tax in excess of $8,000, up from 6%. The new system has been in effect since July 1 even though this legislation has not yet been passed.

As with personal income tax rates, the high-income surtax has been changed twice. It has been charged and changed twice in the past two budgets. In the 1992 budget, the Treasurer lowered the income threshold where a person begins paying the surtax to approximately $51,000, down from $84,000. Let me repeat, if you earn $51,000 in the province of Ontario, you are considered rich by the NDP and you are required now to pay a surtax of 20% on the basis of your income.

Under the new rates the province expects to receive $180 million in 1993-94 in higher taxes as a result of the surtax. In a full taxation year, the government predicts that the tax increase, that new revenue, will be $280 million.

I would remind the government that the effect of its tax increases has resulted in job loss. The effect of their tax increases has been to cause business bankruptcies, to slow economic growth in recovery, and the net result has been lower revenues to the provincial treasury. Those are the facts.

The impact of these two income tax changes, the personal income tax and the surtax changes, is very significant. They differ between taxpayers depending upon income and economic circumstances. Under Bill 31 a single person making $70,000 a year will pay an extra $705 and a two-income family of four with a combined income of $60,000 will pay another $225 to the government. Only single tax filers with incomes of $20,000 will pay more income tax under Bill 31. It is only single tax filers with incomes of $20,000, and they too will have to pay income tax increases under Bill 31.

At this income level, single-earner families of four, two-earner families of four and senior couples are the only ones who don't see their taxes increase. However, because of the broadening of the retail tax base, which we saw within Bill 30, all of those groups, even those at an income level of $20,000 or less, will be impacted by tax increases of the NDP government.

There are many people who say, "Well, the surtax, that's only fair. Rich people" -- I remind you the NDP definition of rich is $51,000 -- "in this province should be paying more." The net effect of those surtaxes on those earning $51,000 is that there will be reduced consumer spending in this province, and that is a negative effect on the provincial economy.

I don't believe people earning $51,000 are rich. I think today they represent a declining group in our society. Many people who have been employed for many numbers of years who thought they had job security and who may be earning in the $50,000 range are feeling insecure, and those people who are paying significantly more provincial income tax, significantly more surtax and significantly more sales tax are going to have less money available to spend at Christmastime on presents for their children and their family, or on basic necessities: food, clothing and those things which make life just a little easier, particularly during a long and cold winter.

The fact that they will not be out spending because they're paying more in taxes means that the retailers, those who are selling the goods, and those in the service sector who provide services to the people of province of Ontario will continue to hurt as retail sales remain low. As retailers, they tell me business is slow.

That is not helped, in fact it is hurt, by continued increases in personal income tax. So Bill 31 is not worthy and deserving of support because it does not assist in creating an environment where jobs will flourish. It does not create a climate of consumer confidence, and I've explained at some length why it doesn't do that. It sends out the wrong message to business in this province.

I believe there are many things the government could be doing to create that environment which would give individuals confidence, which would give businesses confidence and which would give potential investors confidence that Ontario's economy will be strong again. There are many things that the government could be doing, should be doing, and that I wish it was doing.

The one thing that the government should not be doing is increasing the tax burden on individuals and businesses. Bill 31 is not only misguided, but Bill 31 is harmful to the Ontario economy.

As part of the discussions on Bill 31, I think it's timely and appropriate that we take a look at what the NDP record is in the province of Ontario and perhaps compare it. As to the words I frequently hear shouted across this floor from NDP government members, members of the government caucus, some of the things they say are: "Well, what did you do? You had five years." So I think this debate is an important time, if I can, to put those comparisons on the record.

I'll use the years 1986 to 1990 because we assumed the government in the middle of the fiscal year -- it was actually three months into it, in May -- and the NDP assumed government in 1991, so I'll use the calendar years for my comparisons. Actually, if you look at the fiscal years and take only those portions that actually belong to the Liberal government versus the NDP government, what you'd find is that in fact the Liberal record is even better than what I'm about to put on the record here today.

What was the unemployment rate? I see the Minister of Labour shaking his head. Minister of Labour, you know that the unemployment rate during the years of 1986 to 1990 averaged 5.9% in the province of Ontario under a Liberal government. What's the unemployment rate under an NDP government between the years 1990 and 1993? It's 10.4%; that has been the average unemployment rate and we know the real unemployment is much higher when you factor in the number of people who have stopped looking for work.

I mentioned before how many jobs were created on an average annual basis. We know that under a Liberal government between 1986 and 1990 the number of jobs created was 112,000. What was the NDP record? A reduction, a loss of 41,000 jobs annually, on average. These are crude examples of the economic mismanagement and a comparison. It is an answer to those who shout across to me: "What did you do? What was your record?"

1850

The real average GDP growth per annum between 1986 and 1990 under the Liberal government was 3.3%, average annual real GDP growth; under the NDP, it has been 0.3%, on average. I contend that while the NDP will argue, justifiably, that the recession has been broader than just Ontario, I believe, as I've said, that Ontario has suffered and suffered more because of the policies of the NDP than we would have if we'd had any other government that understood the need to restore confidence, to give business and individuals the kinds of public policies that would encourage job creation and investor confidence. What did we see from the NDP? We saw 0.3% as real annual GDP growth since they assumed office in 1990.

Deficits: Let's just take a look at what the average deficit was between the Liberal government of 1986-90 and the NDP government of 1991-93. The average annual deficit was $1.9 billion, compared to the NDP's average annual deficit of $11.1 billion.

I want to point out that Bob Rae has said that his goal, the goal of his government, is to balance the operating portion of that budget by 1998. I want you to know, for the record, that Bob Rae inherited a fully balanced budget in 1989-90, in the last full year of the Liberal government, and the Provincial Auditor has attested to that. The Liberal budget of 1989-90 was the first fully balanced budget in over 20 years. We had balanced operating budgets in 1988, 1989 and 1990. Try as hard as they would --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There are questions and comments after the speech is delivered, and I would suggest perhaps that you wait until that time occurs.

Mrs Caplan: There seems to be some debate. What I'm saying is absolutely correct and accurate. I'm going to read into the record the report from the Provincial Auditor and what he had to say about the books of the province of Ontario. It says in our 1991 annual report, this is from the Provincial Auditor's report: "...we reported on various factors associated with government deficits in general, as well as specific comments related to Ontario's deficit. The purpose of this section is to provide an informational update."

This is directly out of the Provincial Auditor's report. "Definition: A government's deficit represents its excess of expenditure over revenue in any given year. A government's accumulated deficit equals the total of annual deficits, less any annual surpluses."

I want everyone in this House and those who are listening to this debate to pay very close attention to the next sentence from the Provincial Auditor's report.

"Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years (year ended March 31, 1990). For the year ended March 31, 1991, Ontario's deficit was $3.0 billion, and its accumulated deficit was $38.4 billion."

The Provincial Auditor goes on to say this about the 1991 deficit: "The 1990 budget, which was tabled on April 24, 1990, forecast a surplus of $30 million for the year ended March 31, 1991. The annual deficit, as stated, was $3.029 billion, a variance of $3.059 billion from budget.

"The major factors contributing to this variance were:

" -- the extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget;

"Total revenues were down by approximately $1.1 billion due primarily to the influence of the recession on taxation revenues. Excluding special payments, total expenditures were up by approximately $1 billion, with the increase in social assistance payments the major contributing factor.

" -- special payments which were not provided for in the budget.

"Special payments aggregating $924 million were made regarding the Ontario teachers' pension fund ($196 million), Urban Transportation Development Corp Ltd ($407 million) and the Stadium Corp of Ontario Ltd ($321 million). The nature of these payments is explained in sections 4.4 and 4.5 of this report."

What the Provincial Auditor has said here is that even with all of the policy changes of the NDP when it assumed office in September 1990 and the policy changes which resulted in a deficit of $3 billion by March 1991, at the end of that fiscal year, as a result of their 14% increase in spending and their spending plan, they still had an operating surplus at the end of 1991. That's what is significant, and let me explain the significance of that.

The capital budget for the province in that year was in excess of $3 billion. It was about $3.2 billion. Bob Rae inherited a balanced operating budget, and the Provincial Auditor has attested to that.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): No, he didn't.

Mrs Caplan: That is the truth. That is in the Provincial Auditor's report, and whether you like it or not, those are the facts.

The facts also are, and I know the NDP doesn't like to hear this, that the operating budget had been in balance for the years previous back to 1987, when it was almost an operating balance. The only fully balanced budget in 20 years occurred in the province of Ontario in the fiscal year 1989-90. That's the reality. That is the truth. It is attested to by the Provincial Auditor, and for all the squawking from NDP members, it's not going to change the Provincial Auditor's opinion.

The point I want to make on the Provincial Auditor's opinion is that for the first time in the history of the province of Ontario, the Provincial Auditor refused to give an unqualified opinion as to the books of the province, as presented by the NDP government in this past fiscal year. That is a shame, but it's more than that. It's a terrible concern to me as a member of this House. It is a concern to me as a representative of over 70,000 people in the riding of Oriole. They have a right to expect that the provincial government's books will be open and clear and transparent and accepted by the Provincial Auditor as being truthful and a factual, accurate accounting of the province's financial situation.

1900

When the Provincial Auditor says he will not give an unqualified opinion that the province has presented factual and accurate books, then the taxpayers have a right to know where their money is going and why the provincial Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, and the Premier, Bob Rae, cannot provide that accurate statement so that the auditor, who acts in the public interest, could give them an unqualified opinion.

That is the shame of the NDP. It is a first in the history of the province, and I'm not going to let this government forget it. For all of their rhetoric, for all of the damage they have done to this economy, for the damage they have done to the credibility of the province of Ontario, having the Provincial Auditor refuse to attest to the veracity of the books of the province is a shame the magnitude of which has not yet been fully understood.

How can business and investors have confidence in this province when the Provincial Auditor will not attest to and give an unqualified opinion on the state of the health of the province's books? How can anyone have confidence that this government is being open and accountable when the Provincial Auditor will not give an unqualified opinion that your books are honest? I'm angry and frustrated and I'm speaking on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole. They have a right to expect better.

When you look at the growth overall in the debt of this province, you can see why people are worried. During the years of 1986-90, there was an average percentage growth in the debt of the province of 5.1%. That was considered by anyone who looked at the province as being affordable and manageable.

What we know is that the test of, "How much debt?" is how well you can afford to pay your interest payments, and at that point in time, during the years 1986-90, the percentage of debt, the cost of debt servicing, the cost of the debt as a percentage of revenue, was under 10% and that was considered fiscally responsible, fiscally prudent. It resulted in the province's AAA credit rating being restored under a Liberal government, and that's something of which I am particularly proud.

What has been the average percentage growth in debt under the NDP during the years 1991 to 1993 and how does it compare to the Liberal record of 5.1% average rate of growth? It is 23.7% as an average annual rate of growth of the debt in the province of Ontario. That's why the province's credit rating has been downgraded twice. That's why the province has been placed on credit watch, because our debt has become unaffordable and our debt payment has become problematic.

