Hansard Transcript 1994-Apr-25 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Yesterday, April 24, marked the 79th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. On April 24, 1915, the Armenian intellectuals were deported and mass killings began. Over 1.5 million Armenian people died in the genocide.

Today I will share with this House a section of Rev Avak Avakian's memoirs which was read by Natalie Jigerjian at this year's genocide commemoration at the Armenian Community Centre in the riding of Oriole.

"The year was 1918. My entire existence on earth had not spanned more than a decade. In those 10 years, I had seen much death and destruction, horrific memories that would haunt me till my dying days.

"On the eve of the beginning phases of the genocide, all the men in my family had been murdered. Our family was left without resources, protection or dignity."

Rev Avakian continues to tell how at age 10 he became the breadwinner of his family. One day he had to find food for his dying sister. As he was assisting her, a group of Turkish soldiers swept her away. He followed the carriage which held his sister to the outskirts of the town.

"As I ran, the carriage began pulling further and further away from me, and finally in the distance, hidden amidst trees, it stopped. The soldiers began unloading the bodies.

"Soon after they left, I approached the pit. It was an unimaginable hell full of bodies -- I could hear groans and meek cries for help but I was powerless to do anything. The pit was deep and dark. I tried to find my sister, at the same time trying to figure out how to pull her out, when all of a sudden I saw her. My heart jumped for I saw that she was looking at me and she stirred and tried to reach me....

"And now, 70 years later, as I try to recall the memories of those years, I'm haunted by my sister's eyes, her beautiful dark Armenian eyes."

On the anniversary of this tragedy in Armenian history, I rise in this House on behalf of my constituents to remember the people who lost their lives and grieve with their families who are dedicated to keeping their memories alive.

TRANSPORTATION STUDY

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): The NDP government has been fiscally irresponsible. A perfect example of frivolous government spending is the Ministry of Transportation's expenditures on the Wally Majesky report, the human resource planning audit of Ontario public transit.

When this unsolicited, untendered MTO contract was awarded in November 1991 to Wally Majesky of FP Labour Consultants, the firm on retainer with the Amalgamated Transit Union, it was billed as a 12-month project which would cost the taxpayers $160,000. The report was finally released last week, about a year and a half after the original deadline. The final cost of the project is not yet known, but for some strange reason the public is now being asked to foot the bill for the printing of the report, replete with anti-private-sector cartoons and photos of Wally and his son.

Ministry staff warned in 1991 that the Majesky report would duplicate existing information. This has proven to be correct. MTO staff also had to assist the consultant in writing the final report. It's absurd that Ontario taxpayers have paid almost $200,000 for the Majeskys to travel the province and then take remedial writing classes from MTO staff.

One of the key Majesky recommendations is for the province to convene a major transit industry symposium by the end of 1994. After two years touring transit facilities and meeting with stakeholders, it is unacceptable that the primary recommendation is to have another meeting.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): Tomorrow, Men Walking Against Male Violence will be coming to Niagara Falls. These men are walking from Windsor to Toronto with a message, a profound message. I quote:

"Male violence is a wide range of actions, both personal and institutional, which oppress women in order to maintain a world of gender privilege and power. Violence can be physical, emotional or verbal. It also includes economic and cultural violence which are institutionally maintained to deny women full human rights.

"Patriarchal privilege is a system of power relationships to endorse this oppression, and cuts across many cultures. Our maleness is so deeply based upon this domination that we are literally lost and threatened without it. It is only the changing of this system of power that will bring about the end of male violence.

"The walkers come from an activist tradition which has opposed war, apartheid, First World intervention in the Third World and oppression of aboriginal people. Within that tradition, we must walk against male violence."

I thank all the young people from St Michael's High School who will be involved in the walk on Wednesday morning, as I will, and also my local labour council in Niagara Falls for organizing this event. I want to encourage everyone to be involved.

1340

ELECTIONS IN SOUTH AFRICA

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Today is the eve of South Africa's general election. It will end one of the most repressive situations in the world. Twenty-three million people will be given the opportunity of exercising their basic democratic right, the right to vote. Thousands of people have lost their lives, and even today people continue to lose their lives so that their basic necessities be addressed.

But before we start celebrating this great democratic achievement on April 29, the lives of those who were deprived will not be changed in any visible way.

The policy of apartheid which was established in 1913 was the crudest form of racism, and the damage it has done to the lives of millions of blacks will take years to repair.

We are all aware that slavery was abolished over a hundred years ago, and yet we continue to this day to make anti-discriminatory laws providing protection for those who have been shut out of the mainstream. Blacks today continue to feel the brunt of poverty and be denied the opportunity for fair access to employment because of the colour of their skin.

The atrocity of the Nazis in the Second World War ended 50 years ago and victims of this brutal era continue to be subjected to malicious attacks and abuses by individuals committed to hate crimes. Women in our society, although given the right to vote and to participate in our society, are often treated as second-class citizens.

Before we take the trumpets and bugles out, we must ask ourselves as Canadians, are we committed to assist and support the dreams and aspirations of the millions of South Africans who were denied for so long to exist as human beings?

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have stood in this House on many occasions and have asked the Minister of the Environment to reconsider his stand on refusing to study all the alternatives to the waste management problem.

The minister has blamed the federal government for not closing the border to the United States and for not implementing a garbage tax. He has said he is not responsible for decisions made by the Interim Waste Authority. Minister, you are responsible. Your government set up the Interim Waste Authority and gave it the dictatorial power it is now using against the residents of Caledon, Durham and Vaughan.

If the Minister of the Environment is so opposed to Ontario municipal waste going south, perhaps he can explain to members of the Legislature why he is issuing certificates of approval to municipalities that allow them to ship their waste to the United States and other Canadian provinces.

I have a copy of a certificate of approval issued by the Minister of the Environment last year that states, "Any waste requiring disposal shall only be disposed of at a ministry approved site in Ontario or at a United States or Canadian facility licensed or certified to accept such waste by the appropriate governmental agency."

The minister is saying one thing in this House and doing something else back at the office. It's time for the minister to deal with the reality that says that waste management is an issue that should not be clouded by ideological philosophy, but rather that there should be an informed debate and a decision based on the facts.

TOUCHSTONE YOUTH CENTRE

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): The Touchstone Youth Centre, an emergency shelter for homeless youths in my riding, has been quite busy lately in its pursuit for meeting the needs of youth in York East.

Last Saturday I participated in a well-attended Monte Carlo night that was held at the York Banquet Hall. It was a very successful evening. One of the things the proceeds from this fund-raiser will help support is a recreational program that the centre is initiating.

The centre has long been aware of the need for a recreational program to provide physical activities and arts and crafts to the disadvantaged young people in our neighbourhoods. Their arts and crafts program will hold instructed workshops in the areas of painting, sewing, cooking and crafts on a weekly basis. The physical fitness program will include activities such as basketball, baseball, tennis, road hockey, badminton, soccer, volleyball, fitness, t'ai chi, yoga, table tennis and cycling.

I am pleased to announce that our government, through the Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, has provided a grant in the amount of $22,679 towards the startup costs of this recreational program. With our help, the centre feels confident that it is capable of becoming self-sufficient in the management of a long-term recreation program. I commend the Touchstone Youth Centre for this and many other achievements.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I am rising to congratulate all those good people who joined in the fight to save the jobs of some 90 court officers, commissionaires, who were threatened with expulsion from the courts at the hands of a rather cold-hearted New Democratic Party government.

As you will recall, these court officers, virtually all of them senior citizens from age 60 to 80, were going to be thrown out of work for some unknown reason. The expense was not a great expense. Their jobs were important and people really all over the greater Toronto area, under the leadership of a variety of people, including a couple of journalists, fought to have those jobs saved.

The good news isn't perfect news. Apparently those over 75 are going to be summarily dismissed, again for no apparent reason. The saving is not great. But those 65 to 75 have been, as the expression goes, grandfathered and will be allowed to stay in their jobs for another four years. This is just another example of where the power of the people, when it has good substance and can speak strongly, can overcome even the most arbitrary initiatives of government. I think it's incumbent upon us to congratulate them and to wonder publicly why ever the Attorney General of this province wanted to do those fellows out of their jobs.

ONTARIO FILM REVIEW BOARD

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I call on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to hold a review of the Theatres Act and a public inquiry into the Ontario Film Review Board.

Recently, the minister said the OFRB is almost obsolete because of new technologies that are beyond the province's control, such as video channels, computer games and virtual reality.

The minister may be unable to control the development of new technologies, but she can regulate many of them. For instance, as the member for Waterloo North proposed, the Ontario government could amend the Theatres Act to regulate not only films, but also computer and video games.

Recently, the OFRB has been the centre of controversy. For instance, last spring the board wanted to loosen its guidelines for adult sex films. Only after public outcry did the board back down.

I have called for a review of the OFRB and the Theatres Act many times. Now is an ideal time for a review, since the chair of the board has resigned and several members' terms are about to expire.

Minister, last week you said, about the new technology depicting violence and pornography, and I quote, "We'd better...start coming up with ways to deal with it before we do lose control of it." Exactly, Madam Minister. Get on with your job: Replace the Theatres Act and the Ontario Film Review Board.

SCHOOL FACILITIES

Mr Mark Morrow (Wentworth East): The people of Wentworth east, and specifically Stoney Creek Mountain, are hoping the Minister of Education and Training is going to announce funding for a new high school during this session.

In 1991, the Honourable Tony Silipo, then the Minister of Education, approved the purchase of land at the corner of Highway 20 and Highland Road. The Wentworth County Board of Education and the residents have been waiting since then for them to begin construction. They are still waiting.

With the cost of busing to the lower city and sending students to the Hamilton Board of Education schools, a new school would save Wentworth county taxpayers about $900,000 a year. With Saltfleet High School badly in need of repairs, at an estimated cost of between $8 million and $10 million, I think it would be more economical in the long run to build a high school on the proposed location.

We are not talking about a few things that need fixing in Saltfleet, but a major overhaul to repair plumbing and health-related issues. The community of Heritage Green sees a new high school as a resource for the whole neighbourhood, with its isolated nature and lack of community focus. A new high school could inject vitality into the area in which everyone could benefit under this government: lifelong training by people trying to enter the workforce for the first time and others who need upgrading to prepare for the year 2000, a major priority.

The residents of Heritage Green need a facility for this to take place. I implore the Minister of Education to approve the request by the Wentworth County Board of Education for a new high school in this community.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Maris Gailis, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of State Reform from Latvia. Welcome.

1350

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I would also ask all members to join me in welcoming the 17th group of pages to serve in the third session of the 35th Parliament: Matthew Bassani, Lawrence; Brigid Brown, Perth; Jeremy Chambers, Norfolk; Michael Chicoine, Durham Centre; Benjamin Deacon, Cambridge; Michelle Drylie, Mississauga South; Dominik Ken, Ottawa East; Olivia Landry, Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings; Jason Leong, Fort York; Heidi Machina, Essex-Kent; Riley McComb, Sault Ste Marie; Dilhan Mills, Scarborough-Ellesmere; Erin Murch, Parry Sound; Marion Murphy, Windsor-Walkerville; Heather O'Keefe, Etobicoke-Lakeshore; Jonathan Quick, Eglinton; Bronwyn Rayfield, Carleton East; Joseph Reitano, Durham East; Ryan Shelly, Prescott and Russell; Benjamin Speers, Brant-Haldimand; Denise Stoter, Hastings-Peterborough; Lisa Walters, Oshawa; Melanie Winfield, Lake Nipigon; Matthew Wiper, Essex South. Please welcome our latest group of pages.

ORAL QUESTIONS

VIOLENCE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): When I last left this Legislature on Thursday of last week, we were talking about law and order, crime and punishment. In the absence of the Premier, in the absence of the Solicitor General and in the absence of the Attorney General, I will ask the acting Premier or the acting minister of justice or the acting Solicitor General.

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Let me be clear. I am asking a deadly serious question. I have in my hands today the front pages of the Chatham Daily News and the Windsor Star. All of Ontario and certainly Chatham, Ontario, were shocked and horrified to awaken on Sunday to find out that a little boy of seven years of age was bludgeoned to death in that southwestern Ontario community.

I ask the government of Ontario, whomsoever chooses to act, can you tell us what you know about the circumstances of that horrible crime in southwestern Ontario last weekend?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I would be the last one to trivialize an issue like this or to treat it in a partisan nature in any way whatsoever. I would simply say to the acting leader of the official opposition that we do take these matters as seriously as any government should be expected to take them and do what we can to prevent these matters in the future.

I think the acting leader would know that there has been an offer by the government -- it has already happened, I understand -- to sit down with the House leaders of the other two parties to work out some of the details on an all-party committee that would help us wrestle with these very, very difficult and painful situations.

Mr Conway: If there is a concern evident in my voice it's because my constituents, and I've got to believe everyone's constituents, are increasingly horrified about what we hear on a daily basis. This crime in Chatham is among the most heinous that I have seen in my time in this place.

There has been a lot of debate. A few days ago, I was recommending on behalf of the Liberal Party some modest proposals as to what we might do: better control of ammunition, tougher sentencing, no plea-bargaining around gun-related offences.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): That sounds like the Reform Party.

Mr Conway: I want to say to anybody who wants to interject, the people whom I represent, of all political parties, are concerned about safe and secure communities.

My question to the government is, what can you tell us today specifically is the plan of your government to deal with the growing concern across the province about the kind of crime that we saw again this weekend? What specifically can we expect and when by way of a government response to this kind of criminal activity and the growing concern across the province about it?

Hon Mr Laughren: Without in any sense being flippant in my response, I know the acting leader would understand that there are no instant solutions to a culture of violence that exists in some people. For us to snap our fingers and say, "This is the response and this is how we're going to solve the problem," would not convince the member opposite, nor should it.

I think what people want in the province is a reasoned response, one that crosses party lines, one that does not engage in any kind of partisanship or histrionics but simply asks the politicians at the federal and provincial level -- I don't believe that on a matter like this the province or, as I heard someone suggest, even a city should act independently of the direction in which we should be moving.

I would hope that the all-party committee could come to grips with what it is it wants to deal with in terms of an agenda and the issues that we will wrestle with, that there will be a good working relationship, and I see no reason why not, with the federal government, which has a large responsibility in this area.

That's not a question of passing the buck to somebody else; it's a question of recognizing legitimate jurisdictional responsibilities that are there now and have been there for some time. I would hope that by sitting down together, both those of us in this assembly and with the federal government, and quite frankly with the municipalities as well, we're able to deal with some of the issues raised by the honourable member.

Mr Conway: Let me be clear. I accept what my friend is saying, that there are no magical cures to this systemic problem that apparently is seizing the nation. My colleagues, I think, would quickly agree that there is no magic solution.

But the people of Ontario, and let me tell you, today in Chatham and Windsor and elsewhere, the mothers and fathers of young people, want to know, what is the government's plan specifically? What do you propose to do, how do you propose to move forward and on the basis of what kind of timetable? Those are the questions that cry out for some response, and once again I put that to the minister.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm a little uneasy with some of the language being used by the member for Renfrew North, and this once again is not meant to trivialize the enormity of the issue, but simply to imply that suddenly we have a new culture of violence that's sweeping the nation I think is not to put it in its proper perspective. The federal Minister of Justice I think stood back from the issue just last week and made what I thought were some reasoned and measured remarks on this matter.

I would simply say to the acting leader of the official opposition that we do want to work on this. Nobody can be anything but appalled when these incidents happen, and we all will be working together on it. I don't think any one government or any one minister has the answer to all of these issues, but I do think the answer will be coming together with the various levels of government. I very, very much hope, by the way, that the all-party committee in this assembly is able to reach an agreement on what the issues are with which we should be dealing.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A new question to the Minister of Health, and it concerns Houselink, that happy world that has been audited, and with no thanks to the government of Ontario. Houselink, a community-based, not-for-profit housing organization here in Metropolitan Toronto, has been audited by the provincial government, and I've had the opportunity in recent days to look at the audit that was leaked to the public, again not to any credit of the minister.

To the Minister of Health: Having read this audit, what a swamp. What a swamp of inappropriate, unauthorized expenditures of scarce public dollars in the hundreds and millions of dollars: inappropriate expense claims, foreign trips, antique purchases --

1400

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): When did that happen?

Mr Conway: When did it happen?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Go back. What was the year?

Mr Conway: This audit was ordered by the previous government in 1990. The audit was returned to the new government in the fall of 1990, and this government sat on this incredible report for years.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Why?

Mr Conway: And the question is why. But my first question is, Minister, can you tell us specifically how you have dealt with a number of the extraordinary and incredible maladministrations reported in this audit?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'd be happy to, because, as the member has identified of course, the years in which this organization was behaving inappropriately were the years in which the party of which the member is a member was in office. Yes, the audit was ordered, but the audit in draft form was received in October 1990; the final audit was received in October 1991.

In the course of that period the ministry working with the agency identified surplus funds which had not been spent and identified expenditures which had been made which would have been approved had approval been sought as it ought to have been. As a result of that discussion and process, the ministry recovered $1,735,775.00.

Mr Conway: My information from reading this audit would suggest that hundreds of thousands of dollars is still outstanding, and the question is, what's happened to those moneys?

When you look at this audit and you see this incredible behaviour, you ask yourself the question, why were the police not called in to pursue at least the prospect of a police investigation and some charges? Because you have to believe that in this day and age, if any accountable public servant spent or caused money to be spent in this fashion, it would be of some real interest to police authorities. That was not done, apparently.