I say to you as I stand here today that if we could have a change of economic policy and direction --

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): A change of government is what we need.

Mrs Caplan: As the member for Scarborough North says, yes, we need a change of government, but I believe this government in the remaining two years of its mandate, and I hope it will be shorter, could begin at least to understand what so many people are telling it about the damaging effects of its fiscal policy.

I want to again quote the Provincial Auditor --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: A quorum call.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check if there's a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I was about to quote the Provincial Auditor, because I do believe his opinion is important. I'm very concerned that, for whatever reason, the members of the NDP caucus don't seem to value the importance of the Provincial Auditor's statements. The fact that the Provincial Auditor has not attested to the books is of concern to me and it certainly should be of concern to the NDP members opposite.

On page 14 of the Provincial Auditor's report of 1991, he clearly stated that Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years and that was the year ended March 31, 1990. We know that under the Conservative governments there were 15 straight years of deficits. We know as well that each year in office the Liberal government reduced the deficit every year. Ultimately, the first surplus was produced, as attested to by the Provincial Auditor, March 31, 1990.

One of the things that I want to say again is that there has been some discussion here, and I can see people are concerned about the level of the debate. But I think it's important that this be on the record at a time when we're discussing a tax bill which is hiking taxes, a tax bill, like Bill 31, which is increasing the tax burden and threatening Ontario's competitive advantage.

The public has a right to know what the Provincial Auditor has had to say and also what Floyd Laughren and what Bob Rae have had to say from time to time. We know that there was a prediction of a second budget surplus at the time the election was called in 1990. I just read into the record the fact that by the end of that fiscal year, in March 1991, that projected surplus had become a deficit. Under NDP policy, it had risen to $3 billion. Why did that happen? The Provincial Auditor explained it this way -- and he provides that explanation and I've referred to that.

But in effect, paraphrasing what he said was that the extent of the recession, which could not have been foreseen at budget time, reduced revenues by $1 billion, expenditures were up $1 billion. It's that expenditure that was up $1 billion that I think is a very important number because, while there were contributing factors due to social assistance, there were also contributing factors which were wage increases that were negotiated very quickly with Bob Rae and his government in the fall of 1990 when they assumed office.

Those wage increases had an escalating factor as they were built into the base of the provincial budget. They were reflected the following year when we saw a 12% rate of growth in budget. That's one of the reasons that we are seeing the government now raising taxes at a time when I believe that's the wrong public policy.

There were some statements made by Treasurer-Finance Minister Laughren that I think are important to put on the record during this debate as well. The Finance minister, Mr Laughren, provided a very good explanation on October 12, 1990, when he was asked how the finances could have taken such a dramatic downturn over such a short period of time.

I quote Floyd Laughren: "I don't think anybody lied. I don't think our Treasury officials did anything other than give us their best predictions." That was Floyd Laughren in October 1990.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not believe we have a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please check that there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum isn't present, Speaker.

1910

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: In the short time that I have remaining, I'd like to put on the record the fact that I believe Bob Rae should have known better and in fact was informed not only about what the Liberal policy position was but what he stated, and I'm going to quote him, in the pre-budget reports of 1990-91 when he was the leader of the official opposition. This is what Bob Rae had to say at that time. I believe that this quote reflects the reason that he made the mistakes he did in those first crucial 18 months in government. This is Bob Rae:

"The Ontario government has reacted to predictions of an economic slowdown by dropping its Liberal pretence and showing its true Conservative nature. The Liberal government is now spreading the message that 1991 will be a year of fiscal restraint. The Liberal majority on the finance committee agrees with this Conservative philosophy and has recommended a course of restraint.

"The New Democratic Party challenges this defence of the status quo by calling on the government to implement reform policies needed to bring fairness to our society."

The quote that I just read into the record was Bob Rae's position as leader of the official opposition at the pre-budget hearings of 1990-91. It was that misguided notion that led him, in the first 18 months of assuming the reins of power, to increase spending at a time of recession rather than bringing about the restraint programs which had been preached by the Liberal government.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker: Will you please check if there's a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: I believe that as a result of Bill 31 we will not see an increase in total tax revenues into the treasury of this province. I believe that notwithstanding the huge tax hikes of the last two years, the continued trend of reductions in personal income tax and corporate profits and corporate income taxes will continue to decline, but it's personal income tax that I'm particularly concerned about because that's what Bill 31 is all about.

We have already been told there has been a major shortfall in revenue that has been in the approximate range of $600 million to $700 million from personal income tax revenues. That means the revenues of the province are down from personal income tax. That is likely a result of job loss and absolute wage reductions in the province or of people leaving the province, but we also know that this adjustment on the 1992 tax base will likely mean further downward reductions for 1993. The concern I have is that the budget estimates in 1993, as I stated earlier in my remarks, are overly optimistic and will affect the economic stability in this province.

If there's a message -- I know how difficult it is to do budget predictions. I remember, as a member of the government, that most experts, both within the Ministry of Treasury and Economics at the time and most of the economists in the banking industry and many economists in academia, were predicting that Ontario would not enter a recession at all. Those who did predict a recession for Ontario were predicting that it would be short and shallow. What we have seen is that not only did Ontario enter a recession, but it has been deep, it has been long and it has been painful, and we're coming out of it very slowly, more slowly than anyone predicted.

One of the reasons I put on the record today the facts and the figures and the quotes I did is not because anybody is expert in predictions. We know predictions are exactly that: They are an estimate at a point in time of what you think is likely going to happen. I think we have to do a better job predicting. I wish we had crystal balls that would make it that much easier.

I know that today in Ontario, people are looking with a mixture of anxiety and uncertainty at their future. They are worried about their children and the opportunities their children will have in the province of Ontario. During this recession bankruptcies in Ontario have reached record levels. The unemployment rate has been higher than 11%: unheard-of, record levels of unemployment and job loss in the province of Ontario.

While the recession has been declared officially over, most of us are not feeling the effects of the recovery. That's because it has been slow and sluggish and painful, and I believe it has been slowed by the policies of the NDP government.

There are many people today who don't have jobs and who desperately want an economic environment which will provide them the opportunity to work. People don't want social assistance; they want to work. People want jobs, and it is the responsibility of the provincial government to create a climate where jobs can be provided and flourish in the private sector. Government has a responsibility to enter into that kind of cooperative partnership, sending out those kinds of messages that say Ontario is open for business, that Ontario will maintain its competitive advantage, that Ontario is a good place to do business.

1920

We must see an end to anti-business rhetoric and we must see an end to anti-business economic policy. We must see an end to the kinds of tax increases, as contained in Bill 31, which are hurting individuals -- those people who still have jobs -- who are paying income tax and who are struggling to make ends meet.

So many people with jobs have seen their wages decline. So many people with jobs see their neighbours without jobs. They want their neighbours to have a job. They don't want to have to pay higher taxes to support their neighbours. They want to see their neighbours working and being productive in our society, and they want their children and their neighbours' children to have opportunities.

As I conclude my remarks on Bill 31, I urge the government to reconsider its misguided policy. I urge them to listen to the people. I urge them to listen to myself and to my colleagues who are saying to them: Your tax policy is killing jobs in the province of Ontario. Your tax policy is taking money out of the economy that could increase consumer confidence. Your tax policy and economic mismanagement are slowing the economic recovery. Listen to what we are saying to you and act now. Act now to change your course.

As I complete the debate on Bill 31, I say to the Treasurer that he has an opportunity -- this is second reading of Bill 31 -- before this bill is proclaimed into law to give the people of Ontario, to give my constituents in the riding of Oriole, a little bit of hope and stability and security by not raising taxes at this time. The way to increase the confidence of the people of this province is to give them a stable economic environment. Holding the line on taxes is an important first step in doing that.

I've had the honour and the privilege of representing the people of Oriole since 1985. I'm very proud of the record of achievement, the opportunity that I've had to influence public policy. I must say to them and to you that I've been frustrated in the last little while because I sense that the NDP is not listening and doesn't want to listen. I'm doing what I can to give them good advice, to give them alternatives and suggestions. I despair when there are so few in the House who pay attention to that advice, when the Minister of Finance and the Premier, Bob Rae, are not interested in hearing what members of the official opposition have to say that is constructive and helpful.

I will not be supporting Bill 31 because I don't believe it's in the interests of my constituents in the riding of Oriole and I don't believe it's in the interests of the people of the province of Ontario.

Thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate today.

Mr Curling: Once again the member for Oriole has expressed the views that are cheered by millions in this province. I can tell you, Mr Speaker, she speaks with authority, not from guesswork like the government over there; an individual who has held the position on Management Board, who has watched and managed the finances of the government in those days.

It's painful, I know, to her as she watches the wasteful way this government is spending this money. What she tries to tell them all is that this is the wrong time for increasing income tax in Ontario. Will they listen? No.

She speaks very well also for the concern of my constituents in Scarborough North. She warned them, as a matter of fact, that the people are feeling the pinch and it is not the way to go about things. They go about changing their names. It's like shuffling the furniture around the home and really believing that they've changed their home. All they are doing is changing titles to their positions and making things, as a matter of fact, worse. It's just despicable, the manner in which this government has carried out its affairs.

The other day there was an article in the paper that showed there are more middle class on welfare, people who have earned a good income and have no jobs. This government has driven the unemployment rate to a rate that today is completely unacceptable.

I want to say, for those who are sleeping over on the government side, for those who refuse to attend when they extend the time, to take the time, some time when they're rested, to read the comments by the member for Oriole, who has expressed her views so well. As a matter of fact, if they could just follow 5% of what she said, the government would be in a position to manage this province in a better way.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The message that the member for Oriole has conveyed today is, I think, an excellent one and one that I do hope the government will listen to.

The anomaly here is that when the tax rate is increased, the tax revenue actually goes down, and we're seeing that here today. What happens is that jobs are lost, businesses go bankrupt and work goes underground, so tax revenue is lost. That certainly is a valid message. This budget will probably cost Ontario up to 50,000 jobs, the income tax and the other impacts of the budget that was implemented earlier this year.

The message we're getting is that you cannot increase taxes; you must reduce the burden -- another reference from the member for Oriole -- on businesses, reduce the paperwork, reduce the red tape, eliminate Bill 40 and reduce all these other impediments to business in the province of Ontario.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: I must say, though, over the heckling, that the message would be more believable if it didn't come from the Liberal ranks. I look at the spending that took place from 1985 to 1990, when the Liberals were in power. The average increase in spending during the Liberal years in the province of Ontario, adjusted for inflation, was 5.5% over and above the rate of inflation. Each and every year during the Liberal years, the spending increased by over 5.5% in the province of Ontario. The revenue generated per capita increased from $2,900 to $4,300 for every man, woman and child during the Liberal years in the province of Ontario. So there's a message that is coming from the wrong source. They spent the money.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I listened to the member for Oriole speak. She talked first of all about the rule changes and then she wasted 30 minutes ending the debate. She didn't even want to talk about the issue. She asked for a 30-minute bell, and then went on to explain to the general public what had just happened. Well, what had just happened was that she wasted 30 minutes of debating time that could have been used by other members.

She uses the Liberal record. I remember the increase to 8% in the sales tax, and she talks about the taxes that this government has put out. Let me talk about the 8% tax and how it affects even my child, who is receiving an allowance. When you give him $5 a week as allowance, it even affects him, because when he bought something, it went from a 7% sales tax to an 8% sales tax.

When they talk about the economic situation that was there, first of all, a lot of people in the province of Ontario were not faced with the free trade agreement that was closing plants left and right in rural Ontario. Unemployment hadn't escalated. Then the Tories came along with a 7% GST on top of the 14.5% manufacturing tax and they hit that to the general public. That was all forgotten in the dialogue.

The member for Oriole talked about Liberal spending and the Liberals' way of controlling. That member travelled southwestern Ontario and promised every community a hospital: spending, spending, spending money, which the member totally ignores.

When she uses the issue of the Liberal record, let's take a look at the economic situation that was there. I remember David Peterson standing on a manure spreader talking about how he was going to save jobs and everything else.

People ask me why I wear cowboy boots in here. It's because I just listened to over 90 minutes of stuff that we find in the fields today. It's called natural fertilizer. That is why today most people in this House wear boots, because of the stuff that was talked about today.

I wish the member would reflect on the issues that are being put forward today and understand those issues that are being put forward today and understand those issues instead of that.

1930

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I think what is really important to understand in this province is the fact that we have some historical events taking place with the Bob Rae socialist party in government. For the first time in Ontario's history, the Provincial Auditor has refused to give an unqualified endorsement of the provincial government's public accounts.

Erik Peters said he could not give an unqualified endorsement because the accounts understated the 1992-93 deficit and because of some concern about the modified cash basis of accounting used by the government of Ontario. Yet we've got a bill today where we're talking about increasing the personal income tax of the people of this province.

I think it's absolutely deplorable that this government doesn't know how to operate and get its books in order. I'm quoting the Provincial Auditor, because that is not a political, partisan statement. In his 1992-93 report on public accounts, he noted that had deferrals and special payments to the teachers' pension fund been accounted for in the year in which they actually occurred, both spending and the accumulated deficit last year would have been $528 million higher than reported.

We've got a situation where this government doesn't even tell the people of this province what is truly going on. We have a situation where all they think they have to do is think up another way, another form of taxation, another formula for a cash cow in order to get more money for their misused spending.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate.

Mr Hope: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Doesn't the member opposite have two minutes to respond to it?

The Deputy Speaker: She has, but she's not here and she obviously doesn't want to take advantage of it. Therefore, it's further debate.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to this very important piece of legislation. Bill 31 is one of the largest tax grabs in the history of the province of Ontario. It has been borne out with adjusted numbers, whole numbers, percentages etc. This tax grab that has been approved, and which through legislation we are debating today, by this socialist government is one of the largest in the history of this province when it comes down to taxes and the sheer volume of dollars that this government is trying to extract from the citizens of this great province. I suggest that I have no interest in supporting any bill that is going to give this government any more money of the taxpayers' dollars to spend on fanciful ideas and wrongheaded approaches.

I will note that when this government came into power, between 1990 and 1992, the arguments you've heard today about restraint and constraint and organization of the dollars and priorities etc, when you folks took office, the amount of dollars that were being spent by this province -- and I don't say the Liberals are perfect. In fact, I think they spent too, but let's be clear. In 1989, just over $40 billion was being spent by any government in the province of Ontario. Since you've come to office, and I only go to 1992, from just over $40 billion this government has increased spending to nearly $55 billion. So don't sing me any songs about holding the line and priority spending and, "We've got a constraint-minded government." You've gone from just over $40 billion to $55 billion in three short years.

There haven't been priorities set, because I recall vividly the first budget this government brought down. The first budget this government brought down called for a $10-billion deficit and an increase in government spending unparalleled during an economic recession. It was a huge and horrible mistake. I think that now, when you look back to those few short years ago, a high percentage, practically all the members across the floor will admit that was a huge and horrible, disastrous mistake you made by increasing government spending, the billions and billions of dollars that you did in those years.

That is where this whole platform, this whole house of cards begins to break down, because if you hadn't taken such an irresponsible approach in that first budget, we wouldn't be in the kind of economic mess we're in today, because all your problems have been predicated by that huge jump in spending that you took in that first budget.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): No, no.

Mr Stockwell: I know some will say no because they refuse to see the obvious. Even the Minister of Finance and the Premier themselves would admit, I believe, that first budget had to be the largest mistake. They will admit that was the largest mistake you have made.

To allow you to comprehend my argument, I think I should give you half an hour. I move adjournment of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has moved the adjournment of the debate.

Mr Stockwell: No, the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Just give me a minute.

Mr Stockwell: What's the holdup, sir? I will continue speaking while you figure this out so I don't lose any time.

The Deputy Speaker: In this instance, and the rule is very clear, when a motion for the immediate adjournment of the House has been defeated, no other such motion shall be made unless some intermediate proceedings have taken place. You could move the adjournment of the debate, not the adjournment of the House.

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has moved, as I understand it, adjournment of the House approximately some hour and a half of debate, after the member for Oriole has concluded her remarks, since the last motion to adjourn the House. There is a precedent I believe on several occasions in this very Parliament since the 1990 election where this has happened several times in one afternoon.

Interjection: No.

Mr Eves: Yes, it has. As a matter of fact, there has been intervening business. The intervening business is, if you need it, the hour of debate that the member for Oriole has participated in since then, the three or four members who have participated in question and answer sessions, so there are four more members who have spoken, plus some of the remarks of the member for Etobicoke West. There have been at least five speakers since this last motion to adjourn the House was made.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to rise first of all to support your ruling. The traditions here have been quite clear and it seems strange that you've not only made a ruling but you provided the member opposite with an alternative that he could clearly use which has been the tradition here. The House has spoken clearly in a vote that rejected the adjournment of the House. Mr Speaker, I hope you will maintain your ruling.

The Deputy Speaker: I will accept the adjournment of the debate; I will not accept the adjournment of the House.

Mr Stockwell: I will continue then, Mr Speaker. I would comment that I find it rather unbelievable considering the fact that in this Legislature, in this House, in the few short years I've been here --

Mr Eves: Move adjournment of the debate.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, I move the adjournment of the debate, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Stockwell has moved the adjournment of the debate. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1941 to 2011.

The Deputy Speaker: Will the members please take their seats.

Mr Stockwell has moved the adjournment of the debate. All those in favour of the motion will please rise and remain standing.

All those opposed to the motion will please rise and remain standing.

The ayes are 0; the nays are 50. I declare the motion lost.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I'll move adjournment of the House.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Stockwell has moved the adjournment of the House. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members. This will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 2013 to 2043.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would all members please take their seats. The member for Etobicoke West, Mr Stockwell, moved adjournment of the House.

All those in favour of his motion will please rise and remain standing until counted by the table.

All those opposed to Mr Stockwell's motion will please rise and remain standing until counted by the table.

The ayes being 0 and the nays 47, I declare the motion lost. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor to resume his speech on Bill 31.

Mr Stockwell: I want to get into the auditor's report on the NDP books. Why I think that is a good issue to become involved in at this point is because they're asking the taxpayers in the province of Ontario to come up with an extra $1 billion to $2 billion in tax hikes, and I think we should take a moment at this time to imagine exactly why they need this money and exactly how well they've used the money that they've collected during the past three years and the comments that the auditor has on these issues and concerns.

The auditor had come forward with a pretty interesting point of view that the government members don't particularly care for, but it is a rather stinging indictment of this government's handling of the fiscal matters in this province over the last three years.

I read that the issue is the Provincial Auditor's refusal to give an unqualified approval to the province's 1992-93 public accounts, which vindicates the concerns of the PC caucus, in my opinion, about the government's accounting methods and its call for a clearer, more comprehensive set of books.

The facts of the case are simply this, and I will read them out, "For the first time in Ontario's history, the Provincial Auditor has refused to give an unqualified endorsement of the provincial government's public accounts."

To me, as I said, that is a rather stinging indictment of this government. It seems rather unbelievable that a government spending upwards of $55 billion of taxpayers' money, going into debt of $10 billion, $11 billion, $12 billion, $13 billion a year, would have the audacity to go back to the people looking for more tax dollars to spend on their behalf when they can't even get their books endorsed by the Provincial Auditor, who is appointed by this government.

If the Provincial Auditor's not prepared to sign off on the government's books, it seems to me that the government should put its books in order before they seek any more money from those taxpayers who work so hard to get it in the first place.

Erik Peters said he could not give an unqualified endorsement, because the accounts -- and I want to be clear and I want to underline this -- understated the 1992-93 deficit and because of some concerns about the modified cash basis of accounting used by the government of Ontario.

What in essence the auditor's saying is this government knowingly and wilfully understated the amount of money that it spent in the 1992-93 books. They understated this because they wanted to be sure that the deficit figures they were trying to bring in would come below that magic $10-billion figure, as if $10 billion is some kind of magical number for fiscal ability to handle dollars and cents.

He has said that in fact this government with its $500-million deferral has understated the deficit dollars on the books and has left him in the very awkward position of not being able to sign off the government's books.

If this auditor cannot be prepared to sign the government's books, it must leave the taxpayers in this province in a very, very precarious situation. That situation is: How do they know that the money that's being spent at this level of government is being properly administered, properly accounted and properly spent when the auditor that this government appointed is not prepared to say he believes proper accounting principles have been followed.

In his report on the 1992-93 public accounts, the Provincial Auditor said he noted if they had deferrals -- they, being the government -- and special payments to the TPF, the teachers' pension fund, being accounted for in the year in which they actually occurred, both spending and accumulated deficit last year would have been $528 million higher than reported. The auditor later told the public accounts committee on October 21, 1993, that his office concluded this treatment of pension payments was an inappropriate shift of expenditures between two fiscal years.

I would say to this government, when they're asking for a billion new dollars in taxes, that this was not new information to them when they announced this budget. I know I personally stood in this House and alerted this government to the trickery that this kind of thing would mean.

What it meant was they postponed a payment to the teachers' pension fund by 91 days in order to keep their artificial deficit figures below the magical -- and I don't know why -- $10-billion figure. This has caused the auditor a great deal of concern and he's itemized them in the auditor's report that he has said has caused him not to be able to give a clean bill of health to this government's accounting procedures.