Is the Minister of Health aware that the legal counsel to this group called Houselink, this community-based organization that has been responsible for some of this outrageous and indefensible behaviour, is none other than the husband of her chief of staff, that Houselink's lawyer is a certain Mr Bruce Lewis, who is none other than the spouse of Mary Lewis, your chief of staff?

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it's important that we all be aware of the chronology of the events that are being discussed with respect to Houselink. The inappropriate allocation of funds occurred between 1988 and 1990. The audit finally was received in October 1991. The funds were recovered. The executive director ceased her employment with the organization; a new director was hired in March 1992. Since that time, yes, I am aware, that the legal firm and the lawyer is the spouse of my chief of staff.

I can assure the member that there is no conflict of interest. My chief of staff was not involved in any way prior to the time when in fact the events took place and has not discussed the matter with me since the matter came to my attention.

Mr Conway: The hard-pressed taxpayers of Ontario would read this audit and be left speechless. They would say to the --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Conway: Let me be clear. I submit that any maladministration, any malfeasance, irrespective of when it occurred, should be pursued and, if necessary, prosecuted to the full extent.

Our government ordered this audit because of some concern. The audit came in and it paints a picture of incredible maladministration --

Hon Fred Wilson (Minister without Portfolio and Chief Government Whip): All under the Liberals.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Conway: -- a swamp in which millions of dollars were inappropriately handled and hundreds of thousands of dollars are not yet accounted for.

Hon Mr Wilson: Well, you should have been worried then. You didn't seem to have been worried then.

Mr Conway: You say: "Why was there no stronger action? Why were the police not called in?" Quite frankly, I worry a lot about a situation -- when faced with this kind of a report, we have a situation that the lawyer --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Sarnia.

Mr Conway: -- for the group under scrutiny, under investigation, is married to the chief of staff of the minister who is one of the principal funding agencies.

In light of this revelation, will the minister immediately submit this matter to the public accounts committee so there can be a full and independent investigation into the circumstances that gave rise to this incredible maladministration and misappropriation of public funds?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me point out to the member that the taxpayers of this province took action about the incredible maladministration of this and many other agencies: They changed the government.

Let me also remind him, as he sets up straw men and then attempts to pull them down, that what was found by the audit was the allegation that the agency had $2.1 million of unspent funds, which it recommended the ministry recover. The ministry sat down with the agency and identified that $1.7 million ought to be recovered; $440,000 was in fact appropriate to cover expenditures that had been made. So the ministry recovered $1.7 million; $1.7 million plus $400,000 equals $2.1 million, which was the amount of money the auditor found allegedly in an unspent fund.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I would like to follow up with the Ministry of Housing concerning this growing scandal at Houselink during the final two years of the previous Liberal government.

Minister, it is my understanding that both your ministry and the Ministry of Health have conducted special audits of Houselink's mismanagement and misuse of public funds. The audit prepared by the Ministry of Health was finally made public last week; not voluntarily, I might add, but it was finally made public.

Can you explain why you refused to release your internal audit done by your ministry when a reporter with the Toronto Star requested it?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The request was made in February, I believe, and the recommendation that was made by the freedom of information coordinator at the Ministry of Housing was that the release of the audit report would put third-party interests at risk. For that reason, the ministry recommended non-release and informed the reporter that he might -- in this case, a he -- appeal that decision.

I learned of that decision last week and since then asked for a review of the decision not to release the report. The report will be released this afternoon.

Mr Harris: Clearly the only third parties, then, that might have been at risk were those who may have done something wrong. If nobody had anything to hide or cover up, there would be nobody at risk. We understand that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harris: First of all, it's downright embarrassing to the public of this province, to the members of the Legislature, that we have to probe question after question after question to get access to information that should be made public immediately. These reports are three and four years old.

I would like to ask the minister specifically, since she's obviously been following this case with interest a little bit from afar -- now she's going to release the report; she must then have reviewed and know all of the information, since it's going to be public this afternoon -- what two people went to Berlin, to Germany? Could you give us the names and the reason for that trip?

Hon Ms Gigantes: No, I cannot because I have not reviewed those reports intensively myself. They will be released because, in my view, this was an audit by government of a government contract and it is perfectly reasonable that it should be released publicly. I simply cannot give names. I'm sure in fact the member knows the names he's after. Maybe he'd like to bring the names out and have a discussion.

1410

Mr Harris: You know, you sit here and you cover up and you cover up and you cover up. You refuse to table information. We tried to get the annual reports --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Durham East, come to order.

Mr Harris: We tried to get the annual reports of Houselink in the ministry and were told that your ministry does not keep the annual reports of Houselink. With all the controversy going on, will you as well ensure this afternoon that you release the annual reports of Houselink, which should be public information, which should be kept in your ministry files as well, should be made available certainly to the members of the opposition?

Will you do two things: In addition to releasing your report that you've kept hidden all this time, will you also make sure that the annual reports of Houselink to the ministry are released, and will you also release to this Legislature the entire involvement of Robin Sears's mother in this whole affair?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I can't answer in the affirmative because I simply don't know that such a relationship exists, frankly. When he asked for the release of the annual reports of a non-profit agency called Houselink, the Ministry of Housing doesn't run that non-profit corporation. Those will be available. I would assume that Houselink would provide them to the leader of the third party. Our obligation in the Ministry of Housing, which I'm quite prepared to say is our obligation, is to provide the public with information about our relationship as a ministry with Houselink. There was a contractual obligation there. There was a contract between Houselink and the Ministry of Housing. The report that was undertaken is a report that I am quite prepared to release, and it will be released this afternoon.

If he has other questions, he'll have to be much more forthcoming about his purposes and his sources of information and who's related to whom and who likes whom and who goes on what trips -- I don't know, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: If there is some other minister who is responsible for the misuse of these funds and the coverup, perhaps the minister could tell me who it is I'm supposed to ask.

The Speaker: Could the leader of the third party address his second question, please.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South, come to order.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Cochrane South is asked to come to order. New question, the leader of the third party.

CAMPING FEES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is to the Minister of Finance. Minister, can you confirm that in your desperate search for revenue, you intend this year, for the first time, to tax Boy Scouts and Girl Guides who want to camp at our provincial parks this summer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The question takes me somewhat by surprise, and perhaps it would be --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Always be prepared, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: Perhaps part of the credo of being prepared is to wait for the supplementary.

Mr Harris: As the member from Etobicoke says, the motto is, always be prepared.

You ought not to be surprised, Minister, because you have sent out by way of edict to all political and non-political people affiliated with this government to try to figure out every possible way that you can wring every last nickel out of the public of Ontario. Boy Scouts and other six- to 17-year-old groups will now have to pay a new group camping fee, $14 per stay, plus $1 for every child, plus $2 for every supervisor, plus their reservation fee -- all brand-new fees to go into our provincial parks and not use any of the water or facilities, but simply to pitch their tents.

This may not seem like a lot to you, Minister, but this is the first time in the history of this province that we've had to go after these kids, trying to teach them a little bit about conservation, a little bit about managing of our forests, that we've had to go into their pockets.

For parents sending their kids to campgrounds, for the kids who sell apples to raise money, it may mean the difference between going to a provincial park this year and not going to a provincial park. In fact, I had a letter from a troop leader in Coldwater saying just that, that this will prevent particularly the needy kids from being able to have that experience this year.

I know it costs money to run provincial parks, but instead of making six- to 17-year-olds help pay for your revenue shortfall, wouldn't it make more sense to ask these groups to help out around the park when they're there? Wouldn't that make more sense?

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't think the groups that go to the parks go there as a form of workfare. I think they go there for other reasons that are closely related to the organizations to which they belong.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Durham East, please come to order.

Hon Mr Laughren: Mr Speaker, if I could be serious about this, in the past there have been different groups pay different rates. Some groups didn't pay any fee at all in the provincial parks for group camping and other groups did. This will bring a standardized -- I believe it's a half fare, 50% rate for groups. I don't think it's at all draconian and I don't think it will discourage the use of our provincial parks.

The leader of the third party is the first one on his feet at every opportunity, telling us that we've got to manage the store better and that we've got to get our deficit down and that we've got to get value for services received. I think that's simply what we're trying to do and I don't think it's imposing an unfair burden on groups that will use our very fine provincial parks.

Mr Harris: Roger White, one of the key members with Boy Scouts of Canada, believes that some Cubs and Brownies and Scouts and Guides will not have this educational experience because you plan across-the-board, brand-new fees for the first time for them to have that experience in our parks.

Treasurer, last year you introduced $240 million in new fees in your budget. In fact, since 1990 you have collected over $2 billion in what you pretend are non-tax revenues. You didn't hike all these; the Liberals did some of those. In fact, those Tories before, right back in those glory years of 42 years, had some fees. Some $2 billion last year, Treasurer, a lot of them you introduced, in non-tax revenues.

You have told taxpayers that we're at the wall, that we've reached the limit. There will be no, you say, significant tax increases in this budget. But what you haven't said is that you have asked everybody -- every minister, your cabinet, all the bureaucracy -- to find every last nickel that you can wring out of the Ontario population. That's the direction that you've given.

Will you commit today that just as there will be no tax increases in this budget, there will be no what you call "revenue enhancers," "user fees," "co-payments," all those things that you bring in? Will you also commit to that to the beleaguered taxpayer in this province, to the beleaguered families, and now, in addition, to the beleaguered children of Ontario?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wanted to assure the member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party, that we will not be introducing user fees in the health care system, as someone --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Laughren: That may upset the leader of the third party, but I did want to get that on the record. I don't think it's inappropriate to ask people to pay for some of the services that they receive to recapture some of the costs of delivering those services. I know that the leader of the third party is implying by his questions that these services should be provided free, all of them presumably, or perhaps he's going to pick and choose.

I thought that the Liberal opposition had cornered the market on trying to have it both ways in this province when it comes to deficits and taxation, but I see now that the Tories have moved into Liberal territory and are calling for no more revenues but lower deficits and keep your expenditures up as well.

1420

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister of Housing confirm that Mr Bruce Lewis, legal counsel to the embattled Houselink, in fact made representations to her government that her government not release this damning auditor's report about the operations of Houselink, because such release of such a report could impair third-party interests, like the people over at Houselink? Can she confirm that Mr Bruce Lewis, legal counsel to Houselink, made those very representations to her government, that this damning report not be released, because it might injure or impair third-party interests?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): No, I cannot. I can confirm, as I said earlier, that when a freedom of information request was made of the Ministry of Housing for the release of the audit report, the coordinator of freedom of information felt it was a question where third-party interests were involved and sought clarification of that and confirmation of that with the representatives of the group, but I can't confirm who spoke to whom. All I can confirm, and I will confirm it for the third time today, is that this audit report will be released this afternoon, and that is as a result of my decision to have the decision not to release it, which was made in February and which I learned about last week, reviewed, and it now will be released.

Mr Conway: One reads this report and one understands how, if one were at Houselink, one would never want this report released. I'll tell you, this is a tale of abuse, of no accountability. I mean, the taxpayers, when they read this, are --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): What it is a tale of is, the responsible minister decided to release the report.

Mr Conway: By and large, the people responsible at Houselink are what I would charitably describe as a nest of interconnected New Democrats.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Oh, Mr Speaker.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): You talk about low-lifes, Sean.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Order, the member for Lake Nipigon and the member for Chatham-Kent.

Mr Conway: I've got to tell you, you just take a look at this community-based organization. Meg Sears is not my mother.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Conway: I want to know from this government, given what this report says about inappropriate spending, foreign trips --

Hon Mr Wildman: Which government did this?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Which government?

Mr Conway: Our government ordered this, and it has been received. It was sat upon --

Interjections.

Mr Conway: Listen, let me be clear. The taxpayers want some accountability. The taxpayers want and deserve some accountability.

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mr Conway: I want to know from the Minister of Housing what specifically she is prepared to do to ensure that the kind of wanton unaccountability, the kind of crazy spending on unvouchered expenditures --

The Speaker: Would the member please complete his question.

Mr Conway: -- unapproved landscaping, foreign travel and much more -- will the Minister of Housing, recognizing the gravity of this report, unlike her colleague the Minister of Health, immediately refer this report to the public accounts committee of this Legislature so there can be an immediate and full examination of all that went on here and so the public can know who is responsible --

The Speaker: The question's been asked. Would the member please take his seat.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Out of all that, I guess the real question is, when did this happen, how did it happen, who was responsible? The question can be answered thus: He's quite correct in identifying that the previous Liberal government realized that there was something wrong in the situation of the contract with Houselink. That government initiated an audit report --

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): You suppressed the report because you knew it was a slam against non-profit housing.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- which in fact was presented to the government once we had been elected.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): And you buried it.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Following on that report, steps were taken -- I can't speak for the Ministry of Health, but I can certainly speak for the Ministry of Housing -- to recover moneys that go back as far as 1986. That means that there was a long period of time when the contractual relationship between Houselink and the Ministry of Housing was inadequately supervised. That's what the audit shows. We are releasing that audit.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Ontario's open tendering process for roadbuilding contracts was developed in the 1950s. It was developed to ensure that there was no fraud or collusion in the awarding of roadbuilding contracts.

You and the Premier, Minister, sold this process of a consortium on 407 on the basis that you needed a consortium in order for them to have the financial strength to be able to raise the private sector funding to build 407. We now know that the private sector funding is out the window. We don't know whether the bid on the 407 was the lowest bid. Will you now restore confidence in the public sector, restore integrity and open up the 407 to bids from all companies?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Thank you, to the member opposite. The 407 is indeed, one more time, the largest highway project in North America, well above $1 billion. Very early, at the beginning of the tendering process -- which included participation from two giant, major consortia made up of several companies and monitored by Price Waterhouse: due diligence, due process of all members of each consortium involved.

Using the corporation as a facilitator to make it happen in a period of six years, in lieu of a period of 25 to 30 years -- I'm referring here specifically to construction -- very early in the tendering process, at the beginning, strict instructions to stay away from lobbying towards elected members, any member, specifically any member of cabinet, "Don't even have a cup of coffee with those people." In lieu of that, appoint four deputy ministers, put in place a foolproof system.

What are the gains? Value engineering, saving $200 million to $300 million, and the possibility to take this turnkey operation and market the project all over the world, putting Ontario engineers to work. Those are two key elements, and 20,000 jobs, build the project within six years in lieu of 25 to 30 years.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Suffice it to say, a success story.

1430

Mr Turnbull: What a load of bunk. You know that if the private sector had known this was going to be funded by the public sector, a lot more companies could have bid on it. You know that, sir. In June 1993, when you were asked if the whole bidding process and eventual awarding of contracts for 407 would be open for the closest public scrutiny and for intense examination by the Legislature, you said: "Absolutely. We have an obligation to make sure that everything is aboveboard." Will you make good on that promise, sir, and table all the details of both the winning and the losing bid in the Legislature immediately?

Hon Mr Pouliot: There were many, many companies involved. We are still in negotiations, and the member will pardon me in not wishing --

Mr Turnbull: You've already chosen a company. What's the use of negotiating?

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- to jeopardize the integrity of the project or the negotiation.

Mr Turnbull: Have you ever negotiated a contract in your life?

The Speaker: The member for York Mills, please come to order.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The savings, because of economy of scale and for reasons specifically explained before, are obvious to all. Why? They have to deliver on time and at a fixed price. This is no repeat Ontario Hydro or SkyDome spectacle. The price is guaranteed. It's not a cost-plus operation. Yet we recognize the ability of government to borrow at a cheaper price, 50 to 75 basis points lower. And who benefits when you can borrow money at a cheaper price? You have the answer: The users, the people who have to pay a toll fee, won't be paying as much as originally planned. There again, in terms of financing, in terms of construction, the process has proven to be flawless and of benefit to all.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I wish the member would rally to the success story. Otherwise, he risks being left in the dark in some distant and remote place and not be able to share in the official opening and the success story.

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is also to the Minister of Transportation. Last week I rose in the Legislature and spoke about taming a killer. I was making reference to the infamous killer highway, that stretch of Highway 6 between Highways 403 and 401.

Over the last five years, at least 21 people have died and dozens more have been injured on this 24-kilometre stretch of highway. Speeding was the number one cause. In the very near future, photo-radar will become a reality in this province, and as it begins --

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): "Please put it on Highway 6."

Mr Abel: You can interject all you want. This happens to be a very important question.

The project was designed to save lives and to reduce speed and fatalities, and it's been proven --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Abel: -- in jurisdictions around the world that it works.

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Abel: The killer highway has carved its notoriety with a heavy hand. If we have the tools to reduce the number of accidents and deaths, we have the responsibility to act. In an attempt to tame the killer, Minister, will you consider extending the use of photo-radar to the 24-kilometre stretch of the killer highway?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): We appreciate the concern of the member regarding the tragic accidents, some of which are directly the result of excessive speed. Of course we share in the sorrow.

Our motto at Transportation is to make the roads of Ontario the safest in North America. Photo-radar is part of our safety initiatives. We have graduated driver's licences. We're building roads and we're making them safer with improved engineering. Photo-radar is one of the important components. The OPP will decide which stretch of highway is most deserving during the pilot project. Will it be, in this instance, Highway 6? Will it be the 401 and the 403? They, in their wisdom, since they're the foot soldiers, will decide where is the best application of that deterrent which is photo-radar.

PARAMEDIC SERVICES

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): My question is for the Minister of Health. The minister will know that for the people of Ottawa-Carleton paramedics are a very, very important issue. Our community knows we have one of the lowest survival rates in North America for our heart attack victims, and we've been working to change that. We've worked extremely hard to get you to give us paramedics like those you fund in Toronto, Hamilton and Oshawa.