2050

I know how we can argue about a lot of things from these people across the floor. I understand how you think that spending money sometimes is going to create prosperity in the province and I understand how you think Jobs Ontario is working and we don't. I understand also that you think some of the plans you've put in place are fiscally responsible and we don't. I also understand how you think having a $12-billion or $13-billion or $14-billion deficit is good fiscal management and I don't.

But what I don't understand is how you can look us in the eye and argue about fiscal management and fiscal responsibility when a non-partisan, third-party auditor says categorically that you're not dealing with the fiscal responsibilities that government should deal with.

In fact, moving $500 million off-book, off-debt, in-year to keep an artificial rate on your deficit -- I don't know how anyone could make the argument that this is a sensible, practical approach to fiscal management in any government in any place in the world. That's why I have a very great concern about allowing these people to take any more money out of the taxpayers of this province when they haven't accounted for the money they've taken to date. I think that's a reasonable request, a very reasonable request.

The auditor moves on. He noted that the financial statements do not report on CRF inflows and outflows, but "are not summary financial statements that would more fully report on the nature and extent of the financial affairs and operations of the government of Ontario."

I will say this: When dealing with the preflows, previous governments did the same thing. I don't think that's exactly where the auditor fell off the table when it came to signing off on these books. Previous governments did it, and it was wrong. I think a Conservative government did it between 1981 and 1985, to a far less extent, but still it was wrong. I know that the Liberal government between 1985 and 1990 also did tricks with the preflows, and that was wrong.

But you have continued this charade and taken it to higher levels where whole dollars are greater than we dealt with in the early 1980s under the Conservative regime. That doesn't make the practice right. I think if they had maintained that practice on preflows, they may have got a stern warning from the auditor, but nothing as dramatic and to the point as what the auditor stated in his letter to the Premier with respect to the $528 million that they chose not to use, that they chose to flow to the following year.

I will say this, and this is where I have a very serious difference of opinion with this government: When you postponed your payment to the teachers' pension fund -- and that's really what it was, a postponement of payment -- you readily admitted you had to make that payment, agreed that payment should have been made on January 1 and you simply postponed that payment to April 1. What was the fallout of that decision?

I look to the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance. I look to you directly and I say, what is the fallout to the postponement of the teachers' pension fund? What was the fallout of that decision? I ask you to stand up any place, any time and defend that position, because, sir, you know as well as I do the postponement of that $528-million payment cost you money. It cost you money because you had to pay an increased percentage to the teachers' pension fund to continue borrowing that for an additional 91 days. You know that and I know that.

We may debate about how much it cost you, but you would agree that it cost you some moneys. You suggest $2 million; other sources have said $5 million. What it comes down to is that the decision by this government to postpone that payment cost the taxpayers of this province $2 million to $5 million. What did we get for that, I ask the parliamentary assistant? I look at you directly because I think it's your responsibility to defend these decisions because the Treasurer's not here today.

I ask you directly, for that $2 million to $5 million, what service, what program was there, what road was built, what bridge was built, what was done with that $2 million to $5 million to benefit the taxpayers of the province of Ontario? Sir, I say to you, nothing was done with that money other than to keep your deficit artificially low so that you would look good to the great unwashed out there, the taxpayers in the province of Ontario. If you had spent that on anything, it would have been better than what you did with the money.

If you had spent it on any program, any union, a union song, a union joke class, I don't care, it would have been better than what you did with the money, because you didn't do anything with it. You simply paid increased interest rates to artificially deflate your deficit and try to fob off to the great unwashed, the public, that your deficit was really $528 million less than it truly was.

If you believe that is proper fiscal management from a government that represents some 10 million to 11 million people, then, sir, I completely, wholeheartedly and fundamentally disagree with you. That is smoke-and-mirrors budgeting.

I've asked you to defend that decision since you've done it. I've asked the Treasurer to defend that decision since he's done it. Neither has. I suppose they haven't because it's not defensible. That position was not defensible.

I don't think we have a quorum.

The Speaker: Would the table count to determine if there is a quorum present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Todd Decker): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: A quorum being present, the member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to outline some of the concerns surrounding this budget in my next few moments of comments.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): Which budget are you talking about, the next one?

Mr Stockwell: No, the previous budget. Now is the wrong time, during this particular budget, to be increasing income taxes in Ontario. The province's economic recovery, which this government has been touting it seems like since it got elected, is modest at best, if modest at all. Instead, the government plans, in this particular budget, to take out an extra $1.1 billion in personal income taxes; that's been stretched to some $2 billion in the next budget and higher tax rates.

Removing this money to pay for Bob Rae's economic mismanagement will only dampen consumer spending and hurt business confidence at this crucial point in the recovery. Those are the comments we made when you announced this budget.

If there's any general consensus that's taken place in the last 12 to 13 months, it's that this budget you introduced that sucked all these taxes has done one thing: It generally dampened business confidence and consumer confidence and has retarded the hopeful growth in the economic performance during the last couple of fiscal years.

You shake your head no. I defy you, I defy any member across the floor to point out to me any study that has indicated that your tax grabs in the last three years have done anything except hinder the growth and hopeful growth of the performance and economic growth of this province. I defy you to show me any study, any qualified comment by a qualified economist. I defy you to show me anyone, other than yourselves as you cloister together, circling the wagons against all attackers, be it business, small and large, be it the Liberals or Conservatives, or be it your own apparent friends, the OFL. They've all categorically agreed that the taxes you've taken out of the economy have done nothing to spur or hopefully increase the productive growth in these past economic years.

Average Ontarians are paying the price for Bob Rae's economic mismanagement. I point to this: Twice in the past two budgets the government has increased the personal income tax rate; they did it again the following year, and boosted the high-income surcharge; they did it again the following year. The reason people have less of their own money is because the government cannot keep its own spending under control. You can't.

You talked about this three-legged stool. The three-legged-stool approach, as this government said, consisted of a leg for taxes, one for cutbacks in wages and I believe service reductions is the other. You know full well from your Treasurer's comments that your three-legged stool has turned into a one-legged stool. The only place where you've actually met your projections was in the increased taxes that you called for in your budget.

2100

Your social contract called for $2 billion in savings. You all know full well that you haven't made your $2 billion in savings. You know you will never make your $2 billion in savings considering the time of year and the fiscal period of time you have left to make those recoveries.

Low income: This is one of the most amazing things from a socialist government. They try to say this is not true but it's categorically true. Every economist, every financial house, every major player in the Ontario market has said this is a fact and I want them to listen to this. Low-income Ontarians are being forced to give more in taxes to pay for the NDP's economic ineptitude. People earning as little as $20,000 a year must pay higher income tax or retail sales tax. In these tough times, asking the least well-off in our society to pay more to reduce the government's deficit seems somewhat unfair and that's what you did in your budget.

People making as little as $20,000 a year were assessed tax hikes by your government. The very people who you purported to represent, who you purported to say didn't have a voice in these hallowed halls, the very people who never got a chance to have their opinions heard in this august chamber, are the same people you hammered for income tax increases; $20,000 a year.

The government tax hikes more than wiped out the increased assistance to low-income Ontarians. The government has increased the amount of assistance for low-income Ontarians under the Ontario tax reduction program by $30. That's what they did during this budget. The government considers a family of four earning $23,000 to fall within the definition of low-income, but the extra tax bite because of this budget amounts to $60 for a family of four earning $20,000. So the government gave $30 back to these poor people with one hand and took $60 from them with another, and they call this equitable and fair. The government has wiped out the extra assistance that could help needy families with its own ill-advised tax grab from the very same group they were claiming to help. Unbelievable; absolutely unbelievable.

I want to review a couple of other issues that I think need to be addressed in this, and this government always likes to make the comparison.

Some of the heavier weights from our caucus are coming in and I'd like to thank the member for Carleton. He's certainly providing moral support in this difficult period of trying to fight back this socialist government's tax grabs on the people of Ontario; the member for Grey-Owen Sound has come in.

This government has made a big mistake in trying this kind of parliamentary gamesmanship. This government has made a big mistake on this particular issue today when it -- I say to the member who represents Midland, whose popularity there is unrivalled, I say to these members that they made a big mistake today when they decided to extend these sittings around the clock, because if you want to start talking about taxes around the clock and your tax grabs, there will be only one loser at the end of this debate, my friends, and the loser will be you, because the people in this province are fed up. They're sick and tired of the taxes you've heaped on them. You have scorned their very existence. They are having great difficulty making ends meet and you continually, incessantly, never give them a break when it comes to grabbing everything you can from the taxpayers.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If we are going to be here this late in the evening at the behest of the government, then they could at least have a quorum here.

The Speaker: Would the table count to determine if there is a quorum present.

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

The Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mr Stockwell: I think what I'd like to do at this point in time is to relate some numbers --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I can't hear the member for Middlesex and I'm all the happier for that.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I do not see a quorum in this House.

The Speaker: We just determined that a quorum was present.

Mr Sterling: Are you counting people who are in their seats or are not in their seats?

The Speaker: We just determined that a quorum is present. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: What I'd like to get into now is a comparison --

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I heard that comment, and I think you should call the member to order, Mr Speaker. I heard it.

The Speaker: There was an unparliamentary word used. I did not hear precisely who said it, but if it was one of the members over here, it would be very helpful if it was withdrawn so that we can continue with a proper debate.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Mr Speaker, I don't use such unparliamentary language. Therefore, I have nothing to withdraw.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Middlesex.

The Speaker: That's not at all helpful. I would ask members to try to --

Mr Stockwell: It was the member for Middlesex who said it. I ask her to withdraw.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West accuses a particular member of using unparliamentary language. I didn't hear from whom it came. But as is the custom, if the member for Middlesex believes that she used unparliamentary language, there is an opportunity to withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Mr Speaker, I would certainly withdraw. I was upset because Mr Sterling sent a member out and then tried to call quorum, and I find that offensive.

The Speaker: What was important is that you withdrew the remark. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: It seems very little reason to use that kind of unparliamentary language.

I'd like to talk about the taxes this government has levied. They're often making comparisons between other provinces and about their standings with other provinces when it comes to taxes and the tax positions.

One of the most effective taxes at raising money is the personal income tax, PIT for short. I have a chart here that talks about the provincial income tax. The only non-applicable province would be the province of Quebec. If you review this, in 1988 the province of Ontario, even under the free-spending Liberal government, was the third-lowest personal income tax province in this country. But it was very close to being the lowest. During the Conservative regime in this province, it was consistently ranked near the bottom as far as personal income taxes are concerned.

One of the places where the socialists went awry in this province was assuming that there was a bottomless pit out there, assuming that they could tax people for ever, continuously, to the highest levels, and people would either continue to pay or continue to have jobs to be capable of paying. What this government has had happen is that it's run up against something called the tax wall.

How do you know when a government's hit the tax wall? It's a very simple process to find out. When a government has hit the tax wall, you can tell, because in successive budgets they raise the taxes on personal income, they raise taxes on people's earning power, and generally speaking, if a province or country has not reached the tax wall, those increases will generate them more revenue to spend in the following year.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): That's not necessarily true.

Mr Stockwell: That's not necessarily true, the member for Huron says. I challenge him. I challenge him directly. Right now I challenge you to tell me at any time that is not necessarily true. When you raise taxes, member for Huron, you generate more revenue. Only an NDPer would make an argument against that statement.

What has happened with this government in the last budget is that it increased taxes in the 1992-93 budget and it has now gotten fewer dollars in taxable income from the people --

The Speaker: Point of order, the member for Huron.

Mr Klopp: Personal privilege, maybe, Mr Speaker: The honourable member said he was willing at that moment to challenge and then sit down. Please sit down and I'll gladly talk to you. But don't stand there and challenge and then keep talking. You can't do it both ways.

2110

The Speaker: The member for Huron does not have a point of privilege, and what would be helpful is if the member for Etobicoke West would address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: I was going to send over the standing orders, but they would probably be a little too cumbersome for him to read, Mr Speaker. I do challenge the member. I hope that he has an opportunity to speak to this. Maybe you can refute that point that you claim is not correct: When governments raise taxes, they generate more revenue. That's a simple fact.

Mr Klopp: It's not that simple.

Mr Stockwell: No, of course not, because you raised taxes last year and you're generating less revenue. Why? Because you've hit the tax wall. That only happens to governments that have hit the tax wall. Ask governments. You want to go ask some governments? I'll give you a couple of governments to go and ask.

Mr Wood: Your Tory cousins in Ottawa.

Mr Stockwell: Go ask Sweden, go ask New Zealand, go ask those governments when they hit the tax wall, because the day they hit the tax wall was the day they introduced budgets calling for tax increases and they generated less revenue. Why? Because people are fed up with paying taxes, or your tax hikes are so onerous they cost people jobs and they then can't pay taxes. Further, and most importantly, people start going underground to do business.

Why do they go underground? Because it's worth the risk to be caught doing business underground than it is to do business, make a dollar and pay the taxes on that dollar.

Mr Wood: The underground has been there for 30 years.

Mr Stockwell: Of course the underground was there for 30 years, I say to the member for Cochrane North. Of course it was there, but it's never been there to the extent it's there today. The percentage of business in this province taking place under the table, underground, is far greater than it ever has been in this province. Why? Because people don't think it's fair or reasonable to do business, make a fair return and pay the kinds of taxes that you insist they pay to continue living in this province.

Mr Wood: That's only your interpretation.

Mr Stockwell: That's only my interpretation? I will say to the member for Cochrane North it is not just my interpretation. It's the interpretation that is universally accepted outside of this chamber, outside of this precinct. People are saying it, they're doing it and it's happening. As long as there are members like the member for Cochrane North who choose to bury their heads in the sand and suggest it's only my opinion, this will continue to happen. It will continue to grow and continue to flourish.

Mr Wood: We've had a barter system for a thousand years.

Mr Stockwell: I say to the member for Cochrane, I plead with the member for Cochrane North, you must review your taxes, the tax structure, the onerous taxes that you've heaped on the taxpayers in the province of Ontario, because if there's one fact that should scare you, it's that you increase taxes in your budget and you generate less revenue.

Doesn't that scare any of you over there? Doesn't that make some of you wonder? Don't you think people have reached the end? Don't you think they're tired of paying taxes? When you increase taxes and generate less revenue, don't you think you've finally hit the tax wall?

I can only say it seems so plain and so obvious and so simple, but it seems to be something that this government can't grasp. But it is something that every taxpayer in this province would tell you on the proviso that you don't come forward and tell them because they're working in an underground economy.

I ask you, how many people have had any work done in their house on the last year and a half, any work at all, whether it's gardening, electrical work, plumbing or any of that work at all? What's the first thing that person says to you? The first thing is, "This is how much it's going to cost if I give you a bill." I'm not talking out of school. Everybody knows it.

What's the second thing that person tells you? They say, "But if you pay cash, it's 15% less." That's what they say. Why do they say that? Because they're doing an underground business, because they're not paying tax on their work, because the cost of doing the job, if it's $100, becomes $115 if they charge tax and it's only $100 if they don't. But even better yet, if it's $10,000, you're talking about $1,500 in taxes. If you don't pay the taxes, you've saved yourself $1,500 and that's taxpayers' money, that's government money.

Why are these people doing this? Because they believe the tax structure in this province is too onerous, too restrictive and too much.

Mrs Mathyssen: They're not bright enough to figure out that they're robbing themselves.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Middlesex says they're not bright enough to figure out they're robbing themselves, but the sad reality is that as long as they're not caught, they're not robbing themselves.

Mrs Mathyssen: Yes, they are.

Mr Stockwell: No, they're not. Because if they don't pay the $1,500, you know what the difference is? This is what they don't understand. If they can give a quote for $10,000, they get the job, right? They feed their kids. They pay their mortgage. They pay their gas bill. They pay their hydro bill. But if they charge this 15%, they don't get the job, they don't feed their kids, they don't pay the mortgage, they don't pay their hydro bill and they don't pay the gas bill.

I'm not saying these people are doing something that's right. I'm not saying these people are doing something that's honest. What I'm saying is these people are doing it, and as long as you have the member for Middlesex, who blathers on, not dealing with the reality of the situation, which is that it's happening, and says that they're cheating themselves and wants to live in that fanciful fantasy land, then it will continue to happen. We'll continue to see revenues drop. We'll continue to see budgets drop. We'll continue to see this province go deeper and deeper into debt. We'll continue to see people lose their jobs, all because we're starting from the situation now where we're no longer servicing the public; we're simply chewing off our own foot because we raise taxes and drop revenue. It's a simple fact.

If the member for Middlesex chooses to disagree with that fact, I challenge her to read the budget. I challenge her to read the budget from her Treasurer, because if the Treasurer issued her a budget and she had an opportunity to read it, she'd see at first hand that the projected revenues this Treasurer called for are sadly overstated compared to the kind of revenues you're getting, even considering the kind of tax hikes you've built into your budgets. That is one of the most frightening statistics, one of the most frightening facts that we in this province face.

The argument sometimes comes forward from the other side that we are not a heavily taxed jurisdiction. I think they are absolutely not only wrong but sending out inaccurate information.

Personal income tax in 1988, under what I considered to be a free-spending government, in my opinion -- I know you in the NDP didn't think it spent enough, because you sat for days on end in opposition always complaining that it should be spending more, more, more. I always complained that they spent too much, but I will say that in 1988, under what I considered to be a free-spending Liberal administration, our personal income tax stood at 51% in this province.

Let's put this in perspective: In New Brunswick it was 60%; in Newfoundland it was 60%; Prince Edward Island 56%, Nova Scotia 56.5%; Manitoba 54%. Then you got into the four good ones, the four commonly held provinces that tried to maintain a reasonable cap on their PIT. You had Ontario at 51%, Saskatchewan at 50%, Alberta, which was doing very well with no provincial sales tax and a PIT rate of 46.5% in 1988, and British Columbia at 51.5%. Those were the four provinces that everyone tried to emulate when it came to personal income tax.

2120

In 1988 we had a rather healthy economy, there's no doubt about it. We had an economy that was generating tons of revenue. It's very discouraging in five short years. I'll read you the new statistics for personal income tax. In the final year I believe you have to take into consideration the Liberal budget and then a series of NDP fiascos.

When we look at personal income tax, we look at Newfoundland, 69%. They're way out in front, along with New Brunswick at 62%. That's the percentage of personal income tax. Those are what you call have-not provinces, and they really and truly have not. If you've ever been to these provinces, you know full well that there is not a lot of work and the personal income tax is oppressive. They're at 69% and 62%; then the other two maritime provinces, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, come in at 59.5% together.

Then do you know who's next? The province of Ontario. From 59.5% in Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia, the province of Ontario comes in at 58%, unbelievable growth in five years. We're now at 58% of personal income tax.

Of the other provinces, I might add one of those, Manitoba, dropped its from 54% to 52% in the same five-year period. Saskatchewan's at 50%, exactly where it was in 1988. Alberta has dropped its by one full point, from 46.5% to 45.5%. BC has gone up to 52.5%, an increase of one percentage point.

We're no longer competitive in this country. On a personal income tax basis, the western provinces would far outstrip us when it comes to how much they take off your paycheque. When people place their plants and look for job opportunities, one of the components involved in that is, how much money do I get to keep at the end of the day after I've been taxed, so I can live as I choose to live?

That's why we're losing industry. That's why the maritime provinces come up here and try to steal our industry. That's why industry is moving west in this country, because of our absolutely onerous taxes that we heap on personal income and on businesses. Again, I'm sure I'll get a lot of arguments from across the floor. But if you ask the businesses one of the big reasons why they have problems staying in Ontario, the number one response is taxes. They're killing them. There doesn't seem to be much support.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member has some important things to say. I wonder if we could ensure there's an quorum in the Legislature.

The Speaker: Could the table count to determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to make comment on the fact that the government can't keep a quorum. It's seems incredible to me --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): It reflects the quality of your speech, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Cochrane South has come in. I'm glad to see him. It reflects to me that this government is playing trickery with the rules of this place.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: They insist in making --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Trickery, jiggery-pokery.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham West has a lot of nerve talking about anybody and their political acumen. I suggest to the member for Durham West, if you're going to start heckling, maybe you'd like to go back to your own riding and listen to your constituents once in a while, because as far as I can tell, they can't even get hold of you any more. They've started phoning Conservative constituency offices because they've had it with this member and are fed up with his attitude towards the dump site and the fact that he wants to continue to force one on them when he made concrete campaign promises that he wouldn't do just that thing. I think he should go back and talk to his constituents before he starts heckling us, because I think he has great fears about his re-election campaign.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): Haven't you heard, Chris? There is a phone-in campaign. They're looking for the last remaining federal Conservative in Ontario.

Mr Stockwell: They're looking for the last remaining federal Conservative in Ontario, and I suppose they'll find that one as soon as they find the last remaining federal NDPer in Ontario as well, I say to the Minister of MNR.

Hon Mr Hampton: That's all right: We're still here, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: You're still here. Yes, you're still here for 18 more months, you're right, unless you want to call the election early, and I'm all game for that. If you want to call an early election, I think that would be helpful. I think the people of Ontario would be very pleased if you called an election early. Before you start mocking the federal Conservatives and their downfall, I think you'd better take a long, hard look in the mirror, because I see you very close on their heels when it comes to the 1995 campaign.

I want to talk about a couple of taxes that are included in this 1992 tax increase they dealt with. One of the other ones I'd like to talk about is they increased the Ontario PIT rate --

Mr Bisson: All those Tories will wind up provincially.