In January of this year you said you would give us paramedics through a study, so in January we stopped collecting petition cards. I'm now going to turn over to you the petitions we collected, and I ask that a page come here. I'm going to turn over this box, together with 11 others, containing 55,000 individually signed petition cards, and I ask that they be laid at the minister's feet. I'll give the pages a moment to place the petitions there.

Minister, we in Ottawa-Carleton are concerned that you're not honouring your commitment to give us paramedics. Since January, no money has been made available and training hasn't started. When will we see paramedics on the streets of Ottawa-Carleton?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm very well aware, having spoken to the member from Ottawa and having been there myself, of the enormous interest in Ottawa-Carleton for having paramedics. I'm also very well aware of the enormous progress that has been made in Ottawa-Carleton with respect to dealing with emergencies, since as a result of my commitment that we would work through an evaluation of the value of paramedics has occurred -- there has been $400,000 committed to defibrillation, which is a precondition of having paramedics on the street. There have been extraordinary efforts made to teach cardiopulmonary resuscitation even in the schools in Ottawa-Carleton, another prerequisite to having paramedics be effective. It doesn't make any difference whether a paramedic gets there if they don't get there till 20 minutes after the emergency has occurred, so I welcome the cooperation of Ottawa-Carleton.

In response to the specific question, the very rigorous evaluation and scientifically designed program to evaluate the benefit of paramedics that I committed myself to earlier this year is proceeding, is on track. There is no reason for all of these people in Ottawa-Carleton to share the member's concern that they will not have paramedics on their streets.

Mr McGuinty: Perhaps I can encourage the minister to be a bit more specific. On January 14 of this year, your cabinet colleague the member for Ottawa Centre announced with great fanfare that Ottawa-Carleton would be part of a study on paramedics. In her press release she specifically said, "The advanced life support training should be completed by the end of this year and fully trained paramedics should be working in ambulances early in 1995."

We have the Ontario minister with special responsibilities for Ottawa-Carleton specifically saying that training would be completed by the end of this year and paramedics would be on our streets early in 1995. Now, that's not what I hear you say now. As a result of this minister's word, as a result of her solemn commitment on a matter of the utmost gravity to the people of Ottawa-Carleton, we stopped pressuring you. We only collected 55,000 petitions.

If the minister is now reneging on her colleague's solemn commitment, we can only conclude it was never a true commitment and only made for the shallowest, most cynical of political purposes: just to shut us up. I want to give the minister the opportunity now to confirm that this is not the case. Will the minister now confirm that training for Ottawa-Carleton paramedics will be completed by the end of this year and that they will be on the streets in early 1995?

Hon Mrs Grier: That was what the member for Ottawa Centre said in January, that is what I'm saying, and nothing that has happened since then has done anything to change the situation. In fact, just a week ago I received a unanimous consensus report from the research group that is designing the research. The training and the investment in the defibrillators and in CPR has begun. I have every reason to believe that Ottawa will be one of the first places, as part of this study, where paramedics are on the streets, and I have every reason to believe that the optimistic timetable my colleague announced in January will in fact be lived up to.

All I can say to the member is, relax. Don't go collecting petitions. Put your efforts into making sure that when we make this major investment in an expansion of services in Ottawa-Carleton, we are sure we get the results that all of us devoutly hope for.

1440

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): My question is for the Minister of Education and Training, who seems to have disappeared.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): No, he's there.

Mrs Cunningham: Oh, sorry. I'll welcome him back to the province of Ontario and to his seat, and then I will ask him a question about OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board.

This morning we met with the two co-chairs of OTAB, Mr Donald Green and Mr Glenn Pattinson, who have a tremendous responsibility, and Mr Tim Millard, the interim chief executive officer. They showed us their mission statement, which was an equitable system of training and adjustment programs and services in Ontario.

I think everybody agrees we need a partnership with our secondary schools so that students can participate in programs. We've had the SWAP programs, we've had some modified apprenticeship programs -- I'll refer to them as MAP -- and some articulation programs with our community colleges. Some of these have met with success, but there's far too much red tape, there's a lack of support in changes in legislation and regulations, and there is a lack of will to make these things happen.

Are you aware of these concerns, and what are you going to do about it?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I am aware that there is a long history of the lack of coordination between our elementary-secondary education system, our post-secondary education system and our training system. That's one of the reasons the government has brought those three ministries together and has set up the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, so there can be a much more coordinated approach to develop an education and training system in the province.

It will take some time to do that. Progress is being made, but it can't happen overnight. We've got a lot of years when there wasn't much attention paid to this whole system that we have to make up for, and we're trying to do that as quickly as we can.

Mrs Cunningham: I'm glad to see that the minister isn't as impatient as others in this province.

This is People and Skills in the New Global Economy, the former Premier's Council report. It states that in Ontario the average age of apprenticeship is 26 years. In the highly successful West German system, apprenticeship is actually part of the secondary school system. We've spent lots of money over the years -- and you well know that -- sending teachers over there. They've been coming back for 20 years to tell us to change it. The average age of apprenticeship there is 16.

This is my question: Did you know that we have a dropout rate right now of 50% in our apprenticeship programs? Did you know also that if you want to stay in school beyond the age of 21 in our secondary schools, you have to pay fees?

We're looking at major changes to make these systems work, and I ask you if you would look at the legislation with regard not only to my former request in the former question but to the exit age of 21, just so we can start making this system work. If we don't, we will not get the kind of compliance and the kind of enthusiasm for apprenticeship training programs in our secondary schools. Will you look at the exit age barrier?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would just caution the member about taking a look at some of the other systems in the world and saying they are systems that should automatically be put in place in Ontario.

Mrs Cunningham: That's not what I said. That's what this report said.

Hon Mr Cooke: I had an opportunity to speak to some folks from other jurisdictions in western Europe last week, and I can tell you, I'm not sure we'd want to take the German system and apply it here, where they stream off thousands and thousands of students early on in education and put them off into technological education and therefore they have no opportunities to go on to other forms of education.

Part of the recommendation from the Premier's report, which I think the member's referring to, was the establishment of the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, and in fact we've acted on that recommendation.

It's interesting that the member selectively endorses some of the recommendations. She didn't support OTAB, and I think that was the major step that needed to be taking place in this province to once and for all get our training programs in order.

TENANTS ON SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. A common complaint I get from landlords is that they are often left with a returned rent cheque, or no cheque at all, when they rent to people who are receiving government assistance such as general welfare or family benefits. Landlords suggest to me that the government should allow the social services department to automatically forward the rent cheque to the landlord each month, as is the practice in other jurisdictions. This way, landlords will not be left out of pocket and social assistance recipients will not be discriminated against when they look for rental housing.

I have to admit, personally it's something I hold very strongly, that such a system should be created so that well-meaning landlords who have rented to social assistance recipients and have sometimes been left thousands of dollars in debt because their tenant has failed to pay the rent -- I've also seen social assistance recipients who cannot find decent rental accommodation because of the reputation of a few irresponsible tenants who have not met their obligations.

Minister, could you advise me whether your ministry is looking at implementing some sort of rent-directed system here in Ontario?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I thank the member for her concern in this area. I can just say to her, in brief, that this is an issue we are looking at. I have certainly received many of the same letters and concerns the member has addressed. I know that last week this Legislature passed a resolution that was presented by the member for Cochrane South on this very issue, and we are looking at what we can do.

We believe very fundamentally, as I believe the member for St Catharines-Brock does, that the vast majority of people on social assistance are able to and fulfil their obligations with respect to paying rent in a very responsible fashion. In anything we do, we want to make sure we maintain that approach. But we are looking at what we can do, and whether it's this form of directing the rent or other things we can do, we are taking a look at that and will be doing some work together with our colleagues in the Ministry of Housing around that issue.

Ms Haeck: I'd like to thank the minister for those remarks because, like him, I do see the fact that many of our social assistance recipients are very responsible in their actions. But I also know from comments made, even in my local newspaper as recently as 10 days ago, that there are those folk who have very serious concerns on behalf of welfare recipients or social assistance recipients that we would be controlling how they spend their money. I ask to what degree your ministry would be ensuring that the rights of social assistance recipients will still be kept uppermost in your mind.

Hon Mr Silipo: As I said, we would want to proceed in this area in a way that shows very much that we respect the reality that the vast majority of people who are on social assistance are carrying out their responsibilities in a very straightforward fashion, and that we believe very fundamentally in supporting the dignity of individuals who are on social assistance to have control over how they use the funds they receive in benefits. As we proceed to take a look at what we can do to deal with the few issues that are problems relative to the overall system, we will keep that very much in mind, so as we work out the details I'm quite confident we can address both of those aspects in the way they need to be.

1450

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. The minister will be aware that a number of school boards in the province are extremely concerned about a bombshell which was dropped on them last week, that bombshell being the news that in some cases they are required to raise substantially more money than they had anticipated.

The Hamilton-Wentworth board of education has a difference of $5 million, the Lincoln County Board of Education about $2 million. All were shocked, because they have to go to their local area municipal council to put forward what they believe will be their levy for this coming fiscal year.

My question to the minister is, why did you wait so late to tell all these boards of education about this news and not allow them to make adjustments within their budgetary system to accommodate it?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I am actually quite happy that the member raised this particular issue, and specifically with the Hamilton Board of Education, which has been making a big fuss about what it claims to be $5 million.

I asked the ministry last week, when I first saw this in the paper, to do some analysis. The fact of the matter is that the $5 million they're referring to has very little to do with the GLG announcement. The only change in the GLGs was a slight adjustment to the spending ceiling, which is done quite often, regularly, by governments. It was done by yours too. The impact is to have a slight switch from high assessment boards to low assessment boards; in other words, wealthy boards to poor boards.

The vast majority of the money that the Hamilton Board of Education is referring to are items like a transitional assistance fund, which was a one-time payment it got last year which it knew it wouldn't get this year, that its student enrollment declined by 750 --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Cooke: All those were factors they were aware of months ago, and they cannot now blame the provincial government. It might be a great political tactic of theirs, but it's not accurate, not fair and not true.

Mr Bradley: The minister has been in the House a long time and knew enough to pick the right part of the question to answer.

My supplementary question to the minister, very briefly, is why did you wait so long to provide this information to a number of boards -- I know you've chosen the Hamilton-Wentworth board, but the Lincoln County Board of Education, for instance -- when you know that by the end of this month they have to have their levy requests to the local councils, that they have negotiated their contracts and that they have made certain financial commitments, and then, at the last minute, you drop this bombshell on them? Why is that?

Hon Mr Cooke: That is simply not accurate. What I told the member was that every factor I've referred to, except for the general legislative grants and the one factor of the change in the spending ceiling, everything else, the boards knew about before we announced the GLGs.

Those factors were well known and the board is using the one factor, the general legislative grants, as an excuse to deal with a whole bunch of other matters and blame everything on the provincial government. It happens every year at this time and it happens even more when there's a municipal election coming on.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 55.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 196 petitions here, which represent over 2,000 signatures, and I would like to read it into the record.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for either children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount;

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

Mr Speaker, I have affixed my signature, and I would like to let you know that this now comes to 5,225 people who have signed these petitions in 55 cities and towns throughout Ontario.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the funding required to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating cost of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high as a legacy of the Liberal government;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

It's signed by approximately 20 of my constituents.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition sent to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and it reads as follows:

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the House refrain from passing Bills 45 and 56 and that sexual orientation not be added to the Ontario Human Rights Code.

"While in principle we agree with the intent of Bill 56 -- our creed teaches us to love and respect our neighbour -- we are concerned over the government's intent to legislate morality and at the same time eliminate definitions of standards as proposed in Bill 45.

"Bill 56 in its proposed form, without parameters of standards, opens the way to reverse discrimination. For example, it is our concern that it will become a tool to require schools to teach other sexual orientations as natural or normal, which is unnatural to the majority and contrary to the beliefs of many.

"We recommend that the government not proceed with these bills in their present proposed form."

I have affixed my signature.

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood,

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

I have signed that petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the costs of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

This petition is signed by about 260 people from all over Ontario.

1500

HAEMODIALYSIS

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments;

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment;

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

I've signed that petition and want members of the public to know that currently an all-party committee of the Legislature is preparing recommendations to force this government, or certainly to urge this government, to establish dialysis satellites outside of Metro Toronto where they're certainly needed.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I have a petition from many residents of Scarborough, including some of your constituents, no doubt.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education, and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto, and whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all of the students in the area;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart, and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student (based on 1993 estimates);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

I'm pleased to add my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have another petition, this time from the Brighton Bible Church, members there, and it's to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code."

I've signed the petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): I too have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of the province of Ontario, signed by some 208 constituents and also hunters who come from out of province.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to the government decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, therefore, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I agree and have signed this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and modular homes in land-lease communities, like Sutton-by-the-Lake; and

"Whereas many of the owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible on third reading of Bill 21."

I had a call just before I came in here from Muriel McDermott asking me to present this petition today.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition that has come to me from the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Premier of Ontario, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I endorse this petition as well.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have petitions here that were forwarded to me by R.G. Morgan, the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. These petitions are similar to ones that the member for Wellington just read in and many other members read in concerned about the firearms course certificate etc. I would submit that now on behalf of the federation.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have another petition from 36 people from the riding of Northumberland expressing again their opposition to Bill 45. They are requesting that the House refrain from passing Bill 45. I have signed the petition.

EMERGENCY SERVICE

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition that reads as follows:

"Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 16,000 people live in small towns, villages and rural sections of this area.

"Due to the shortage of doctors in the area, the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis.

"If the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We, the residents of the hospital's service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and want the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately."

I've signed that petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): I have a petition sent to me by Rick Morgan, the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. This petition has been signed by residents of the riding of Huron, and it reads:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"I/we, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I so agree, and I so have signed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF DUFFERIN ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Tilson, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr109, An Act respecting the County of Dufferin.

ONTARIO SOUTHLAND RAILWAY INC. ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr North, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr100, An Act respecting Ontario Southland Railway Inc.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): This bill will put into place the changes to the Corporations Tax Act that were introduced in the 1992 and 1993 Ontario budgets. The changes include enhancements to the instalment base and the electronic filing of returns, the introduction of a corporate minimum tax and changes that will parallel amendments to the federal Income Tax Act.

The corporate minimum tax will ensure that large, profitable firms will pay at least a minimum amount of corporate income tax. The tax will apply to corporations or companies and associated groups with total assets of more that $5 million or a gross revenue over $10 million. Only corporations over these limits currently paying little or no regular income tax will be required to pay the corporate minimum tax.

The small business income tax rate will be reduced from 10% to 9.5%. The income tax rate for manufacturing and processing, mining, farming, logging and fishing will be 13.5%, down from 14.5%. Corporations which issue flow-through shares and renounce exploration and development expenses incurred in Canadian mineral exploration to individual shareholders will be entitled to a reduction in their paid-up capital.

Other measures being introduced will close corporate tax loopholes and improve tax fairness. The goodwill allowance previously allowed as a deduction from paid-up capital will be eliminated and all debt, whether secured or unsecured, will be included in paid-up capital.

The bill will introduce specific rules regarding the distribution of assets prior to a corporation's year-end. As well, associations registered under the Prepaid Hospital and Medical Services Act will be considered insurance companies for the purposes of the insurance premium tax.

Finally, this bill also introduces an additional tax on life insurance corporations and imposes an 18-month temporary income surtax of 10% on banks as well as an increase in the capital tax paid by banks from 1% to 1.12%.

This bill addresses the major inequities in the act through the introduction of a corporate minimum tax and the closure of many loopholes which have benefited a few corporations at the expense of all taxpayers.

Speaker, let me say a few more words. I'm pleased that we have finally reached the point where we are having a debate about the minimum corporate tax. This government, as you know, made a commitment in the last election, in the 1990 election, to bring in a minimum corporate tax. We believe that was an important measure to bring in terms of tax fairness.

The good people of the province of Ontario are obviously paying their share of taxes, as all of them will attest, and certainly, if they haven't finished doing their returns, they'll be doing them in the next week or so. But it's important too that corporations pay their fair share. Let me say, many corporations, and I would suggest to you particularly many small businesses, have been paying their fair share for quite a long time. I think those people who do pay their fair share of taxes would also be supportive of us bringing in this minimum corporate tax.

As I say, it was election policy from the 1990 campaign. We're moving forward on that, retaining that commitment to the people of the province of Ontario, and let me say there are some tax increases in here; we all recognize that. But in terms of the main focus of it, it's the Corporations Tax Act and I believe, and I hope many other people will believe, it is about tax fairness, which is something this government has talked about a lot, talked about a lot when it was in opposition and has tried to bring about as a government in ensuring a fair tax system.

We believe a fairer tax system is one that's more progressive. If you look at what we tried to do in terms of tax increases -- and we certainly understand no one likes to pay more tax; that's very clear -- but in terms of making the very difficult decisions we had to make to get a handle on the deficit, Speaker, if I could just spend a minute reviewing them in terms of the action we took in last year's budget to ensure that the deficit didn't go up to close to $17 billion, which was totally unacceptable, the government undertook a three-pronged approach, as you will remember.

We implemented the expenditure control plan, which was reductions in government expenditures, and the vast majority of the amount on an expenditure control plan was specifically the provincial government. There were some reductions to some of our transfer agencies as well as a result of that, but most of that money came out of the government's direct spending.

We also had the social contract, which is in place, and we found another $2 billion worth of savings in there. We asked those people who worked for the government and in the public sector to contribute to getting a handle on the deficit, and those people have certainly made a contribution.

As well, we implemented tax increases and non-tax revenue increases close to another $2 billion to make up the rest of it. We asked everybody to contribute. As part of that, we said that the corporations should contribute as well. Those profitable corporations which are making money out of the province of Ontario need to contribute back to help pay for the services that all Ontarians benefit from, and I would say too that those corporations benefit as well. We believe that bringing in this minimum corporate tax and some of the other tax initiatives here does relate to the question of tax fairness.

I'm sure when the opposition is up, they're going to rail against this bill because they're going to say any tax increase is a negative thing. I know the Liberals are going to get up and say this is awful. They're not going to present many other alternatives, of course, if we remember what their leader said. She said we didn't cut enough: "Cut more. Cut extra billions." She didn't say how to do that. She said: "Don't do the social contract but cut more. Don't reduce to your transfer partners but cut more." They have lots of general ideas.

At any rate, I look forward to some of the comments that will be coming out, but I do just want to say that I hope people see this as part of the government's initiative for tax fairness to ensure that everyone, not only individuals but corporations, is paying their fair share.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): There's no such thing as a fair tax, Kim. The whole world we're into right now: Everything's got to be fair, this has got to be fair so you hit the big guy. Your government has taken the view that you're pro-employee and you have a feeling of anti-employer. If you start thinking of the way in which your government has developed this logic and this thinking, it's saying, "We want to develop anything that's going to be pro the employee."

What you have to work out in our society is a balance between both the employer and the employee so that all sides win. It's not a matter of just saying us and them; we're in it together. If you can have the employers creating opportunities and getting jobs for people, then the employee is going to be the beneficiary. We as people in government have to look at ways of not building walls between ourselves and the real world but building bridges of friendship and building relationships that allow us to work through into the future.

1520

When you start talking about fairness, I wonder if this could be anything like some of the other taxes you've brought in where now you're having to come back and rethink it. The tragedy is that I don't think anyone's going to come back and cancel a tax. I have to speak on this bill shortly. I'm not going to make any guarantee that we'd roll it back, but we are in a society where I wish you'd understand as a government you've got to stop adding to the costs of government.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): You wouldn't cancel a tax, but we do cancel taxes, Don.

Mr Cousens: You'll have a chance. I've got 30 seconds left, and Drummond, you can say all you want for 90 seconds. That's the way it works around here. But I'm always glad to listen to you when you speak in turn.

So here we go again. It's a battle that just won't end. I'm not prepared to sit back and have you say, "We've got another fair tax for the people of Ontario." You even had a commission that went out there and called itself the Fair Tax -- and changing the world -- the Fair Tax Commission. You put all the words around it. Talk about artists in wordsmithing. That's what you are.

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? Two minutes in reply.

Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the input from the member for Markham. I'm sure he's going to elaborate far more in his opportunity to make remarks on the bill about his definition of fair taxation. We know what the Tories' definition of fair taxation is. We saw for nine years under the federal Tories how they changed the tax system and what they feel a fairer tax system is.

Mr Cousens: I'll get into that. Great.

Mr Sutherland: Let's talk about this.

Mr Cousens: They went and reduced income tax; the provincial Liberals increased it. So you better understand it.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Markham, you had your turn. Please.

Mr Cousens: I apologize. Give him an extra two minutes.

Mr Sutherland: Let me just say I think all of us in this House have seen very clearly what they feel a fair tax system is, and we know that in the past they certainly have had no problems granting many exemptions to all kinds of corporations. I want to say there's a difference between granting exemptions etc and some of the initiatives that are put on to generate certain types of economic activity.

The member for Markham also indicated this being pro-employee and anti-employer. It's not a question of being anti-employer. It's a question of saying that, legitimately in the province of Ontario, we have many public services that many people benefit from; let me say, not only individuals but corporations. There is an expectation that everyone should contribute to pay for those public services.

Individuals contribute on a regular basis. Everyone believes that the corporate sector should be contributing as well and should be paying its fair share. There are some corporations that aren't, and we believe through the introduction of the minimum corporate tax, which will impact about 3% to 4% of companies in the province, we will be making the system fair.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise today to debate Bill 146, which is entitled An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act. However, it's also an opportunity for us to discuss the fiscal policy of the government. Bill 146 is just a part of the overall taxation strategy of Bob Rae and the NDP government.

To begin, as I have with other pieces of tax legislation that have been before us in the last few days, I'd like to point out that Bill 146 is a bill that, while it had first reading in March 1994, in fact much of the provisions of this legislation resulted from the previous budget.

In fact, Mr Speaker, do you want to know why people believe that the NDP government is so incompetent? This bill is passing a two-year-old tax provision, and that provision has in fact already expired.

Now, what that means, in simple, plain language for people who are watching, is that because it is the tradition for taxing in this province that the tax takes effect when the Treasurer announces it, it is then followed, usually shortly thereafter, by a piece of legislation enacting the tax.

This Bill 146 contains a temporary capital tax surcharge on banks that was announced in the 1992 budget, clearly two full years ago. That tax, the temporary capital surcharge on banks, was a tax that came into effect on April 30, 1992, and expired on November 1, 1993.

Here we are, the end of April 1994, and the government is bringing in this retroactive legislation to legalize a tax which has already been implemented, been collected and expired. To me that is the height of incompetence. It's also why people lose confidence and feel so cynical about governments.

I'd like to make that point as we begin this debate, because Bill 146 is a piece of legislation that was announced during the last budget. Today is April 25, 1994. We know that the new budget for this coming year is going to be tabled in this House on May 5.

It's upsetting to people watching this debate to realize that we are standing here today debating tax bills that are implementing provisions which are not only two years old and have expired and implementing provisions which were announced in the budget of last year, but we know that within the next few days we're going to have a new budget.

That is not competent management, in my view. It is also not the right message to the people of the province that's going to instil confidence either from the private sector or from consumers, who we know are the people who will be leading economic recovery, hopefully economic recovery, in the province of Ontario.

It's distressing, to say the least, that here we stand a full year after the announcement of these provisions. I listened very carefully to the parliamentary assistant as he referred to the fact that the announcement of a corporate minimum tax is not just one year old; he said that this was part of the Agenda for People and this was a campaign commitment from the election of the summer of 1990. I would say to him that that's no reason for bringing this forward now.

I don't want to go through the lists and I know that this is a debate about tax policy, but I remember auto insurance. I remember all the promises that you made in the Agenda for People. When you became the government, you realized that those commitments that you made in the Agenda for People were rhetoric of an opposition party that never expected to govern. You found yourself in government and you jettisoned many of those policies, because you knew that they were not going to be acceptable to the people of the province of Ontario.

In fact one of the things that I find most interesting about the minimum corporate tax that we're discussing today is that so many people told you not to do it. It wasn't just the chambers of commerce and the boards of trade that you would expect, but the corporate minimum tax was one of the very first things that the NDP government referred to its tax commission. They called it the Fair Tax Commission, and in a few minutes I'm going to go on about how they've contaminated the word "fair" and what that really means in NDP Ontario.

But they set up this tax commission and they asked it to expeditiously look at their campaign promise, which was a corporate minimum tax. The tax commission said, "Don't do it." They said, as my children sometimes say to me when I give them an answer that's different than the one that they expected, "Oh, gee, we're really sorry we asked you that question; could you forget we ever asked?" and then proceed to do exactly what they wanted to do in the first place.

1530

That's really what Bob Rae and the NDP have done. They made a promise in the last election campaign. They then asked for expert advice on whether or not they should proceed with that promise. They were told, "Don't proceed; it really is not a good idea for Ontario at this time," and they're doing it anyway.

I'd like to make a very clear statement about why I'm not going to be supporting Bill 146. I believe that Bill 146 will result in higher taxes. It will result in more government red tape. Particularly, it will result in fewer jobs for individual Ontarians. I say that with a heavy heart, because I've been saying it time and again as we discuss tax bills and fiscal policy in the province of Ontario.

This is going to sound a little repetitious, but I think it does bear repeating: Now is not the time to raise additional tax revenues. The province of Ontario has undergone a devastating recession. People are suffering. People who thought they had secure jobs have lost their jobs. People are worried today that they may lose their job tomorrow. One of things that we know from economists and others is that for every $40,000 that you take out of the economy in additional taxes, you kill one job. That's the ratio. It's very easy to understand.

We know that the result of last year's budget was to slow the economy. We know part of the reason that the recovery has been as sluggish and as slow as it's been has been because of the taxation policies of the New Democrats. Bill 146 is yet another example of taking additional dollars out of the economy.

Now, the parliamentary assistant refers to tax fairness, and I want to spend just a couple of minutes on this notion of "fair." A good case can be made for everyone paying their fair share of taxes. I have been a proponent of the kind of tax reforms that would ensure that everyone pays their fair share. While you may have debates from time to time about how to achieve tax fairness, the reality is that everyone in a democracy, I think, when put to the test, would say, "Yes, I believe that everyone should pay their fair share."

But just as the Fair Tax Commission, established by Bob Rae and the New Democrats, stopped being called the Fair Tax Commission when it issued its report -- which was not that it was going to see taxes redistributed or greater fairness, but in fact the end result of the Fair Tax Commission's findings was going to result in more taxes and higher taxes -- in the name of fairness and fair share, Bill 146 is going to result in more taxes, not fair taxes. Bill 146 does not reallocate or shift or lower a tax on one side to move it to another sector, where some might argue there hasn't been a fair share in the payment of taxes. That's not what Bill 146 does. What Bill 146 does is raise the tax rate for private sector corporations that have been investing in jobs in the province of Ontario.

Mr Sutherland: And banks and insurance companies.

Mrs Caplan: Yes, Bill 146 also has a negative impact on banks and insurance companies, but it doesn't mean greater fairness. I'm sick and tired of seeing Bob Rae and parliamentary assistants and members of the NDP caucus stand up and use the word "fair" when what they mean is something other than fair, or fair in their eyes. Often when I hear Bob Rae say "fair," what I know he means is "same." If everybody isn't the same, then it isn't fair.

As I look around my riding, the riding of Oriole, I know that Ontario is a province of great diversity, where not everyone is the same, where a policy that would be appropriate for Metropolitan Toronto would not necessarily be appropriate for North Bay, would not necessarily be appropriate for Kitchener-Waterloo or Guelph. The notion that the NDP has that fairness means sameness in my view is wrong.

What we need is the kind of flexibility in public policy that allows local communities to have more say, that allows local communities to find the solutions to the problems facing those local communities. When you have big government at Queen's Park demanding sameness in the name of fairness, that is terribly, terribly unfair.

So as we debate Bill 146, there are a few points that I would like to make.

Higher taxes are not the way to economic prosperity. At a time of economic recession, higher taxes, taking more money out of the economy, reduces economic activity. I'm trying to find new and different ways of saying that, ways that perhaps the government will understand. I admit that I'm getting very frustrated.

The parliamentary assistant says, "What are your alternatives?" I want to tell him very clearly that on tax policy, Lyn McLeod and the Ontario Liberals have promised a 5% tax reduction over a five-year period. We believe that would result in stimulating both business investment and job creation opportunities in the private sector in the province of Ontario.

One of the things we have seen in each year of this NDP government in its fiscal plan and in its taxing plan is that each year we have seen it increase taxes. Do you know what the result has been? The result has been less tax revenue. So you're raising taxes and you're collecting fewer taxes. Wake up. This is telling you something. The fewer people who are employed, the less personal income tax they pay. The more companies that go into bankruptcy, the less taxes they're going to pay. It is extremely important that at times of recession, at times of a sluggish economy, we understand the negative impact that tax increases can have on the economy.

Having said that, I think it is only fair for me to put that in context of the other side of the coin. There is a time to raise taxes. The time to raise taxes is when the economy is booming, when wages are going up in the private sector and public sector employees say, legitimately, that they also deserve wage increases. That's at a time of economic prosperity. That's a lesson that the NDP has not learned. You cannot raise wages, you cannot increase spending, you cannot raise your taxes at a time of economic recession. Frankly, at a time when wages in the private sector are being reduced, you cannot increase public sector wages.

1540

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): Wages in the private sector outdistanced the public sector in the last quarter.

Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, an interjection from the member for Durham who is, as always, an active contributor in heckling in this House, and I'm not going to pay any attention to him.

One of the things that we know is that you cannot spend your way out of a recession and you cannot tax your way out of a recession. How do we know that? Because Bob Rae and the NDP tried both and they failed miserably. Unfortunately, the result of their failure is pain, anguish and job loss for the people of the province of Ontario.

I remember listening to the parliamentary assistant as he talked about the Agenda for People and I remember, during that summer campaign, realizing how desperate that agenda seemed. It was so unrealistic. Those of us who were campaigning during that summer knew that every bit of rhetoric, every promise that could be put out to appeal to people, was put forth in that Agenda for People. I think that there is justice in the world, to see the NDP trying to govern with that Agenda for People staring them in the face and people saying, "Yes, but what happened to your Agenda for People?"

That was at the time when you said you all of those simple answers to all of these complex problems. They've had almost four years to govern, and we've seen what has happened to those folks who had all the simple answers in the summer of 1990. What do we see? We see higher taxes; we see a deficit that has brought shame to the province of Ontario.

I would like, if I could, as I participate in this debate on Bill 146, to remind people who are watching this debate that after 15 years of Progressive Conservative government deficits -- there were 15 consecutive years of deficit financing by the Conservatives -- the Provincial Auditor has attested to the fact that the very first fully balanced budget was the Liberal government budget of 1989-90.

I was proud to serve in that government. I was proud of our fiscal responsibility. We know that there was a fully balanced operating budget from 1987 on, and that was no small achievement. We had to work very hard to do that. We made some very difficult decisions.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): How come when we took over we were $3 billion short? The books were being cooked.

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: There were people who said that we were not spending enough. As I hear those opposite, I can't remember anyone in those years, from 1985 to 1990, who ever said that we were spending too much. In hindsight, those were very good years. The economy was booming, 700,000 jobs were created in the province of Ontario and, yes, those were times that people would like to look back on and people would like to remember economic prosperity.

At the same time, I'll say that during those years, no, we were not perfect. Certainly I learned a lot about governing and government. But I can tell you that when I look at the taxation policies of the NDP as we come out of this recession, I think to myself, "My, how times have really changed."

We have today an anti-business, anti-private-sector government, and the provisions of Bill 146 are actually very stark when it comes to that. One of the things that Bill 146 does that maybe some people think is a good idea but I think is mean-spirited more than anything else, especially since it's don't-do-as-I-do, do-as-I-say kind of legislation: Bill 146 cuts the private sector's entertainment deduction to 50% from previously 80%. What that means is that when businesses were out entertaining or using the restaurants in the province of Ontario, they were able to deduct 80% of those expenses as a business expense. This legislation cuts that to 50%.

What I find particularly interesting is that when civil servants who work for the government of Ontario go out, they are able to deduct a full 100%. They hand in the entire check. We've seen expense accounts from the deputy ministers, Mr Decter and others, and we have seen huge expense accounts. No one on the provincial government benches ever suggested that maybe only 50% of those should be eligible expense accounts. In fact, some would suggest that to reduce the private sector expense accounts is not inappropriate and others, I think, would say that it is quite mean-spirited.

Some of those who are quite upset by it are the restaurant industry in the province of Ontario, because this really is going to have a serious impact on the tourism and entertainment restaurant industry in Ontario. The reduction from 80% to 50% is a tax increase in disguise.

Let me tell those who are watching how this really works. What happens is, if a business is able to write off the expense, they take the chit from dinner, or whatever, and the business pays for it and then the business, as a business expense, is able to reduce their taxable portion by -- it used to be 80%; now it is 50% of what the actual cost of the meal was.

What that means is that now the taxable benefit, or the taxable portion of the business and the requirement is higher. In fact, what this says is that the business has to pay tax on a higher amount because they're unable to deduct what had been considered previously legitimate expenses.

Whether or not we're going to get into a full debate on the benefits and the pros and the cons of a corporate tax at this point, I really don't think it's as significant as the tax itself at this point and also the fact that there have been numerous organizations that have looked at the minimum corporate tax and have given their advice to the government.

One of the organizations that looked at the whole issue of minimum corporate tax was the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. I'm not going to read into the record all of their report, but in fact the bottom line of their report, which was submitted to the Treasurer -- and this is from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario -- says: "In light of this" -- that's their report -- "we recommend that the government not proceed with a corporate minimum tax." Did the government listen to the Institute of Chartered Accountants? The answer's no.

One of the things we know is that in order to have economic prosperity and activity in the private sector you need to have a corporate business private sector that is feeling good, that has confidence, that is willing to invest in Ontario. When I see headlines such as this one from the Ottawa Citizen of May 20, 1993 -- this was following the announcement of the corporate minimum tax in the budget -- we have: "Corporate Tax Enrages Business." That's the headline from the Ottawa Citizen.

When the corporate sector and the private sector react in that way, when they are feeling anger and when they are enraged or when you get that sense of unfairness or unreality that the government would continue to raise taxes at this time, yet again you have a climate and an environment which is not conducive to job creation, which we all know is so important.

1550

I would like to quote just a couple of small comments from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario. They had a working group on the retail sales tax and the goods and services tax. I would like to quote from page 10, because under "Corporate Taxation," they say, "There is fairly good evidence to suggest that the corporate income tax is, through shifting, paid mainly by customers, suppliers and employees of the corporation and that very little of the corporate tax actually falls on the corporate owners, except with small, closely held companies."

Then they say: "We are not in favour of the Ontario government's decision to proceed with implementing a corporate minimum tax. A corporate minimum tax which gives bona fide recognition to items like loss carry-forwards and exempts intercorporate dividends will of course raise little revenue, so its main advantage is, increasingly, people's perception of fairness in the tax system."