Mr Stockwell: All those Tories will wind up provincially. I wish I could say the same about the federal NDP, but they don't seem that inclined, I say to the member for Cochrane South. From the few members of the NDP I can follow in the newspapers, they don't seem that enamoured with your government either, I say. So we'll worry about how we'll accommodate our federal Conservatives, because you don't have that problem when it comes to federal NDP.

I would like to comment on a couple of the other increases. One of the increases I find very difficult to accept is the personal income tax increase they included in their 1993 budget. They increased their taxes from 55% to 58% the previous year. They found that that didn't raise them enough revenue, because they were so cash-starved at the end, that they decided to increase the surcharge from 55% to 58%. But they found that by raising it three full points, that still wasn't enough. Because they are partway through a budget year, they simply surcharged this amount, an additional 3% effective July 1, to take it to 61%: 61% for the final six months of this year.

Does it surprise you people at all that it's becoming more and more obvious and more and more difficult to try and get out of this kind of economic malaise that we're in when you're increasing taxes from 55% to 61%? Do you think that money is better in your hands to help revive this sluggish economy or in the hands of the consumers who can potentially spend it to restart this economy?

These members opposite don't seem to understand why the economy is performing as badly as it is. It's performing as badly as it is because you're taking $3 billion per year out of the economy. You've got $3 billion of taxes out of the economy of the province of Ontario that you use to frivolously waste and expend on redundant, ridiculous programs that do nothing to stimulate economic growth in this province. You would have been far better to have left that $3 billion in the taxpayers' hands so they could then go out and spend it as they saw fit to hopefully jump-start this economy, rather than taking it into this place, allowing it to pass through the mandarins' hands that you've hired, as well as the NDP hacks you've hired, thereby taking a lot of that $3 billion out before it even sees the economic cycle again.

That's the problem we've got in this province. That's the difficulty the taxpayers face. It is so obvious that --

Hon Mr Hampton: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Do we have to listen to old Brian Mulroney speeches wrapped up again?

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Etobicoke West, however, has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Jeez, hold it. I've got to recover from that shot. It may take a couple of minutes to recover from that one. Oh, baby. Hold on. My heart's -- hold it, Mr Speaker. Thanks. Jeez, I don't know why he got removed from Attorney General. I don't understand that at all.

Mr Harnick: It wasn't because of his wit.

Mr Stockwell: Apparently not. This man is a humourmonger, there's no question about it. Slay me no more, Mr Minister, please. I don't know. Do you think he should have gone to the union joke school? Maybe he could have gone to the union joke school. That would have helped.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): How much money did they spend on that one?

2130

Mr Stockwell: Oh, $30,000, the union joke school. Surely the Minister of Natural Resources could have spent a couple of weeks there. That would have been excellent.

Before I was so tactfully destroyed in public there by the Minister of Natural Resources, I was talking about some of the programs they put in place during this budget. Some of the programs, and the offensive ones at that, increased the tax rates in this province on the higher income surtax level. Why is that? Why do I personally think that's a really counterproductive way to go?

Mr Sutherland: Progressive taxation.

Mr Stockwell: Aggressive taxation? No, you don't call it aggressive taxation; you call it aggressive revenue enhancements.

Mr Wiseman: Progressive. Progressive.

Mr Stockwell: Progressive. I see. Progressive revenue enhancements.

The bottom line is, a tax is a tax. User fees: I don't care if you call them parental contributions or whatever you want to call them; they're still user fees. They can change the names of these things. Another one is Bill 79. They call them numerical goals. You can call them numerical goals all you want; they're quotas. If you want to change the names, you can change the names, but you don't change definitions. A tax is a tax, numerical goals are quotas, and so it will be to the end of time.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe a quorum is present to listen to the wisdom that my colleague is presenting.

The Speaker: Could the table determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have to point out that the member for York Mills is so interested in keeping quorum that he left, and there are no opposition members except for the speaker in the House.

The Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: It seems that in the past three years, the government is still having trouble understanding that it keeps quorum. I would remind the member for Durham West that you keep quorum and you must have 20 members. That's the challenge of government. That is a challenge of governing. One of the most difficult tasks this government has had is keeping quorum. That probably goes without saying. Not too many people are very shocked and surprised about that.

When I started out, I was commenting about why it is they need all this tax money. Although they try to leave you with the impression that they're holding the line on government spending, that truly is not the case. If we check back with the records, in 1989, when this government took over -- in late 1990, I mean, but in 1989-90 -- government spending was marginally over $40 billion. You'd think the way they're carrying on about the social contract and about priority spending and about upsetting all the members of the labour movement and all these other programs they're trying to initiate which they claim to be saving the taxpayers' money, you'd think when they took over with spending in the $45-billion range, that it somehow had gone down. You'd think that's what had happened, the way they're carrying on. You'd think they'd kept a lid on government spending, that it was in fact less than when they came to power.

Mr Mills: How do you keep a lid on welfare?

Mr Stockwell: I say to the member for Durham East, if you'd like to hear the answer, I'll be more than happy to give it to you. What the member for Durham East doesn't understand is that welfare is a cost-shared program. So municipalities have had the same difficulty that you've had when it comes to increases in welfare.

Mr Sutherland: We only get 30% from the feds.

Mr Stockwell: And then what do you give municipalities?

Mr Sutherland: Some 85% to 90%.

Mr Stockwell: Try 80%. So you come with 50%, you get 30% from the feds, and then 20% comes from municipalities. Their 20%, as a percentage of their budget, is far larger than a percentage of your budget, I say to the member from Durham. But I'll tell you, there are municipalities out there that have had increases in their welfare rolls and have reduced the taxes to the taxpayer. I point to the city of Mississauga. I point to Metropolitan Toronto. They've had increases --

Mr Sutherland: What happened to the tax base, Chris? What about their tax base in Mississauga? What has happened to the tax base?

The Speaker: Order, the member for Oxford.

Mr Stockwell: They've had increases of marginal percentages. Why is that? Because these municipalities have faced the same difficulty you have, but in the first year of operation they didn't waste money on holistic, unachievable government opportunities that in fact wasted taxpayers' money.

When it comes to dealing with the facts of the matter, they don't want to do that. Other levels of government have had to deal with welfare increases, and they've done so quite well. In fact, they've kept a lid on taxes and in some instances reduced taxes. They make these charges, but there appear to be other levels of government that can make those numbers work and in fact reduce taxes to the taxpayers in their appropriate municipalities.

So when they came to power, as I was saying, in 1990, they had a budget of just over $45 billion and, as I said, they've kind of led the public to believe they've somehow kept a lid on spending, somehow held the line on spending. So you'd think, Mr Speaker, from 1990 to 1993 that somehow the budget would be around, in expenditure, $45 billion. Well, what a shock. This government, this conversion to fiscal conservatism, has in fact increased government spending from just over $45 billion in a few short years to just under $55 billion in spending that the taxpayers may in fact have to pay.

Why, then, do they need these tax bills? To fund the spending that's taken place. And where did this spending go? Where did it go? Well, let's talk the first year of power. What was your increase to the workers in this province? The first year of power, when I and my caucus were telling you, "We're in for a very tough recession; you'd better freeze public service salaries," you were increasing them at 6% and 7%. In some instances, you were talking about a 14% increase to the senior civil servant ranks. Of course, that was a grotesque error in judgement. Of course, that was a huge mistake, because you were giving these people 15% pay hikes and two short years later you're trying to roll them back by 5%.

Mr Sutherland: What do you mean, 15%?

Mr Stockwell: Well, 14.7%. Increases to the senior civil servants, the increased package, worked out to 14.7%. Across the board -- I never said across the board -- you were making settlements for 6% and 7% in some instances. I told you not to do that then. I told the minister of Management Board, who's sitting here as social services minister, at that time that he should have frozen salaries because we were in for an economic recession; you couldn't afford this. You told me that I was interfering in the collective bargaining process and only an irresponsible, right-wing radical would interfere in the collective bargaining process. And then suddenly, two short years later, the conversion is complete.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: My friend opposite has made several statements about all these exceptional warnings he's offered us. I'm wondering if he can make a reference in Hansard where he made those comments.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mr Stockwell: I ask the member for Durham Centre to go speak to the minister of social services, because I'm sure he can point to the Hansards when I stood up in this House to question the minister of Management Board, saying: "You're making a big mistake. You're giving 6% and 7% increases. You should have frozen their salaries, because it would be irresponsible, because we're into an economic downturn and we won't be able to afford it in a couple of short years." In essence the response was: "That's an irrational approach. Only a right-wing capitalist would do that kind of thing. Only a right-wing Conservative government would even think about meddling in the collective bargaining process." That was the response.

2140

Mr Sutherland: He negotiated 1%.

Mr Stockwell: He negotiated 1% one year. Why don't you go back to the year before that? He increased it 6% and 7%. I say to this government that this is selective amnesia. They're choosing to remember what they want to. You had settlements in your first and second year of 5%, 6% and 7%. Get in the game. You can't remember that? You're simply choosing not to, and your rationale was, "We don't get involved in the collective bargaining process because that's sacred and no government should be involved in that because that would only ruin what we believe, which is collective bargaining for affiliated unions and God bless solidarity for ever," and all that brotherhood stuff.

Two short years later, after that fatal flaw, the original budget, the increases to the people, 14.7% increase to senior civil servants, suddenly we've got a group of right-wing capitalist, contract-meddling social democrats -- what the heck is that I'll never know but that's what we got -- who are now suggesting that, "Clearly when we were giving 6% and 7% increases, we had lost our minds, and we weren't sure what we were doing, so we introduced Bill 48," which went back and grabbed back all that money you gave them two years ago that I told you you should never have given them in the first place.

I'm telling you now that since you didn't listen then, maybe with the track record that I have on these kinds of issues, you might listen now.

Mr Wiseman: What track record?

Mr Stockwell: Don't worry, Hansard will take care of it. That's the beauty of Hansard. I love Hansard because it gets all those comments on the record. It allowed me to bring them out at the appropriate times when I was a right-wing capitalist who would break contracts and do horrible, dastardly things and compared me to Peter Pocklington, Perot and all those other right-wing sorts who now pale in comparison to Bill 48 and the contract-ripping social democrat, right-wing capitalist, free-enterprise, left-wing-leaning sorts.

So I say to you, what would be the best thing you could do now? The best thing you as a government could do now is re-examine your tax position. Why would that be a good thing?

Mr Sutherland: Tell us, Professor Stockwell.

Mr Stockwell: I notice the member for Oxford is taking notes. I will say, why? Why is it a good thing to look at taxes? Let me say this. When you levy taxes that are paid by the private sector out there, personal income taxes, you take a buck, and when you get the buck in government I think you have the best intentions. You want to go out and spend that dollar as if --

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Listen, we don't pass the buck; you pass the buck. We take it; you buy it.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview is out of order.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sure the member for Oxford would be upset if I'm being interrupted by the member for Durham West.

Mr Perruzza: He's being provocative. He's inciting me.