I think that's extremely important, and I have said I was going to be discussing "fair" and Bob Rae's notion of fairness. We heard the parliamentary assistant refer to this tax as being one which would bring greater fairness, and what I've just read from the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario is saying that these sorts of moves bring a perception of fairness when in reality they do not bring fairness at all. I think it's important for us to listen to organizations such as the institute and others who would give the government advice about what is good and what is not good tax policy.

I have a notation from one of the major accounting organizations in the province. This was sent out at the end of the year, December 1993, and it really is a warning to their clients that says: "The Ontario corporate minimum tax proposals begin a new era of corporate taxation. Even so, and despite the stated objectives of simplicity and ease of administration, the corporate minimum tax proposals will impose additional administrative burden on affected corporations."

I said that Bill 146 would increase red tape and I've presented some evidence saying exactly that. If I could digress for just a minute, because this is about taxes and alternatives to taxation, one of the things the parliamentary assistant has said was, "What are some of your solutions?" I've tabled in the House before and I've read into the record recommendations from the Liberal minority report and also recommendations from the job task force, and I'm not going to do that again today. It's available and it's on the record, and I'm very proud of the responsible alternatives that have been provided by Lyn McLeod and the Ontario Liberal caucus to the economic and fiscal folly of the NDP.

But I would like to tell you about an incident that happened to me recently. I had my wallet stolen, and in my wallet was every piece of personal identification I carried, my driver's licence, my social insurance number, my health card, my birth certificate, all my credit cards -- every piece of personal identification. What I had to do on the Monday morning following that loss was fill out numerous forms, each one different, each one requesting identical information, and each one sent or hand-delivered to a different kiosk or office of government.

I understand why people are fed up. I understand why people don't have confidence in government. I understand why people don't like civil servants very much. I know why they don't like politicians very much. I also know the frustration of dealing with government. I know why people don't want to pay taxes and why the underground economy is growing. That is happening because of the frustration people have when they have contact with the government.

The story I would like to tell is about trying to get a driver's licence, a health card and a birth certificate. I'm going to tell the story of the health card first, because that's one that I have direct experience with.

As it happened, after I had lost my card I had need to go and have some blood tests done. It was the middle of winter, 22 degrees below, when I went to a downtown Toronto teaching hospital. Before I went, I called the ministry and said: "I've lost my health card. I want to make sure I do the right thing, that there's no hassle, so what should I do?" They said: "You go directly to the hospital. They'll give you a form. You fill out the form and you will have access to the services you need."

Well, I got to the hospital, I went to the patient registration, I told them my plight, and they said, "I'm sorry, but you can't have access without having your version code number." It was 22 degrees below, and they said, "You have to go to the second floor of the building across the road and get a new number." So there I went, across the road, 22 below, freezing cold, and I went in and they said to me when I got there: "You didn't have to come here. Here is the form. The hospital should have given you this form. If you just fill this form out, you can have access, get the services you need and everything is looked after."

I said to them: "Give me the form so I can take it back and give it to the hospital. Obviously, there was a miscommunication." They gave me an envelope filled with the new forms. I went back across the road to the hospital and I said to them at the patient registration: "Here is an envelope filled with the forms. If anyone else should happen to come to the hospital and tell you they've lost their card, this is the form I was referring to. All they have to do is fill it in."

Well, they gave me such an argument: "We don't do it that way. That's not our process and procedure." I thought to myself, this is a government-funded agency, a service the taxpayers in the province of Ontario are paying for, and here you have a situation where the needs of a patient were not being responded to because of some paperwork.

But the thing that really got to me was when an individual at the patient registry said, "I'm sorry, but our hospital is a private institution and we don't have to follow any of the procedures or guidelines as set out by the ministry." I thought to myself, this is a problem, if in the province of Ontario a taxpayer is trying to access a service and they're being told, "It doesn't matter to us, the provider, what the rules and the regulations are."

I was a little frustrated that day but everything turned out just fine, but it's my understanding that not much has happened or changed and that if anybody goes to that particular hospital and has had their heath card lost or stolen, in fact they are hassled.

1600

Then I had to go for a driver's licence. I decided to go for my driver's licence and my birth certificate at the same time. When I arrived -- and I know exactly when it was because I was on committee that day. When I went into the Macdonald Block, into the room where you get your birth certificate, it was exactly 2 o'clock or shortly thereafter. I took my number and then I saw the big, long lineup, so I went across to the other side of the building and down a flight of stairs, because the two services are not next door to each other. When I went in to get my driver's licence, it was quite efficient and I was in and out in a matter of 10 minutes, and I thought, this is a very good way for people to be able to get their service from government.

But when I went back to get my birth certificate, I got my number at five minutes past 2 but was actually not seen until 10 to 4, almost two full hours. When I did actually get to the kiosk, I spent exactly three minutes, maybe less, with a very nice person who took the information from me, said yes, I was in the computer, and I would have my birth certificate mailed to me in short order. I received the certificate in the mail within the week, but I was very frustrated at having to wait in line for almost two hours.

I happened to mention this when I got to the committee I was sitting on. I mentioned it to the deputy minister of the treasury board. I am the critic for the treasury board. I said to him: "I just had this terrible experience going to get a birth certificate. I really wish you would take a look at doing that, because I would like to tell a better story when I'm in the House one day discussing tax bills."

I'm pleased to report today that the response from the deputy minister responsible for the birth registry department here at Queen's Park and the departments looked into the matter, and I think the situation has improved considerably.

It's an important story to tell here in the House because, as a member of the Legislature, I can make those complaints and something gets done. I have the opportunity to say to a deputy minister, "I don't like the service I'm getting." I understand why taxpayers are frustrated and I know why people don't want to pay their taxes and why they are engaging in tax evasion and tax avoidance in unprecedented numbers. It's because they feel they're not getting value for money from government. It's that simple.

I have the opportunity that very few Ontarians have. The opportunity I have is to stand here in the House in public to tell these stories on television so that people hear, and they'll nod their heads and say: "Yes, that happened to me. I was equally frustrated and there was nothing I could do about it."

Mr Mills: You're almost encouraging people to cheat. That's what you're doing. That is disgraceful.

Mrs Caplan: The member from Durham across is suggesting -- what is it that you're saying? That people should cheat? I don't think they should at all.

Mr Mills: You're suggesting it's in order to cheat. Cheating is good, you said. It's the government's fault.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There's a period for questions and comments. The member for Durham East, you'll have an opportunity to voice your opinion after the member for Oriole has terminated her debate.

Mrs Caplan: The reason I'm pointing this out during this important tax debate and the reason I'm telling these stories is because I have the opportunity as a member of the Legislature to stand in my place and tell the government some of the things that are irritating taxpayers in this province. I have the opportunity to stand here and tell the government some of the things it's doing wrong and some of the things it's doing right.

I also have the opportunity to tell people who are watching this debate that a member of the official opposition can be very effective in getting things changed. I felt very proud of the fact that the response I received from ministry officials was positive.

Many of the barriers and much of the red tape we see is because of legislation that comes from ministers of the crown, like the Minister of Finance. We know that Bill 146 adds additional red tape just at a time when everyone is saying: "Eliminate unnecessary regulation, eliminate red tape, streamline the operation of government. Give both consumers and the business sector the feeling that they are getting value for their tax dollars."

As I wind up this debate today on Bill 146, I would like to leave the government with that message. As you talk about fairness, as you talk about the need for everyone paying their fair share, I would say to you that no one objects to paying their fair share if they feel they're getting fair value, and whether or not you understand that the people of Ontario today do not feel they're getting fair value is extremely important, because your policies are not reflecting the reality that exists in Ontario today.

I don't believe people want to cheat. I believe people want to pay their fair share, but people want to get value for their tax dollar. I believe corporations are willing to pay their fair share, but when you bring in these kinds of rules, which are seen to be mean-spirited or anti-business or anti-private sector, then the energies of the people of the province go into legitimate tax avoidance or illegitimate tax evasion.

Only by renewing the confidence in government, only by renewing the confidence of investors, only by renewing the confidence of consumers, only by doing those things which will tell the taxpayers that you understand how they're feeling, will you be able to create a climate where Ontario will once again prosper and flourish.

I will not be supporting Bill 146, because I don't think it achieves any of those objectives and I believe it will result in further job loss and further instability and insecurity in the province of Ontario, and what we need right now more than anything is a climate of confidence, a climate of security, a climate of stability and a climate of hope. Bill 146 will not achieve that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Questions or comments?

Mr Cousens: I would like to know how the member for Oriole can explain the actions of her government when they were in power and the number of tax increases that were brought in. The member for Durham East was just saying it was 33 tax increases we had. I know, but it's a fact the New Democrats are aware of as well.

The words you say today have a ring of authority and truth, as you always have, but it has an inconsistency that goes back to -- people say, "Oh the federal Conservatives did so much damage." One thing people have forgotten is that there was a stage there, and I forget the year, when the Finance minister for Canada decreased the federal income tax for Ontario taxpayers, and that year, as soon as it was to become effective, the provincial Liberals, the government of the day, took that tax away from Ontario taxpayers.

Everybody says, "The federal government did nothing for us," and may they rest in peace, the ones who were there. I realize a lot of history's gone on since October 25. But people don't remember -- or know. They never saw the difference in their pocketbooks when the federal government actually reduced the federal income tax and, at the same time, coincident with that tax coming in, your government, the David Peterson Liberals and the Treasurer at the time, Mr Robert Nixon, came back and took away all the money the federal government had given to Ontario taxpayers of the time. Could you explain how your government did that with what you have just been telling us in the House?

1610

Mr Mills: I would just like to say that the comments coming from the member for Oriole suggested to me that she was living in some sort of fantasy land somewhere or in a time warp of yesteryear.

How someone can get up in this Legislature and stand in his or her place and go through -- I was going to say something -- the litany of losing a handbag and then moan and groan and say: "I went to the Minister of Health and he said fill in this form. It was 22 degrees. I was freezing to death. I didn't have a hat."

How can anyone stand up, in their right mind, and go through this litany to suggest that through the tremendous demands on the Ministry of Health, through the tremendous demands on the Ministry of Transportation etc -- we have more people using the facilities -- how anyone can stand up and say that the delay in getting the new health card, which incidentally was the minister's birth child, how she can stand there and say she's got some problem getting her driver's licence and keep a straight face is beyond me, but then to add something irritates me.

I like to think that most Ontarians, law-abiding, upright citizens want to pay their fair share, want to play the game with the government of the day. How she can get up and parlay that into some excuse whereby the citizens of Ontario should cheat on their taxes or withhold payment because they're not getting the service is perhaps the most ludicrous thing that I've ever heard said in this House, and I've heard a few things, and I've heard a few things coming from the member for Oriole. Does she somehow think that this has just happened now?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): It's always really an educational experience to sit in the House and listen to the former cabinet ministers of the previous government speak. It's particularly interesting this afternoon because this member and I were both elected at the same time in 1985. I sat in the government for six weeks and then they, her party, the Liberals, promptly climbed into bed under the sheets with the NDP and formed the famous accord.

So any criticism that this current government has of the former government, they have only themselves to thank. It was the fact that the NDP was willing to get into bed with the Liberals and vice versa that gave us the famous 33 tax increases which have been referred to this afternoon.

It was that coalition, that accord, that gave us the Liberal government in the first place, and we do have both of these parties to thank for the situation that we're in today because, frankly, the people of Ontario were not fooled. They were not fooled by Premier Peterson in 1990, when he had 94 seats in this House, calling that election after three years and dropping instantly to 36 seats.

I think what the Speaker should remember is that the people of this province have had it. They have hit the wall in terms of taxes and taxation. Any government today in this province and this country who doesn't realize that will also be voted out of office, and that will be, I predict, the future of this current government in Ontario also.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance and member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: I want to agree with the member for Mississauga South about the member for Oriole's comments about tax increases. It's almost like listening to the Tory party talk about mismanagement at the Workers' Compensation Board or Ontario Hydro being out of control.

I also want to respond to a few other comments the member for Oriole mentioned. She mentioned that their alternative is to do a 5% reduction. She didn't quite clarify whether that's 5% reduction on all taxes. Does that mean they're going to give out $5 billion of revenue on the sales tax, dropping that from 8% to 3%? Does that mean they're going to drop income taxes 5% every year? I would be interested to hear in more detail how these new economics are going to be working from the Liberal Party of Ontario.

The member for Oriole also talked about meals and entertainment expenses being reduced and compared that to what goes on within the provincial government in terms of employees being reimbursed. Let me say two things regarding that.

First of all, in terms of the reductions in expenditures that the expenditure control plan has brought in and the government has brought in in the last couple of years, the vast majority of that is controlling those types of expenditures: travel, meals, all those things. Those budgets have been reduced dramatically. We know about expenditures for travel and hotels that were carried out by the previous Liberal government; they've been reduced. The second point is, when they're submitted, they're not allowed to be a tax deduction. They're just submitted and they are reimbursed.

Let me just again emphasize about the question of fairness. I still didn't get a clear definition, though, of what the Liberals thought tax fairness was. Again, that's like most of their other statements on things: vague, fuzzy, very broad, that it can mean anything to any situation.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable member for Oriole has two minutes in response.

Mrs Caplan: I'd say to the member from Mississauga that I'm really sorry that Peterson called that election in the summer of 1990. If you want a public statement, I'm happy to make it.

The facts speak for themselves, however. While I say that nobody is perfect, I'm very proud of the fiscal record of the Liberal government from 1985 to 1990; an AAA credit rating is what the NDP inherited. Ontario led the western world in economic prosperity and growth during those years, and 700,000 jobs were created.

After 15 years of consecutive deficit budgeting by the Conservative government, the Provincial Auditor attested to the fact that the Liberals had the first fully balanced budget in 20 years. We had balanced operating budgets continuously from 1987 right on and the last balanced operating budget in this province was when the NDP, try as hard as they could -- and they ran the deficit up to $3 billion, but there was still an operating surplus in that year.

I mentioned the different forms that were out there. I believe so strongly that we can streamline things and have one form for government licensing instead of a dozen different forms for a dozen different ministries. We can provide alternative suggestions and ideas to this government on how it can simplify governing and government and give taxpayers better value for money and less frustration.

I know that members in the House don't want to remember the positive such as the elimination of OHIP premiums and the fact that we had the kind of prosperity in Ontario that we would only dream to see return to Ontario.

As we end this debate, I know that the word "fair" hopefully will ring true as opposed to the contaminated version we hear from the NDP.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The time allotted has now elapsed. Further debate?

Mr Cousens: I wonder why it is I was allowed to ask in my 90-second clip -- and I asked the member for Oriole how could you justify what you just said based on your own Liberal record. Did you notice --

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): With a deficit.

Mr Cousens: It's a skill-testing question, Marilyn, and to all honourable members. Did you notice --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I don't blame them.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Would the honourable member address the Chair.

Mr Cousens: Yes, I will. The only thing is --

Mrs Marland: Excuse me, I have a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think that the comments the member for Markham is about to begin should be heard by more than nine members in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Are you requesting a quorum?

Mrs Marland: Yes. There are nine members here.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please check if we have a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1620

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

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Halton North on a point of order.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Seeing that there is now a quorum, shouldn't there be a member of the official opposition, the Liberal Party, present in the chamber to make up that quorum?

The Acting Speaker: It's not a point of order. The total number is what counts. We do now have sufficient numbers and we proceed. The honourable member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: Before I deal with the bill, I just want to refer briefly to the remarks by the previous member. It's not often that you have a chance to follow on from the Liberals when they've just had the floor.

I specifically asked the member for Oriole, the former Minister of Health of the David Peterson government, how they could rationalize her own tax policies during the Peterson years with what she is saying today about the tax policies of this government. I also asked how the honourable member from Oriole could rationalize the way in which the one time when the federal Conservatives did a favour to people which they could see in their pocketbook, when the federal Conservatives reduced the income tax, at the date that was to become effective, David Peterson's Liberals took it all away.

You can come along and say, "We want to do something about taxation policy in the province of Ontario," but when your history is one where you have added to the taxes and you have built on it, without really putting it into perspective -- then the closing remarks from the honourable member from Oriole said, "We had a balanced budget." They had a balanced budget the year they had $800 million come back from the federal government. They didn't even know it was coming. That's what really allowed them to balance the budget. What a boondoggle that was, and so the books looked good. Why? Because federal transfer payments came down and helped the province. We could use a few today, but there isn't any government rich enough to pay for Ontario's overspending.

There's no doubt that Ontario is digging a bigger and bigger hole for itself right now, and in fact we are digging a hole to the extent of almost $1 billion a month that we're overspending. One billion dollars a month is about the right number, and that is just unforgivable. As soon as you have the kind of deficit that you have for Ontario, building as it is -- and I went into it the other day so I'm not repeating that speech. But the point stands: This government is spending beyond our means, it's spending beyond our children's means, it's spending beyond what we're capable of living and affording.

We have a problem and the problem has to do with the whole fiscal policy of Bob Rae's government -- Floyd Laughren, the whole bunch of them. What they've done is forced Ontario into a whole new state of emergency by virtue of the fact that in the last three years we have seen Ontario's credit rating go down three times, and it's probably going to be faced with another kind of review.

In fact this time of year, prior to the budget and around budget time, is when the international agencies look at a jurisdiction's rating. If we don't do something to fight the deficit and to get our financial house in order, we are going to be in more serious trouble than we've been in for the last several years.

We are coming out of the recession. We are moving into a stronger time. There is a new confidence beginning to develop. But I don't see a long-term solution in sight when someone says, "We're going to reduce taxes by 5% over five years." That doesn't even keep up with inflation. It doesn't keep up with the cost-of-living index increases.

We have to come along and have a review of what is needed, what is important, what is urgent, what is a priority, to get rid of the waste in Ontario, trim down government. Bob Rae's government never did anything about the huge hiring policies that the previous Liberal government had. The previous Liberals added about 10,000 more public servants to the payroll during their five years, and I haven't got the numbers from the New Democrats, but there were 10,000 added, and how many of that 10,000 have been removed? We can't afford to have such a large bureaucracy, such a duplication of different levels of government as is going on today. We in Ontario are paying the piper. It's costing us too much.

The issue now, today, is the intent and the purpose of this bill before the House. It's called Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, brought out March 30, 1994. It was the combining of two bills, Bill 66 and Bill 133, into one bill.

I'm fascinated. When this bill was originally presented to the House on December 8, 1993, the honourable Minister of Finance, a good friend of mine but of a different political philosophy, came through, and I just want to put his statement on the record and take a moment to tell you what I think of what he said.

This is Mr Laughren. He says, "Later this afternoon I will table a bill....With this legislation, we are acting on a promise made in the budget that I presented last May. At that time we pledged" -- here's what he said -- "that large profitable firms in Ontario will pay at least some minimum amount of corporate income tax."

I would like to explode the lie in that one, "that large profitable firms...." It's the New Democrats coming out right at the beginning declaring war on businesses that make a profit. What we should be doing in government is creating a climate where business will make a profit, rather than coming along and saying anyone who does is almost a criminal and, "We'll tax it back, we'll take it back, we'll claw it back." So what they're really saying is that large profit, that's bad as far as they're concerned; if you're small and poor, that's what's good.

I wish I could remember the joke that was out a few years ago: How do you get a small company going? What you do is buy a large one and let the province just tax you to death, and then you'll have a small one.

We are in a state known as Ontario where the large profitable firms have already been hit many times over. It may not just be in the tax structure; it is in the employment equity, in pay equity, in labour legislation, in Bill 40, in numerous other ways, all forms of compliance that they have to have: extra levies that they all have to pay for workers' compensation, the extra costs for employee health tax, the extra costs for all the other taxes that are being laid upon them. You've got municipal taxes. You've got taxes that are laid on them to do business.

Now Mr Floyd Laughren, Minister of Finance, says, "Now we're going to do something about those large profitable firms in Ontario." I'll tell you, if you're an outsider looking in on Ontario -- we're very fortunate that some are still looking at Ontario, and I want them to come here, because certainly at the end of this government's tenure we'll try to establish a better environment for business. We must have a better environment for business. You can't just come along and say you're pro-employee. You've got to be both pro-employee and pro-employer and have balance in the development of your policies that allow the two to work in harmony.

John Bulloch, who is with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, talks about this. He says it's probably the only jurisdiction in western society in which you have a government pledged to work for the employee and which has little, if any, understanding for the employer. That's the balance that's been missing for so long with this government.

Again, when Mr Laughren announced what he was going to be doing -- go after large, go after profitable -- they are the ones they're going after. When he described in his opening remarks, "Today's legislation accomplishes what we set out to do," oh, yes. One thing that has happened, when this government took over on September 6, 1990, it set out with the Agenda for People, and this was in the Agenda for People. So the people of Ontario shouldn't be surprised. This is not like so many other reversals of government policy, where they said one thing before they were elected and then did another thing afterwards. Before they were elected they were going to do something about auto insurance and make it public, then they were going to do something different for --

Interjections.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Markham has the floor. Other members will have the opportunity of questioning or replying.

Mr Cousens: So then the Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, makes three points. This bill will help "to ensure tax fairness, the cornerstone of our tax policies." What gobbledegook. What empty -- tax fairness. I venture to say there isn't any such thing as a fair tax. The tax that they just described is a tax to the rich; that becomes fair. Tax fairness, the cornerstone of their policy. You look at their policies, and there isn't anything that I would want to hang my hat on. They're having to reverse -- and thank goodness they are, but it's one of the few times we'll be debating further the bill for all the different tax increases for last year and the one on home brews and wine making, where they've reduced the tax on that one.

But how difficult it was to get the message across. Well over 100 of them have had to close down because of this fair taxation policy of the NDP government. There's no such thing as a cornerstone of their tax policies. Their tax policies go back to the previous sentence, tax the "large profitable firms."

The next point that he makes is about the important role. We acknowledge "the important role of the private sector, particularly small businesses." So in other words, with this corporate minimum tax, small businesses won't be hurt. I will come to some prepared studies that have been done on behalf of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and how they have demonstrated that this corporate minimum tax does in fact hit small businesses in Ontario. So when Mr Laughren can stand in the House and say this with his nice guy approach, that is wrong for him to make that statement that he's not hurting small business. I'll show you shortly how in fact this bill does impact small business.

"Our corporate minimum tax will stop big, profitable companies from taking advantage of tax preferences to the point where they pay little or no corporate income tax." What they're doing, there are some companies and there are different ways in which they're paying their taxes. This government hasn't acknowledged any of the contributions that they are making. I have to say that there are other ways of going after them than starting up a whole new type of tax, and I'll come to that as well.

Then the exaggerations, the three exaggerations. He says that "it will not hamper the current recovery." I venture to say that every tax has an impact on the recovery of Ontario's health. The tax that we're talking about here is just a further disincentive for outside businesses to invest in the province of Ontario. We're anxious to invite investors from China, Hong Kong, Europe, all parts of the world to invest in Ontario. What they do -- they've got a very good system -- they'll look at Ontario and say, "Well, how much tax is being collected by that government versus New York state, versus Quebec, versus another country?" If in fact Ontario is higher in all these levels, why, then, should they invest in Ontario? Why should outside investors put their money into a jurisdiction that's going to tax them more heavily than any of the others in western society or in the world?

That becomes part of the lie of this government, where they say "it will not hamper the current recovery." I know for a fact that the outside investors are very wise in how they invest their money, and they're able to tell you far more closely than we, who are inside here, could begin to know just how we compare and compete with other jurisdictions.

He says he doesn't want to "discourage investment in our future." This does discourage investment in our future. The very people we want to come and invest in Ontario, who have the money, are being turned off because, once again, we have taken more of their share.

He says "impair"; he doesn't want to "impair Ontario's tax competitiveness." The moment you increase our taxes even higher, you're making us less competitive.

These are the words the Treasurer used in his remarks in December. I say it is almost contempt of the House for the Treasurer to come in and make those three statements: It won't "hamper the current recovery" -- it does -- it won't "discourage investment in our future" -- it does -- or it won't "impair Ontario's tax competitiveness" -- it does. These are the kind of half-truths that come out of the mouths of politicians. Is it any wonder that people have great concern about what is said?

It's almost like the federal government saying, "We're helping Quebec." The Shawinigan deal that Mr Chrétien is putting in -- $4 million into Shawinigan -- it's been shown and demonstrated it's a political gesture by the federal government. It doesn't have any purpose beyond what it's doing, and yet the federal Liberal Party is doing it. The words that come out of their mouths to justify it are just as bad as the ones that came out of the federal Conservatives' mouths when they put the prison in Brian Mulroney's riding. Let's be consistent and let's come along and develop policies that have integrity behind them and credibility of the politicians. Don't just say things because they sound good; say them because they're right, they're true and they're honest.

Is it any wonder the public have a diminished sense of value in their politicians when we make the kind of statements that Mr Laughren made when he announced this bill? Then he says it will only apply to large firms. I will get back to that further in my remarks, because when he takes a look at the assets of companies that have $5 million and says, "Anyone who has that kind of asset," wait till you see what we can show you. He's touching small companies as well.

"It targets only those...firms that are profitable." Isn't that something? Anyone who makes a dollar in this jurisdiction better get ready to have it taxed away, better get ready for the government to come along and put it into its own little coffers.

There are many different aspects to Bill 146. I'm going to deal mostly in my remarks with the parts that pertain to the corporate minimum tax, but it does include a few other little dandies. It has the meals and entertainment deduction. I'm surprised no one's even talked about this. Tax deductions on meals and entertainment expenses are reduced from 80% to 50%.

I sincerely hope our Tourism critic will be talking about this, and I hope other members of our caucus will take a moment or two to look at the impact on the hospitality industry, which is an important part of Ontario's economy. It's in the top three. It changes as the automotive sector improves, but tourism is a large part of what Ontario's economy is all about. A large part of that is for those companies that will be at conventions in Ontario cities, and Ontario-based organizations that are sending their people to do business in other places would look for a form of write-off on those expenses.

It wasn't that long ago that it was the Liberals who moved it from 100% write-off to 80% write-off. Talk to restaurateurs and ask them what happened when they lost the 100% write-off, where if businesses were doing entertaining at noonhour or evening over dinner, that expense was 100% deductible off their taxes. Then, there was more business being done over lunch and at mealtime. When the government reduced it to 80%, that reduced the amount of business done in restaurants.

How many people did you hurt? I'll tell you, the government at that time hurt a lot of the small businesses and some of the large restaurants as well. It was a form of expenditure that, because it could be written off, was also feeding another one of our major systems, the whole restaurant industry.

So now the government, effective the beginning of this year, 1994, will not allow even an 80% write-off on costs of doing businesses in the hospitality industry. It's reduced from 80% to 50%. It will impact the hospitality industry in Ontario. Ontario businesses are going to be saying to their employees: "Look, we just can't afford to have you having lunch or entertaining someone in that way. It's now going to be more carried by our costs of doing business, so reduce it." And when they reduce it, it reduces the amount of business that industry does and again reduces the whole net economy of the province of Ontario. It's less circulation of money for people who are feeding the system.

1640

What it does is allow the government to get more of that money: Less money on the street, less money to help business. The people they're hurting with this are the very people you'd think the New Democrats would want to help, the small businessmen. The majority of the small restaurants are mom and pop organizations, family organizations, people who are just doing a good thing, working hard. But now they've had the government that says, "We're out to help you" -- yes, they're out to help them take the money out of their pockets and put it in the government's pocket. I have a genuine concern that the government, by making this move in the budget, is increasing the amount of money it will take out of expenses for meals and entertainment.

There are a number of other aspects to the bill, and I'll just touch on them briefly. It is quite a complicated bill when you start realizing just how large it is. The bill is 75 pages of small print and it does go into quite a large number of areas. The one I will spend most of my time on happens to be the corporate minimum tax, but it touches on all the different surtaxes.

I compliment the government that it is modernizing the systems of filing tax returns on computer disc and using electronic media. It's a little bit late, but better late than never, and we're in a position where we have to find new ways where you can use facsimile and other processes to get your data quickly to the government. I notice people are getting their federal income taxes back much faster this year than before, using the electronic systems.

This bill imposes a temporary surtax on banks for taxation years ending after April 30, 1992, and commencing before November 1. It's another surtax there.

It reduces the small business income tax rate from 10% to 9.5% for taxation years after April 30, 1992.

It increases the rate of the surtax on Canadian-controlled private corporations with a taxable income exceeding $200,000 from 3.7% to 4%.

Those all sound like small numbers, but when you have a big budget and high costs, 0.5% or 0.3% becomes significant, especially when there are so many other taxes that are impacting business.

It's reducing the tax rate from 14.5% to 13.5% on income from manufacturing and processing, mining, farming, logging and fishing for taxation years ending after December 31.

It's reducing the paid-up capital for capital tax purposes of bank mortgages. It's increasing the rate of capital tax on banks from 1% to 1.2% for taxation years after April 30, 1992. A lot of people are very quick to criticize the banks, but here again banks are having to pay their share. People say, "They don't have to pay anything." They pay.

They have standardized the administrative penalty for late-filed tax returns by changing the penalty from 10% of the balance of the tax owing for the year to a much larger amount. They have paralleled some of their methods with the federal taxes.

And it goes on. It is a very complicated bill. I've only touched on a few of the different components of the bill, but it begins to show you that when the government has a way of taking its comb through business, it just doesn't let any fleas stay in the hair. They're picking up all the things they can to see what they can garner.

This bill implements a new tax on life insurance corporations, called a special additional tax, computed at the rate of 1.25% of the taxable capital for taxation years ending after April 30, 1992. That too will net about $15 million to $20 million.

When you start looking at it, people say, "Well, we're all being gouged." Yes, we are. And then they say, "Well, the government will announce this as a new, fair tax." There's no such thing as a fair tax. What we're dealing with is another way for the government to get money.

The Fair Tax Commission also did a review of the corporate minimum tax, and I refer to this tome, its report that came out, Fair Taxation in a Changing World. Their remarks on page 437 are salient to the point I'm trying to make, and I would like to put this into the record. It has to do with the corporate minimum tax that is implicit in part of Bill 146.

"However, as several members of the Corporate Minimum Tax Working Group observed, it has a number of serious shortcomings. Not only does it tend to be complex, but the option introduces a limit or clawback on incentives that governments have deliberately introduced to advance economic or social policy goals."

Therefore the government has said to businesses, "We want to see you grow, we want to see you build, we want to see you expand, we want to see you do all those things," but the moment they do, it's like the cat having given the mouse just a little room to play with: The paw is ready to drop, to take it all back plus a bit more.

"In general, we conclude that the introduction of this type of minimum tax does little more than introduce a second income tax structure."

Dig that: a second income tax structure. What we're beginning now is the beginning of something that will be a much larger form of taxation for this government. Isn't it funny? I haven't been a student of tax for all that long, but taxes originally were to pay for certain basic services, and then when there was a war they started collecting more tax for that, but now taxation is such an incredibly large part of what our lives are all about and what government's all about.

Once you start the new corporate minimum tax, it just opens the door for its continuation. In fact, the government's done it that way. They start off small, with a small percentage in the first year but increasing it over a period of three years, so at the end of three years this corporate minimum tax is not going to be all that minimum to the people who are having to pay.

"Over time, this new tax is unlikely to be any more effective than the regular income tax in dealing with the complex issues of what should be included in the tax base for corporate income tax."

In other words, here are the people sent out by Floyd Laughren, and he spent millions of dollars to get them to do a report, and they're saying: "This isn't going to solve the problem. There are other ways in which you could have dealt with it."

The report goes on to say: "Although we have considerable sympathy with the aim of this tax in attempting to deal with the problem of non-taxpaying and low-taxpaying profitable corporations, we are convinced that explicit recognition and a vigorous assessment of tax expenditures will deal with this blatant unfairness in the tax system better than the application of a further corporate tax."

I'm with them. Mr Laughren in his remarks at the very beginning, as I explained in December, said, "We're going after the large profitable corporations." If there are some that have found loopholes that have gone so far that they have an advantage over and above everybody else, then let's go after them, but to levy this new tax, which is going to have the impact it will have, is quite another question.

So we lead to the comments that I would like to make on the Ontario corporate minimum tax. I received excellent dialogue from the major accounting houses, and they do an excellent job for business to try to explain just what the impact is going to be on the different taxes as they come out. This is a provincial tax bulletin that was put out by Ernst and Young in December 1993.

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I refer to the standing orders of the Legislative Assembly, chapter 6, specifically 23(d). That standing order suggests that reports read into legislative debate, such as the honourable member is doing now, is not allowed. This goes on and on and on. My idea of debate is spirited debate, not reading from documents. It's against the standing orders, and I ask you to rule on that, Mr Speaker.

1650

The Acting Speaker: The Speaker will certainly allow the member to refer from time to time to a report which he is referring to. He is also participating in the debate, and in my opinion he is very much in order.

Mr Cousens: I don't know. If the honourable member's concern is that you don't have some reference point and some basis for your study, even to give references you're working from, that's also part of the lunacy. Maybe the problem we've got with this cut-flower government is that it doesn't have roots. They're afraid to admit who it is they get advice from. I'm quite prepared to acknowledge that I personally don't have all the knowledge on financial affairs, but I am prepared to listen and refer to others who have been far more involved in this.

Mr Speaker, if there is any way in which I am in breach of the rules of the House, I would be the first to try to correct it. I have to believe it is our responsibility as legislators to do our research. In fact, I have a number of references I want to make to work done by others who have been working on this issue far more. I take offence at the member for Durham East saying you can't refer to any other documents. If you're dealing with the kind of debate he's talking about, all you're going to be doing is yelling at each other. I would at least like to draw upon certain resources that assist me. So I thank you for allowing me to continue.

In the bulletin from Ernst and Young, it said the purpose of the corporate minimum tax is "to maintain the perception of fairness in the Ontario corporate income tax system." Isn't that funny: the perception of fairness. That's probably, as much as anything, what Mr Laughren said in his opening statement on December 8. They're more interested in perceptions than they are in the real work of trying to work out a system that's going to balance the books and cause people to have confidence in Ontario's fiscal policy. In fact, all they're trying to do is a public relations scam that will satisfy the needs of the unions to say, "At least you've gone after the big corporations."

It's a sop, a sop to other groups, that allows the government to say, "Hey, we've taxed here, we've taxed there, but notice how we've taxed the big guys." That's a way of this government trying to appease the different pressure groups and interest groups that are putting pressure on them.

"Corporate minimum tax will minimize these costs. It should be recognized that using the CMT to maintain the perceived fairness of the tax system is done at a cost." And that's the point: It's done at a great cost.

"The corporate minimum tax applies to corporations subject to regular Ontario corporate income tax which have more than either $5 million in assets at the end of the year or $10 million in total revenue during that year."