Mr Stockwell: I am not being provocative; I'm just telling them what they could do now. Honest to goodness, considering the lecture I gave them on the increases in pay in the 1991 period, you'd think they'd listen.

When you get the tax dollar in here you, I believe, with all good intentions, would like to spend it as effectively as you could. The difficulty that you have is this: Once you filter that dollar through all the government agencies, once you filter that dollar through Jobs Ontario, once that dollar gets filtered through deputy ministers and purchasing agents and secretaries and welfare fraud and health care systems and so on, by the time you're finished filtering that dollar, you have about 25 cents left. Then that 25 cents gets put back into the economy and it gets spent.

Mr Perruzza: Listen, don't pass the buck. Don't pass it.

Mr Stockwell: If you took that buck that you took out of the private citizens' hands and virtually wasted and left it in the private citizens' hands, they'd have a full Canadian dollar's worth of buying power.

Mr Mills: What are you going to do about corporate fraud?

Mr Stockwell: I'm trying to resolve the tax issue right now. I'll deal with corporate fraud later. I can only solve one problem at a time, for heaven's sake. I only have an hour and a half too.

If you left that dollar in the private citizens' hands, they would have a dollar worth of buying power. If you left the buck in there, then they would spend it as they see fit, but you see, it wouldn't be filtered through any government agency, it wouldn't be filtered through this place and they would have the full dollar. But every time we take a tax dollar in, we take part of that money just to run this monolith that we call government and the money isn't being efficiently spent.

I don't think anybody at all would argue that tax dollars are being efficiently spent, because I hear your Minister of Health and your Premier saying there's fat in the system and that's what we're going to find with the social contract. But if you never took the buck in the first place, you wouldn't have the fat because there'd be no money to live off. By paring down your taxes and appropriately reducing your expenditures, leaving the money in the private sector, you end up in a better position for the taxpaying public. They have more money to spend, creating a better economy and reducing the size of government.

Now, corporate fraud.

Mr Jim Wilson: That's the corporate welfare bums.

Mr Stockwell: The corporate welfare bums. The corporate welfare bum argument you talk about is not an argument that can be very well placed by this government any longer. You see, you struck the Fair Tax Commission, and what was the Fair Tax Commission's mandate? One of their mandates was to examine the corporate --

Mr Mills: It's the expenses.

Mr Stockwell: Listen up now, the member from Durham: One of the Fair Tax Commission's mandates was to study the tax situation, the taxable earnings of corporations in the province of Ontario. They went ahead and did that study.

Mr Sutherland: It was a divided report.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sure the member for Oxford has probably read the recommendations. Well, what came out of the Fair Tax Commission and what the Treasurer adopted as changes to the minimum corporation tax was nothing.

What it came down to was the people on the Fair Tax Commission could not agree that the corporations in this province were ripping off the taxpayers. They couldn't agree on whether a minimum tax would be useful or not. They couldn't agree that the corporations in this province were already not paying their way.

So what it came to was the Treasurer had an opportunity to take this divided report and implement part of it or some of it or any of it.

Mr Mills: It's the expenses they charged. You know what I'm talking about. It's the crooked expense sheets.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Durham East.

Mr Stockwell: The Treasurer chose to implement none of it, I say to the member from Durham as he's leaving. Don't go, Gord. The Treasurer chose not to implement any of it, because that issue, the position that you'd staked your political careers on for 25 years, was simply a ruse. Anybody who believes corporations aren't paying their fair taxes should've seen this government move in the first few months of power to rectify that.

Why did you not move to rectify it? Because it doesn't exist. Because corporations are people. People are shareholders. When they declare dividends to shareholders, they pay taxes. It never existed. It was a ruse. It was like eradicating food banks. It was like universal welfare. It was like 60% funding for all school boards. It was, you were on planet Clair.

There wasn't a prayer of doing this stuff, and the Treasurer finally figured it out, got the Fair Tax Commission report, went, "Holy smokes, you mean we've been wrong for 25 years," and put it away. That's what happened to the minimum corporate tax. That's what happened with this government and that's why you're in the state you are today, because in Agenda for People you were financing a good proportion of your promises out of taxes you were going to generate from a minimum corporate tax that didn't exist.

That's where you fell off the tracks. That's where the problems occurred, and that's why the Treasurer never, ever any more says anything about a minimum corporate tax. In fact this same Treasurer, although marginal, reduced taxes by 0.5% on corporations. So this is what happened.

Now, before I wind up, I want to just make a quick discussion --

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): You're already wound up.

Mr Stockwell: That's true. I've been accused of worse, though.

2150

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): What kind of batteries do you have?

Mr Stockwell: I'm not on batteries. I want to talk about the problems -- why we must raise more taxes. I want to talk about why we have to raise more taxes and why your spending is irrational and insane in some instances.

Bill 143 is the bill where you set the IWA up. I want to talk about that quickly. Do you know why you've got a problem on Bill 143 or the IWA? I'll tell you why you've got a problem. It's another one of the problems you came to power with. Why you have a problem -- and I say to the member of the Liberal Party here who's valiantly attempting to fight this, and I know the caucus and the Conservative caucus is valiantly attempting to fight this landfill issue -- you see, you came to this government with a very, very real problem. Your problem was, you were trying to be all things to all people, and taxes is one of them.

But why you had to spend $50 million is because you had the Premier going around this province during the election, going to landfill sites making promises they wouldn't be there. Do you know what? I don't oppose him for doing that. I think if that's what he wanted to do --

Mr Turnbull: I do. I hate liars.

Mr Stockwell: I don't. If that's what he wanted to do and that was his position and he wanted to say David Peterson was breaking promises and David Peterson was lying and he was going to make the commitment there would be no dumps, that's fine and I think he should have done that.

But you see, the problem with you people is this: You wanted to be all things to all people, because at the same time he was making these promises to my poor departed friend from Durham West, the ex-member for Durham West -- when he was making those promises to his constituents, he was also making promises to environmentalists. The promises he made to environmentalists were, "We won't rail-haul and we won't incinerate."

So you see, now you've got a problem: If you somehow got elected, which you did -- we're still pretty astounded about that in Ontario -- you now said you wouldn't put landfill sites on grade A farm land in the Metro Toronto region. You said you weren't going to burn garbage. You said you weren't going to rail-haul garbage. You said you weren't going to put garbage on Peel farm land or Durham farm land or York farm land. You weren't going to burn it, you weren't going to rail-haul it. What were you going to do with it? Where was this garbage going to go?

You see, they had made promises to everybody on anything at any time for any reason. What did they have to do? They got in the government and said, "First we need tax money, then we're going to have to spend $40 million or $50 million to tell the people of this province that we won't resolve this problem, we'll strike a committee to resolve this problem." You struck a committee to resolve this problem, but you still had some promises, I say to the member for Oxford, you had a lot of promises out there.

You had promises to Whitevale; you had promises to Durham; you had promises to York; you had promises to Peel; you had promised the environmentalists you wouldn't incinerate; you had promises you wouldn't rail-haul. The only promise you didn't have time to deal with is, what were you going to do with the garbage? Where was the garbage going to go? The SkyDome? What was your plan? You didn't have a plan. You just couldn't stop or help yourself from making promises that cost the taxpayers $50 million --

Mr White: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the member has diverted wildly from the subject at hand, which is in fact a tax bill.

The Speaker: The member indeed has a point of order. The bill is Bill 31. It's a tax bill and perhaps the member could address his remarks to the principle of the bill.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Mr Speaker, on a point of order: In support of my learned friend from Etobicoke West, because the Interim Waste Authority has cost $50 million, which has to be paid for out of taxes, then clearly what the member is talking about is indeed a tax increase, and I frankly --

The Speaker: To the member for York North who is volunteering to make the speech for the member for Etobicoke West, you have at least provided him with some material. The member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mrs Marland: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I have dealt with the point of order, and the member for Etobicoke West has regained the floor.

Mrs Marland: Oh, has he? I'm sorry.

Mr Stockwell: That is exactly the point. I think it's well taken and I thank the member for York North for bringing that position forward. We had $50 million in spending for the IWA, and that's $50 million you wouldn't have had to tax for. Bill 31 was taxes, and taxes mean that if you spend the money, you've got to raise the money. If you don't spend it, you don't have to raise it. It's pretty clear that if they didn't spend it, they wouldn't have to raise it. It's much like their promises, and I want to get back to this issue.

I ask the members opposite, if you're not going to burn it, you're not going to rail-haul it, and you're not going to bury it, what are you going to do with it? I still have not had a response from them on that issue.

In conclusion, I want to draw to the attention of the viewers at least and some of the members opposite that --

Mr Perruzza: What viewers? There's nobody watching you.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Downsview is out of order.

Mr Stockwell: The members opposite, including my friend from Downsview, who I think is one of the better members opposite and I think adds some good points of view to debate -- if it happens, I'll tell you. I do think he is, and he doesn't get enough time in this House to express his opinion. The government doesn't give him enough time to talk about the issues that affect his constituents. I would ask the House leader, I would ask others, to allow the member for Downsview to get up more often and put forward the position of the government, because I find in my office that every time he does, we go up in the polls.

I will say to the members opposite, I think you have made a huge mistake in pushing this round-the-clock business. I think you've made a big mistake, because you've made a mistake on the wrong bill. If there's one bill out there that the people are fed up with, if there's one issue they're tired of with this government, regardless of any other, it's taxes. You've taxed the people for three years at the highest possible rate people could be taxed at. You've taken $3 billion out of the economy.

When people come to my constituency office, they talk about two things: They talk about getting a job and they talk about the taxes. The only two issues you've dealt with, in my opinion, have been jobs, and you've lost them -- they've been lost in this province -- and with the taxes, you've increased them. Nobody but nobody can continue to live in this province and prosper with the kind of onerous tax implications you put them under.

Small businesses are finding it very difficult to get by, but every time you bring a budget in, you increase taxes. The most depressing thing about this government is that it brings tax hikes in and it brings tax hikes on top of tax hikes, and it increases services, and it has revenue enhancements, and its deficit does nothing but get higher. Even with the taxes you're hitting the people with, even with the amount of money you're sucking out of the economy, your deficit still doesn't do anything but get higher.

Doesn't that leave you with the very simple conclusion that you're incapable of managing this province, you're incapable of governing this province, you're incapable of dealing with the problems in this province? The best thing you could do is what 95% of the people who talk to me ask me to ask you to do, and that is simply to resign, call an election and let the people decide whether they think you have what it takes to govern this province any more.

We're speaking live today in this Legislature, because this government has decided to try and pull a stunt on the House leaders of this House. They've tried to pretend that they are all-powerful and can beat us into submission on tax bills, but they will not beat this caucus into submission on the tax bill. We'll sit here. This Conservative caucus will sit here, and any time they want to have a debate on taxes, any time they want to debate in this place, outside this place, in Kingston, London or Thunder Bay, a Conservative caucus member will be there to debate this government.