Stop and think about that, and this is one of the things I'll be referring to shortly. When you start realizing that the corporate minimum tax will then apply to any corporation in Ontario, this is where you're going to see that it's no longer just the large systems. Small corporations with 10, 20, 30 employees may well fall within the guidelines because of their investments, the property, the equipment. The assets they have will put them into the category of being $5-million corporations, when in fact the revenue they're taking out of it, the money they're able to take into their own pocket is minimal.

The conclusion of this report was: "The Ontario corporate minimum tax proposals begin a new era in corporate taxation. Even so, and despite the stated objective of simplicity and ease of administration, the corporate minimum tax proposals will impose additional administrative burden on affected corporations."

And there is no doubt that it will impose an extra burden. Every tax places a greater burden on the companies that have to pay it, not only the business of understanding the tax, making sure your books are balanced off against the tax -- the compliance factor and the cost to comply for businesses is just one of the high costs of doing business in Ontario. The government says, "Oh, it's going to be easy." It isn't all that easy. They made it somewhat simplified by virtue of not forcing corporations to have a special audited statement from which the CMT would be taken, but notwithstanding that, the province of Ontario does again place pressure on them.

I'd like to refer as well, and again the member for Durham East does not want me to refer to any documents, but I find this letter from Vern Penner, president of the Markham Board of Trade, as good a statement as any. As the member for the riding of Markham, I think it's worthwhile noting the kind of thinking that business people from within my riding are having that makes me feel right and good that I'm on the same side of the fence as are those business people.

He writes this letter to Mr Rae on December 9:

"The recent announcement of your government's plan to again tax our corporations in Ontario is disturbing to say the least. With the present tax rate, the new corporate tax, the Ontario labour relations regulations, the workers' compensation increases, the employment equity programs, to name a few, businesses certainly will not be attracted to Ontario. Those here are already going through extremely difficult times and are downsizing and laying off staff to try to manage through these poor economic times.

"Your government strategy and programs are making it so difficult in Ontario that businesses are moving out of the province rather than into it.

"On behalf of our members, we urge you to develop and implement a program that will help businesses, not make it so difficult that they either go bankrupt or move. Businesses and the economy have to be revitalized. Otherwise your government's training programs will be worthless for if businesses continue their layoffs and no new companies move into the province, where will your retrained people work?

"We anticipate receiving a plan from you indicating how your government intends to revitalize the economy to assist businesses."

A fair letter, a fair statement saying, "We've reached the tax wall." Where is your government when it comes to doing something to help business, to cut red tape? Where are you when it comes to helping business to grow? What are you doing to create a better climate for business? How can you justify imposing this tax when it's so anti-business? All it's doing is taking away jobs and cutting into our future.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business did an extensive research, which it shared with Mr Laughren, on September 30, 1993. They were working from the budget document that allowed them to understand what the impact was going to be of the CMT and they surveyed their membership.

They attach a copy of their survey, but I'll just touch on some of the highlights. Nearly 86% of the respondents of the survey that they had last summer indicated their opposition, of which 64% were strongly opposed to the corporate minimum tax. Some 8.5% favour the corporate minimum tax while 5.8% were undecided.

Members commented that the real answers to addressing our problems lie in reducing government spending, reducing government bureaucracy and reducing the tax burden on businesses. Concern was expressed about the government extracting $100 million annually from the business sector instead of allowing it to be productively reinvested. Some members predicted that the corporate minimum tax will drive more businesses out of Ontario.

According to one of their other questions, their members favour "government efforts to modify the corporate tax preferences directly." That is 69.5% as opposed to layering on a new complicated tax calculation.

1700

Who is there in that government to stand up for the special-interest group known as profitable businesses in Ontario? There isn't anyone from within the government, because they're all on the dole. They're not out there. They have not appreciated the kind of thing it takes to run a business. They haven't met a payroll. All the socialists of Ontario can do is think of more ways of taking money away from people. What you have to look at is that these are the people -- unfortunately they have no understanding of what big business is all about.

Another comment that was made by CFIB:

"To respond to members in both situations, CFIB strongly urges the government to raise the gross revenue and total asset thresholds with the advantage that more smaller businesses could be spared the time and cost of performing the corporate minimum tax calculation."

Okay, now this is where I want to get into one of the earlier points I'd touched upon, that this tax is not only for the large corporations, it is in fact a tax that is going to impact small companies as well. This was in a subsequent document that was prepared by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and I have to believe that if their data are correct, they point to the profile of what is a small business.

I'd like to just read this into the record:

"We have analysed the profile of small businesses, using a run on their own data against the membership of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. The first observation is that of these small firms, with a total number of employees of five to 19, which are caught by the corporate minimum tax threshold, some 72% have sales in the modest range of $2 million to $4.9 million."

It's obviously the $5-million asset threshold which is capturing these small enterprises. What's happening is that because they also have other assets -- property, equipment, machinery, these things become assets -- it goes into the total cost of what the business is all about.

If you're a contractor, a roadbuilder -- and I've known quite a number of them -- they've got a huge outlay in equipment because they buy their equipment from their operating capital and then they have it. It will sit there in their yard, unused until they get another job, but they're going to be taxed on the prorated value of that asset, and even though they may not be making any money, or money to speak of -- it might be poor and lean economic times -- because their assets are so large they will be brought into the umbrella of having to pay the corporate minimum tax.

There are obviously various factors which cause these small firms to have assets of over $5 million. One can deduce, in some instances, that costly inventories are the reason. Other firms must invest in expensive heavy equipment or sizeable tracts of land to carry out their work. Still others have made the decision to buy rather than lease their facilities. It is highly unfair that these smaller businesses should be penalized for the basic operating realities in their line of work.

It must be emphasized that merely having total assets in excess of $5 million does not suggest that the firm is well off financially. I make that point: Just because a company has over $5 million in assets, it does not mean they are financially well off, yet they fall into the guidelines of the corporate minimum tax and they will then have that extra levy laid upon them. It does nothing to promote jobs, it does nothing to promote the economy, it does nothing to them; it's just because they fall into this very low-level guideline.

I therefore say to the honourable parliamentary assistant and to the Treasurer and all those across the floor, look at ways of increasing. If you're going to make a change to the corporate minimum tax and you say you're just going to hit the large corporations, then be consistent with what the Treasurer said in his statement on December 8, and go for the large ones.

What you're doing is taking the net out to capture many that are not large. They are small by comparison -- the small number of employees -- but because they have assets in excess of maybe what the government thinks they should have, either in the property or the heavy equipment -- I think the classic case is that of the roadbuilder. The roadbuilder has that heavy equipment, uses it for a short period of time every year, but there it is; it's a high cost.

The developers I know have huge tracts of land that are set aside which they've invested in. There's a certain amount of land-banking that goes on so that as time evolves, they'll be able to receive approvals to have that land developed. Already in Ontario it takes an inordinate amount of time to get approvals to develop property, to get the official plan changed, to have the amendments changed. You go through the 43 or 46 different levels of bureaucracy to get an approval for a land development of some kind. It just takes years.

Because that corporation happens to have an investment in property in excess of several million dollars, if it's over $5 million, and all the money's tied up in property and that is the case, and the property is mostly owned by the banks -- they own the property -- now on top of the high cost of paying for the property while they're waiting to get it developed, while they're waiting to get it processed, they too will have a corporate minimum tax laid upon them. Is there any other reason why you do it except to almost say, "Well, they've got more than the rest of the small guys, so let's go after them"?

There's an offence in the thinking of this government that is really the underlying concern that I have. They came through in this House and said, "This is our new fair policy of taxation and we are only going to be going after the large, profitable corporations." The moment they said the assets had to be over $5 million -- I don't have $5 million. I don't think Gerry Phillips has $5 million.

We also respect the importance of having those small businesses that have some assets and have some worth around $5 million so they can do something with it. Then they can invest it and they can build upon it and grow it, but not with this government. They're saying, "We're going to hit you again." How else do you say it?

All I can tell you is that I have fought this right from the beginning, and I know that my breath is in vain.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): No, it's not. You're on television for an hour and a half today and running into municipalities --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Markham has the floor. Interjections are out of order.

Mr Cousens: The frustration I have is that all our efforts in opposition really don't result in changes to tax bills. The government has a way of whipping the members and will bring them into the House, and at the appropriate time, if it turns out that we talk too much on this side of the House, the government brings in closure and says, "No more talking on that; we're going to do it anyway." Even though the government, when it was in opposition, would go on and on and on, we are at least trying to take the responsible tack to tell you as members of the government that we have genuine concerns about this tax. I have concerns about the whole taxation policy. I have concerns about the spending policy of the government. I have many, many concerns.

I could go on longer but I feel that the point has been made. I'll just highlight it and close off.

This bill, Bill 146, has many ingredients to it. The first is that it's going to hit the hospitality industry in Ontario, reducing the amount of deductions that people can have for hospitality, for entertainment and meals, from 80% to 50%. That is going to hurt the restaurants, the people I know in Unionville, Markham, Thornhill, Toronto, Guelph and Cornwall, because every one of those communities and all the communities in Ontario have business people who come into their establishments to buy a meal which could come out as a business expense. They're out of town overnight and while they're overnight they have certain expenses. They could normally claim that. The companies now will have to reduce the amount of claim to only 50% instead of 80%. I'll tell you, that's just another cost of doing business.

The second point I've made, and I've tried to make it clear, is that this government, with the corporate minimum tax, is again starting a brand-new tax structure, a brand-new approach in order to collect money, and in so doing, it just opens the door for the problem that Ontario will be less competitive with other jurisdictions. Corporations will now see Ontario as even less attractive as a place to invest. This tax bill itself will touch upon corporations that are not just the large, profitable ones; it'll touch on small ones as well.

It's just too bad we can't do more to fight it. I can tell you this much: Once a bill like this is passed and once the government gets its claws into someone's wallet, there won't be any government that reverses it. So we're stuck with it.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The corporation tax.

1710

Mr Cousens: Yes, the minimum corporation tax.

Mr Perruzza: You mean not even Mike Harris is going to do that, the tax fighter?

Mr Cousens: Because at that point there's going to be so much to do -- we can hopefully freeze taxes, but beyond, you haven't seen a government yet roll back taxes. You can have the Liberals make the promise that they're going to roll back taxes by 5% in the next several years. Well, who knows whether that'll happen? We have seen all the promises that politicians make that have to do with tax rollbacks.

I'm concerned that here is just another one of the eroding factors to Ontario's success. I've spoken against it; I'll continue to feel strongly about it. I feel that people like the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, the Fair Tax Commission, the established accounting agencies, my own board of trade and others have all had strong things to say about this tax. It's wrong. It's wrong-minded. It's badly implemented. I will vote against it and I just sincerely hope that some of the members on the government benches will think twice about it.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Now we have time for questions or comments.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): I just couldn't hesitate but to comment on the speech given by my honourable colleague on the other side.

I just want to touch on the one thing, and that's this whole question of eroding confidence of the business community and investors in the province of Ontario. If you were to listen to the members of the opposition speak, and particularly the speech of the previous member, nobody is willing to invest in Ontario any more because for some God-awful reason this present government has changed everything so badly that nobody wants to come any more.

I just want to bring a couple of facts to light. Right now in my riding, the riding of Cochrane South, we have major private sector investment going on, probably in the neighbourhood of $500 million to $700 million, depending on how the numbers play out. That's not a bad record considering that even in the heydays in my riding we'd never seen anywhere near those numbers.

So we're seeing people invest in the province of Ontario because they understand that Ontario is a good place to do business. When you come to Ontario you have the stability of an economy that is vibrant, that works; you have a workforce that's well trained; you have the confidence of the business community in order to get things done. In the end, investors will invest where you can make money. That's the bottom line here, that you can make money in the province of Ontario like you can nowhere else in some cases.

I want to also just touch a little bit on this whole notion that the opposition is trying to put forward in regard to, well, let's just keep on scaring the voter out there by saying nobody will come and invest any more. It's a little bit like the analogy of real estate salesmen. We're two real estate agencies. I've got the listing and I'm trying to sell the house, and you as my opposition are out there saying, "You know, you shouldn't buy that house because the paint's not quite yellow enough and the windows aren't quite clear enough," and you just keep on bad-mouthing the deal to the point of trying to scare the investor away from me and get him over to you.

I think we really need to be careful when we do that, because in the end we are all salesmen of the province of Ontario, either opposition members or government, and what we should be doing is that, yes, we've got to talk frankly about some of our problems, but we should be trying to increase investment by trying to talk positively about this province.

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on the remarks made by the member for Markham. I want to say that the minimum corporate tax act that you're dealing with is going to be a detriment to business. It's going to be a detriment to our tourist industry.

When you look at the percentage for people who entertain, who want to take out their guests, going from 80% to 50%, if you think that isn't going to have an effect on downtown Metro Toronto urban areas, on business, it will.

The other aspect of this bill has to do really with regard to the tourism. When we look at the corporate rates for the 1992 budget, no change in the basic corporate tax rate. But now we're looking at a three-year phase-in of 2% in 1994, 3% in 1995 and 4% in 1996. So when we look at the increase that's going to take place over the years, they're looking at over $100 million when it's fully implemented: $100 million out of the corporations that wanted to create jobs, that wanted to expand their business and keep the jobs here in Ontario. With this added tax, it's not going to happen.

Our position has been that we should be decreasing some of the taxes. The Treasurer the other day, not too long ago, said that with regard to the tax taken off the you-brews, from 26 cents to 13 cents. Those people who have lost $100,000 already, what's going to happen to those businesses that have gone under?

I say that this tax this government is bringing in is another detriment to society, a detriment to the business in this province, and the taxation that's gone on, the $2-billion increase in last year's budget alone is unacceptable. That's why we're losing the fight to keep the jobs and create more jobs, and jobs is what Ontario should be all about.

Mr Perruzza: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to respond to a comment the member for the Conservative Party made, a comment which didn't surprise me at all: He is going to be voting against the minimum corporate tax. It doesn't surprise me at all, because we've seen, what, close to 10 years of Conservative rule in Ottawa. We've seen breaks on the corporate tax side. They started it systematically from the time they came into office until today.

But I'll tell you what they did as well. They hammered each and every Canadian right across the country for 10 years, year after year after year after year. They didn't blush when it came time to imposing the GST, a tax that would have to be paid by each individual Canadian. That wasn't going to deter business, no, no, no. That was going to make Canada more competitive and business was going to move back into the country. It was 7% off the top of just about everything: No, that attracted investment and that attracted business.

But now when it comes to saying let some of the bigger businesses, that have been getting a fairly easy ride, and many of which have been getting a free ride, pay a little and pick up a little of the slack, what do our good friends the Conservatives say? "No, no, no. Those aren't people who should be contributing to the tax roll."

Do the comments surprise me? Not at all. I'm so glad they're the third party in opposition, and that's where I suspect they'll remain with these kinds of attitudes.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): As always, I found the speech from the member for Markham interesting and exciting, the future mayor of Markham. I'm told he's a candidate. I don't know if this is true, but no doubt there's a lot of pressure on him for that.

One has to look, when he makes a speech of this kind, at whether the circumstances have changed for taxes. For instance, when the former Conservative government, which I sat in opposition to for so many years, raised taxes year after year, and a variety of taxes, including corporate taxes, because it needed the funds to fund the various programs, was that in a climate that could sustain those kinds of taxes? I'm sure the member for Markham would say that likely it was, that they were relatively good years in terms of the economy, just as the years from 1985 to 1990, when Ontario enjoyed the second-highest economic growth of all of North America, were years where it might have been possible to sustain an increase in corporate taxes.

What we're seeing at this time and where I think the circumstances are different -- and I'm a person who likes to deal in the present and in the future and not simply worry about the past, even though I well recall the speeches from members on the other side in the past. Have the circumstances changed significantly? They have, for a couple of reasons, and some of them are right out of the hands of the provincial government.

They're largely because of the kind of competition we face for investment dollars today. There are people out there who are looking to invest in various places and there are various jurisdictions that are trying to attract those people.

Although it sounds very good to pass a tax measure of this kind, and it makes people feel good that they've gotten people they think haven't paid taxes before, we have to look at, will it improve the investment climate in the province? I think the member for Markham has concluded, as I have, that such a tax would not do so.

1720

The Acting Speaker: The time for questions or comments has expired, and now the member for Markham has two minutes to reply.

Mr Cousens: The member for St Catharines makes an excellent point. There is an environment for everything and a time and a place for it, and we see that this is not the time for further taxes such as this. You made that point very well and I thank you for it.

The member for Downsview, I don't know what you said that was important, so I'm going to skip that.

As usual, the member for Simcoe East was dead on. He talks about this being a detriment to the province of Ontario, and he has totally the correct view that this tax on the hospitality industry is going to have a very deleterious impact. As for the corporate minimum tax, he thinks it's just another way for the province to add to its coffers. I respect very much where he's coming from. He could probably pay everybody's taxes, but none the less, I know he's out there to protect others from doing it.

To the member for Cochrane South, I'm thrilled that things are prospering as well as they are in your community. In fact, we want to see more communities that can have members stand up and say things are as good as they are. But the mining industry's been going through tough, tough times. I think you're an exception in that sense. Look at Sault Ste Marie and many of our northern communities where unemployment is over 30% to 40%. We've got real problems. We want to get people from outside to come and invest in Ontario. In the meantime, I am always pleased to see people do well, and if things are as good as you say, God bless the people from Cochrane South and may they continue to prosper.