2200

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): London or Middlesex.

Mr Stockwell: London or Middlesex, any of these; in Cochrane South. It would be a pleasure to go to Cochrane South and debate the taxes and the tax issues that face those constituents.

Mr White: Go right up there, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: I would be happy to go to Durham and meet Drummond White face to face, Drummond White's constituents, when it comes to taxes, when it comes to deficit and when it comes to garbage dumps, because I think the constituents in Durham have had it with this NDP government as much as we have.

Mr Perruzza: And when it comes to government. Don't forget when it comes to government.

Mr Stockwell: I want to Downsview, if I want to go anywhere. I want to go to Downsview and I want to go to Yorkview. I'd let them both come because I think I'd like to debate them both at the same time, both Downsview and Yorkview.

The people in this province have come to the end of the road. It's an 18-month period where you'll be allowed to sit there and continue to heap the oppressive taxes, the regressive government policy. The unreasonable approach you've taken to managing this province will come to an end in 18 short months. In 18 short months, the people will get an opportunity -- and I know I'm stealing a line from one of my colleagues -- to do what I know they want to do. And I think the slogan for both opposition parties should be, "Folks, this is the election you've been waiting for."

I wish the Treasurer were here. We are debating a bill, an important bill; it's $1.1 billion in taxes taken out of the economy of the province of Ontario. It means more tax dollars from the taxpaying public, and it's shrinking. It's shrinking because people are losing their jobs, because companies are closing or moving. Why are they closing and moving? Because the economy is so savaged and beaten.

Mr Sutherland: And why is that?

Mr Stockwell: I've got the member for Oxford --

Mr Sutherland: John Crow and the federal government introduced a high-dollar policy --

Mr Stockwell: I know why John Crow is nervous in the province of Ontario, because the crow population is decreasing in the province. John Crow has a right to be nervous to come into the province of Ontario.

Mr White: My friends, it's the Liberals who'll be eating crow.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Durham Centre is right on the ball, I'm glad to see. It's great to see you up and around again.

What I say to this government is that in a few short months we'll get an opportunity to see and measure how much they enjoyed the tenure of your five years. We'll talk about Bill 40. We'll talk about the tax hikes. We'll talk about all the programs you put in place that this province is sick of. We'll talk about Bill 79. We'll talk about white English males not being able to apply for a job. We'll talk about --

Mr Sutherland: It's 60% in senior management in the past year.

Mr Stockwell: We'll talk about these issues that need to be addressed --

Mr Sutherland: That information didn't come out because you only read selected papers.

Mr Stockwell: Look, if the member continues, I may well go to Oxford and debate this member. It would be a pleasure to go to the people in London, because I don't think the people in London are as enamoured with you as the people in Durham are with him. I think it's equal, your popularity.

Mr Sutherland: On a point of order: The member for Etobicoke West should take a geography lesson. London is not in the riding of Oxford.

Mr Eddy: It soon will be. Just keep adding a few more townships.

The Speaker: It appears to have been settled. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I didn't mean to offend the good people of Oxford and London. I apologize. If it's not in there, I just assumed the land grab was bigger. Of course I will send my apologies also to the ex-member for Middlesex.

Anyway, I want to wrap it up. I would like to say to the members opposite, another announcement today was that of the Housing minister. They seem to be enamoured with retroactive legislation. I remember Bill 4, and it was an interesting comment from the member for York Mills: Is this the first piece of legislation they've had retroactivity on? The member for York Mills piped up that in Bill 4 it was so retroactive that they weren't even elected when it went into existence.

It's just a typical response from this government. The member from Scarborough shakes his head. Stop shaking your head; you're going to drop one of your pompoms.

I say to this government, including the ministers opposite, that we will get an opportunity to debate a lot of these bills, and the best place for us to debate them is on the campaign trail. I want to be able to debate these bills. I want to be able to debate the landfill site in Whitevale. I want to go to Vaughan and York and I want to go out to Peel, and I want to talk about the landfill issue. I want to go to Kirkland Lake and talk about the landfill issue. I want the people of this province to have a full and open airing of all the issues that have been addressed by this government in the past five years, of forcing this House to sit around the clock or it will force $1.1 billion in taxes down the Ontario citizen's throat. I'll be here around the clock because I know I'm speaking for the constituents who can't. If they could, they would be saying far worse than I'm saying today. They'd be saying, "Throw the bums out."

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We in this House should treat one another as honourable gentlemen and gentle ladies. I take great exception for someone to refer to me as a bum. I am not a bum. That is unparliamentary and I ask the member to withdraw that.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I withdraw that comment. It is a colloquialism. It is not directed at the member from Durham. I would never accuse you of being a bum. It's just a phrase that used to be used about rascals. I put in "bums" instead of "rascals."

The Speaker: The member had completed his remarks and he sat down. There was a point of order after you sat down. We have time for questions and comments. The first member on his feet was the member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: What's really interesting here is how we can at this late hour make light of the entire issue of responsible government, because that's essentially what we're talking about here: how we, as a government, pay for what government provides.

I can tell you unequivocally that I do not subscribe to my Conservative friend's point of view. I don't subscribe to the view where you simply cut, slash and burn across the board; where you say to seniors, "We're going to cut, slash and burn"; where you say to injured workers, "We're going to cut, slash and burn"; where you say to people who need government most, the unemployed, to create jobs, "We're going to cut, slash and burn"; where we're going to say to small business that has been penalized by Conservative government, federal inaction, with respect to the banks: "We're going to cut, slash and burn, and there's nothing in it for you. If you're a small business and you're going down the drain, well, my friend, you are going down."

I do not subscribe to your point of view. I don't believe for one minute that we live in a cold, cruel world. I don't subscribe to your point of view.

What we're talking about here tonight is responsible government, so how he can make light of providing responsible government for the people of Ontario is beyond me. And I will fight you. I will fight you with the last whimper I have in me, and I will fight you.

The Speaker: The member's time has expired. Questions or comments?

2210

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to commend the member for Etobicoke West. I think the viewers out there should recognize we're debating the bill that increased the provincial income tax by 11%. It's obscene; it really is. You took the provincial income tax up 11% just when the economy was beginning --

Mr Sutherland: Eleven?

Mr Phillips: The member doesn't understand. You took it up 11%. That's the problem with you people, you don't understand what you're doing. You took it up 11%. That is the parliamentary assistant and he can't understand that you took the rate up 11%.

I would say the member for Etobicoke West is absolutely right. What it's done is it's driven the revenue into the ground. You don't understand that.

Interjection: Wrong.

Mr Phillips: Somebody said, "Wrong." You don't understand it.

Mr Hope: Listen to a Liberal; give it a rest.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Phillips: You've taken taxes up $3.5 billion and tax revenue has dropped $2.5 billion. You don't understand what you're doing. You're driving the economy into the ground. The member for Etobicoke West was making that point.

Someone else said, "Listen, we're taking the taxes up so we can afford to pay for the services." You are driving revenue down. If you don't know that, find it out, because it's right in front of your eyes. Tax revenue three years ago was $33.6 billion. What is it this year? What is tax revenue this year? It's $31.2 billion. It's gone down by $2.4 billion. You don't understand that. The member for Etobicoke West was trying to make that point for you.

Come to your senses. You're taking taxes up. Tax revenue is dropping. You are making the problem far worse. That's the point the member was attempting to make. You should be listening to him.

Mrs Marland: I would like to congratulate the member for Etobicoke West, because this is the message that he is trying to give tonight. It's very important that Bob Rae's socialist government listens to the message of the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We have rules and regulations in this House. I think one of the rules is that we don't have props that we hold up. That's out of order.

The Speaker: We do discourage all members --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Grey-Owen Sound. We discourage all members from bringing signs into the chamber and would ask that they not be displayed.

Mrs Marland: This bill that is being debated tonight is a tax bill. What this government has yet to understand is why they are at 6% in the polls. It is because of the fact that you don't understand yet that the people in this province are fed up with increased taxes, and they do not appreciate the fact that you seem to think you can spend money as though it's your own and all the new incentives that you have for collecting money where money has never been collected before, like photo-radar, for example.

There's an example where you are doing absolutely nothing to improve the safety on our highways. You don't even care who is driving the car. You are not awarding any demerit points. All you're doing is collecting money. You're doing nothing to improve safety on the highways.

Mr White: My friend from Downsview makes a very important point. We are dealing here with an issue of taxes and responsibility as government. I was shocked and appalled with all the laughter, all the comedy that came from the bench opposite when we are dealing with significant issues for our province, for our country.

Of the billions and billions of dollars that this province has been bled, the $10 billion that this province --

Interjection: It's $15 billion.

Mr White: -- the $15 billion that this province has been bled in the last five years, we know that for every 41 cents of the federal dollar that comes from this province -- 41 cents of that federal dollar comes from this province -- only 31 cents comes back to this province. These are important and essential issues.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's called Confederation.

Mr White: This is not equalization, my friend. This is close to theft. The opposition gleefully gibes at this government of this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr White: As a result, in order to preserve essential services we are forced to raise taxes, we are forced to deal with very difficult issues like the social contract, and that social contract effectively saves some $600 in taxes for every single resident of this province. We took a fair response, a response that deals with services, that deals with compensation, and that deals indeed with additional taxes.

But do we hear this addressed? No, we do not. We have instead laughter and jocularity about the most important and serious issues our government has to wrestle with, and I think it is not becoming to this House to have that kind of address.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Stockwell: I thank the member from Scarborough. He made the point as well as I could. I tend not to think it sunk in, but it's something that I think the public out there understands and understands very clearly. I also thank the member for Mississauga South for the comments she made. They were well made and I appreciate those comments as well.

To the members opposite, I don't know if you should be giving any lectures to anybody about any issues, about whether or not we should be taking certain issues seriously and not seriously and how we conduct ourselves in public. There's one thing about this government and there's one thing about this party that I will never, ever forgive, and that was in the last campaign when their Premier, the leader of the party, stood downstairs and called Premier Peterson a liar for not fulfilling some of his campaign promises.

I think it was unfair and uncalled for and unreasonable. As a Conservative, I found it offensive at that time, and I wondered if our political system had sunk that low that we would have party leaders accusing others of being liars for not fulfilling beer in corner stores and insurance policy initiatives. That's what this leader did to the ex-Premier. I was no fan of the Liberal government, so I don't want any lectures on how we treat issues and how we treat each other, because five times your leader called the Premier of this province a liar for not fulfilling an insurance promise. You have a lot of nerve calling people liars when he didn't fulfil an insurance promise, when you have absolutely smashed any promise you made in 1990.

So the lectures will be short. I won't stand for them until I hear a full retraction and public apology from this Premier, and I haven't heard it yet.

The Speaker: Is there further debate?

Hon Mr Charlton: I move the adjournment of the debate.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

Orders of the day, the government House leader.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move the adjournment of the House.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

This House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 2220.