But understand, we're here in the Legislature dealing with a legislative bill that's raising taxes again. If I can't raise the issue in this House -- and I'm a little combative -- where else am I going to do it? How else are we going to tell people how much we disagree with what your government's doing? That is democracy at work.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Madam Speaker, on a point of order: I don't believe we have a quorum present to hear this rather important debate.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Franco Carrozza): Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: We may resume, and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has the floor.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I'm pleased to join the debate on what's called Bill 146, which for those people who may not be familiar with the bill, incorporates, if I'm not mistaken, 11 measures from the 1992 budget and five measures from the 1993 budget. The public might wonder what in the world we're doing dealing with a budget that now is virtually two years old. The 1992 budget was presented, as I recall, on April 30, 1992, which towards the end of this week will be two years ago, and then we're dealing with measures in the 1993 budget.

It's fair to say that the centrepiece of this legislation is what's called the corporate minimum tax, although there are several other measures that I hope to have a chance to discuss as we get into the debate on the bill.

I do think it's important to set the stage for what we're dealing with here. The member from Cochrane was indicating that in the area he represents things seem to be pretty good. I will say, frankly, that's not the case in most of our constituencies, in most of the areas that we represent around the province. It's certainly not true in the area that I represent, which is a part of Scarborough.

I think it's fair to say that certainly for the people I represent, the number one issue is jobs: jobs for themselves, jobs for their family and jobs for their friends and neighbours. I will repeat what we've said many times in this Legislature, that the situation is serious in Ontario, that in spite of what the Premier may say about things getting better and that we are well on our way, I will just say that we are now are well into 1994. In the first quarter of 1994, the first three months of 1994, the government, Bob Rae, had said we would be seeing substantial job growth by now, that we would be seeing year-over-year job growth of 65,000 or 70,000 more jobs in the province in 1994 than we saw in 1993.

Actually, the reverse is happening, and we've actually seen, in the first quarter of 1994, 4,000 fewer jobs in the province of Ontario. So rather than 65,000 or 70,000 more jobs -- and that, by the way, is just to hold the unemployment rate steady, because about 75,000 or 80,000 a year enter the Ontario labour force. We need to see those numbers of new jobs, net new jobs created. We actually have seen in the first three months job losses, and I might say it contrasts with the rest of the country where we see about 150,000 more jobs created in the first three months of 1994 than the same period of time in 1993.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask members to please keep their conversations down. I am trying to listen to the member who has the floor.

Mr Phillips: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Most tragic, in my opinion, is the unemployment rate among young people. We see the reported rate of unemployment among young people at perhaps 20%. That's what is reported in the statistics. Anyone who has looked at the numbers will say that --

Mr Bisson: Boring.

Mr Phillips: The member across is saying "Boring." I will say once again to the members, you should be ashamed of yourselves.

Interjection.

Mr Phillips: No, one of the members over there.

Anyone who is prepared to live with one third of our young people out of work and then say that is boring, there is something wrong with the NDP caucus. I am amazed you are not in revolt. I can't understand the back bench in the NDP, how you can accept an unemployment rate among our young people of one out of three and then sit in here and laugh. To me, you should be embarrassed; you should be ashamed of yourself. You should be demanding action by the cabinet.

I don't know how you can sit still for four years, entering five years now, and live with yourselves. Frankly, as I say, I cannot understand the back bench of the NDP not in revolt about an unemployment rate among our young people of one out of three. There's never been a situation like that. Perhaps in the 1930s, but never since then, and all we're doing is being silent about it and saying things are getting better, that we are prepared to accept one out of three of our young people being unemployed.

It's tragic, and if you don't start raising your voices in caucus --

Mr Bisson: What are you going to do about it?

Mr Phillips: "What are you going to do about it?" the member says. I will say we have issued a paper about what we're going to do about it. The question is, what are you going to do about it? Why don't you get on --

Mr White: Issue a paper. Issue a paper.

Mr Phillips: Yes, making proposals to the government, but the government won't listen. The government will not listen to recommendations from either the third party or ourselves --

Mr White: I can see the backbenchers of your party getting really excited. Issue a paper.

Mr Phillips: -- and the members across get wild-eyed and yell, but they're doing nothing about the unemployment rate among our young people. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Phillips: Ashamed of yourselves.

Mr White: You should be ashamed of yourself, making such gratuitous comments.

Mr Phillips: Well, there goes the member again, rather than coming forward with suggestions and solutions. I'd like to know what you are saying in your caucus. I would like to know how you let the cabinet come in and out of your caucus when every single year the unemployment rate among our young people climbs dramatically. It doesn't go down, and you sit silently.

1730

I have not heard one of you backbenchers in this debate get up and talk about young people and the unemployment rate. I've not heard one of you. I'd like to see the Hansard from you, sir, of where you have got up and talked about young people and come forward with suggestions and solutions. No, all you can do is heckle while our young people in this province are tragically out of work. If you want to accept that, that's fine, but I don't.

What are the solutions? As I say, two weeks ago we issued a paper with our proposals on it. Whether you like them or you don't like them, it was a comprehensive plan to deal with unemployment, including unemployment among our young people.

A year ago my leader, Lyn McLeod, issued a detailed paper on youth unemployment that I don't think any of the NDP caucus has even taken the time to read, I don't think any of you has taken the time to read. So when you heckle and you yell and you say, "What are you going to do about it?" there are two specific detailed proposals we have given to the government, and the government has chosen not to act.

Mr Perruzza: You've given nobody nothing.

Mr Phillips: There goes the member again, yelling --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Perruzza: Nothing, not a thing.

Mr Phillips: -- saying we have done nothing, whereas, Madam Speaker, you can look at the record --

The Acting Speaker: One moment please. I would like to remind all members that each member in this House has the right to speak and to be heard and I would like the member to address his comments through the Chair.

Mr Phillips: I find that when people have nothing to say, they yell, and the member across is yelling. Some day he may have something to say, and then I think people in the province might choose to listen to him.

If any of us take the time to look at this issue, the tragedy of unemployment, and the tragedy of unemployment particularly among our young people, you wouldn't be sitting here heckling; you would be out spending your time trying to find some solutions.

I come now to the bill and to talk a little bit about the bill, because it incorporates many proposals. I remember well something called the Agenda for People, where --

Mr Perruzza: Oh, that hasn't come out in a long time. Let's hear it.

Mr Phillips: It hasn't come out in a long time. I carry it with me all the time. An Agenda for People: This was the promises that Bob Rae got elected on; it was the promises that defeated a government and the promises that Bob Rae got elected on. The member chooses to leave now, and I understand why.

In it what Premier Rae said was this: "A minimum corporate income tax would ensure that profitable corporations could not use tax loopholes to reduce their taxes to zero." It said, and this was their platform, that the minimum corporate tax would raise $1 billion a year.

This was going to be the key way they would fund the promises that they've now broken. They're going to fund it with $1 billion a year going after the corporations with the minimum corporate tax. That's how they were going to, as I say, deal with all of the promises they made, the promises they've now broken.

I think the people of Ontario should recognize that that was the promise, the $1 billion. Then there was a Fair Tax Commission appointed to look at this, to say, "All right, how are we going to get the $1 billion?" The Fair Tax Commission's report was quite informative.

If I can summarize the Fair Tax Commission's report, firstly, there was no $1 billion to be found. After the report came out, someone said, "Where's the $1 billion that Premier Rae thought he would get?" and I said, "Premier Rae went looking for the enemy and found the enemy, and the enemy is the government."

The reasons corporations do not pay taxes, the reasons many profitable corporations pay no taxes are found in detail in the Fair Tax Commission's report. It's quite simple. There are two reasons.

One reason about half of the corporations that make money aren't paying taxes is because of a loss carry-forward. They've lost money in previous years and therefore they carry that forward: quite legal, quite understandable. I think the public by and large accept that, if a corporation has lost a lot of money in one year, there should be some way that they reduce their taxation in future years. So that was the reason for half the profitable corporations.

The second reason that the other half of the corporations are profitable and paying no taxes is because they are taking advantage of government programs. The governments, governments of all stripes, have put together programs over the years that are designed to encourage corporations to do things. When corporations take advantage of the government programs to do things, they reduce their taxes. When they reduce their taxes, in many cases they reduce their taxes to zero because they are taking advantage of government programs.

What the Fair Tax Commission concluded, and I think it was a solid conclusion, in its final report that came out last fall, one of the key recommendations there is this: that Ontario introduce new disclosure and accountability requirements for corporate tax expenditures -- "a corporate tax expenditure" is the jargon used for tax programs offered by governments to reduce taxes in exchange for doing things that governments want them to do -- eliminate the Ontario-only corporate income tax expenditures and address the issue of profitable corporations paying no tax through restrictions on tax expenditures rather than through a corporate minimum tax.

So the government spent I think $9 million of the taxpayers' hard-earned dollars to have the Fair Tax Commission study this issue in detail. The Fair Tax Commission did study it in detail, and its recommendation was, "No, don't introduce a corporate minimum tax; rather, deal with the real issue," which is what they would call the tax expenditure program.

As a matter of fact, on page 104 of this discussion paper from the Fair Tax Commission it outlines approximately $4 billion of tax expenditures. This is money that the people of Ontario give up in tax revenues to corporations. It is a variety of things, including capital cost allowances, current cost adjustments, research and development superallowance, resource allowance, small business deduction, flat capital for small business. There's $4 billion worth of what are called "tax expenditures."

That was the recommendation of the Fair Tax Commission: Why put, I think, 14,000 corporations in Ontario through a fairly expensive process of filing for corporate minimum tax? Why send the signal out to the global business community that says, "In Ontario, regardless of what we do with our tax policy, we are still going to tax you; even if you are abiding by all of the laws and all of the things that we want you to do in the province, even if you get through all of that and you're paying no taxes because you're complying with all the government regulations and all the government tax laws, we're still going to tax you," and in my opinion send to the international business community another signal that Ontario is a business environment that is hostile?

As I say, they went directly against -- the Minister of Transportation came in. You spent $9 million of taxpayers' money on this. You had all the studies done. They looked at it in great detail. Their recommendation was: no corporate minimum tax.

Now, the problem is that Bob Rae promised $1 billion, in the Agenda for People, in revenue from the minimum corporate tax. So I understand why politically it's embarrassing to agree with the Fair Tax Commission's report. But I think a far wiser move would have been to look at the Fair Tax Commission's report and find the underlying causes of why otherwise profitable corporations are not paying taxes.

The reason is -- the Minister of Transportation shakes his head -- the Fair Tax Commission concluded for you that the reason they're not doing it is because these corporations are complying with government programs on tax breaks that encourage them to do things.

1740

The corporations say to me: "Listen, you asked me to, for example, invest in capital, in equipment and what not. I do that. I then take advantage of your incentives for me to do that. What that means is I reduce my profits down to nothing, taking advantage of it, and then you want to put another tax on me called the corporate minimum tax. What's going on here? You want me to head one way and then you jerk me back the other way."

Furthermore, I might say, what we are doing, if you cut through it all, the tax proposal here calls for raising approximately $100 million from the corporate minimum tax. It is essentially a clawback of about 2% of these tax expenditures, these tax breaks that the government is offering to our corporate sector. Wouldn't we be far better to look at these tax expenditure programs, rather than putting 14,000 corporations through an enormous exercise of complying with the corporate minimum tax that, by any definition, is a relatively blunt instrument?

I understand why the government's doing it. Actually, as I recall it, the corporate minimum tax was introduced quite hastily just a few weeks before the Fair Tax Commission report came out to avoid the embarrassment of introducing a corporate minimum tax after the Fair Tax Commission's strong recommendation against it.

I would say on the tax issue that we've often heard you're going to hit a tax wall some day. We've heard that from lots of economists and from lots of people and I guess governments have questioned when you hit that. I think an objective analysis of the situation in Ontario today would say we've hit it.

I went back and I looked at the three budgets that have been presented to date by the government, and we'll see another one next week. But the 1991 budget, as I think everyone here knows, took taxes up by approximately $1 billion. The 1992 budget took taxes up by approximately $1 billion and the 1993 budget took it up by approximately $2 billion. We saw three consecutive years of very substantial -- but the Minister of Finance himself said, "We have taken taxes up substantially." But what's actually happened to tax revenue?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation and Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs): Where's the wall?

Mr Phillips: We've hit it. "Where's the wall?" the minister says. We've hit it and we've bounced back a fair bit. As a matter of fact, so everyone can understand what these numbers mean, roughly a $4-billion increase in the taxation level is about a 10% to 11% increase in the rate of taxation. We've taken the rate of taxation up in the province by roughly 10% or 11%.

You would have expected, in normal circumstances, revenue to grow by at least 10% or 11%; in fact, normally you would expect it to grow more than that. But tax revenue has actually dropped. In 1990-91, tax revenue was approximately $33 billion. This year, the year that just ended a few weeks ago, it had dropped by about $2 billion. For three straight years, the level of taxation went up dramatically and for three straight years actually the revenue from taxation had dropped. Something very strange happened. I think an objective viewer would say we have hit the wall.

There are two or three extenuating circumstances around it. We have gone through a period of relatively low inflation and that's hurt revenues; there's no doubt about that. The economy has been slow and weak. As a matter of fact, when our friends say to us, "I hear there's a recovery going on but I don't feel it," the reason we don't feel the recovery is that even at the end of 1994, with some fairly good growth -- and most people believe the Ontario economy will grow perhaps 3% or 3.5% this year -- the output in the Ontario economy will still be below where it was in 1989. We've seen an increase in the population, an increase in the number of people in the labour force, although not an increase in the people working, but the Ontario economic output is still below where it was in 1989.

So the economy is struggling, and where we see it manifest itself in the most significant terms is in our inability to see jobs created at the rate we need them. I go back to what I said earlier, that in the first three months there are actually some frightening numbers which I hope will not continue, the frightening numbers being that we've actually seen job loss year over year when we should have seen job growth in the 70,000 range or thereabouts.

If you look at the rest of the country, the economy in the rest of the country has grown dramatically better than in Ontario.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Newfoundland?

Mr Phillips: The rest of the country has grown dramatically better than Ontario. The Minister of Transportation is shaking his head, but he knows those are the facts. Job creation has been --

Mr Bisson: No, that is not the case.

Mr Phillips: I always enjoy it when the NDP backbenchers say, "No, that's not the case," because it indicates to me they don't know the facts. If you don't understand that the Ontario economy -- the rest of Canada's economy has been growing just fine; not great, but just fine. Ontario's economy has lagged, for the last four years, behind the rest of the country significantly, particularly on job creation.

Mr Bisson: Is that why you called the election in 1990? Is that why you guys cooked the books?

Mr Phillips: The member once again across the way is barking, and I always enjoy this. I wanted, in the last few minutes available to me, to talk a little about some things that have been said earlier here in the Legislature. I'm sure the public must wonder what we spend our time at, each of us blaming each other for things. The public says, "Listen, get on with managing things. Help the economy grow," and we try to give constructive suggestions. I always appreciate my Conservative friends, and I'm glad they're here in the House to hear this.

Hon Mr Pouliot: One friend.

Mr Phillips: I know Mike Harris doesn't like these numbers to seep out, because he would prefer that the Reform Party not hear them, but I looked at the Provincial Auditor's report -- I don't think the public have a lot of confidence in what all of us say, but they trust the Provincial Auditor -- and what did the Provincial Auditor say about deficits? I know the Conservatives would like to portray themselves as the great money managers. The Provincial Auditor said this: "Ontario has had only one surplus in the last 20 years." This was in 1991. Only one surplus in the last 20 years, the year ending March 31, 1990.

Hon Mr Pouliot: You left us with a $3-billion deficit.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Transportation is barking. Only one surplus in the last 20 years: What does that mean? It means the Conservatives went 15 straight years never balancing the budget, good times and bad times.

The Minister of Transportation is saying, "Yes, but you left us with a $3-billion deficit." Let me tell you how the auditor explains that, because I'm not sure the Minister of Transportation has ever read the auditor's report. The auditor says this: "There was only one balanced budget in 20 years, the year ending March 31, 1990." As you know, the Liberal government was defeated about five months later.

Then the auditor says, "It was expected that there would be another surplus in the next year." That was the second straight surplus. That's what the auditor said the former Liberal government had promised, and that was true. The actual deficit ended up being $3 billion.

Hon Mr Pouliot: That's why you called the election, because you can't stand --

Mr Phillips: Then the auditor asks, what is the explanation of that? I know Bob Rae thinks we tricked him into winning the election because we knew there would be a $3-billion deficit. But the auditor says here is the explanation. There was a surplus in the year ending March 31, 1990. There was another surplus planned. Then, the auditor says, "The major factors contributing to this variance" -- and I want all the people out there to understand, because I know they think all those miserable Liberals left a $3-billion deficit. The auditor said, "The extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget, meant that total revenues were down by approximately $1.1 billion."

1750

Revenues were $1.1 billion lower than had been expected. I say to my business friends, that's about a 2% drop in revenue. I think you can appreciate that when a recession hits like that, that's possible.

He said, the second thing to get to the $3 billion is that total expenditures were up by approximately $1 billion, "with the increase in social assistance payments being the major contributing factor." That's a second thing. Recession hits, revenues drop by $1.1 billion, and expenses went up by $1 billion, heavily social assistance. The NDP may not want to have done that with people who needed help, but that was what was required, approximately $1 billion. That's $2.1 billion of the $3 billion.

The third thing the auditor said is that, "There were special payments made that weren't provided in the budget." What were they? One was $196 million for the teachers' pension fund. That wasn't due in the year it was made. It was due the next year, but the NDP saw that, oh, the deficit wasn't going to be quite high enough and moved a $196-million payment up. The second payment that was made was SkyDome, writing all the SkyDome off. That's fine, $321 million completely written off. That's legitimate. It wasn't planned, but it was completely written off. The third thing was that a loan to the Urban Transportation Development Corp of $400 million was completely written off.

Only one surplus in, now, 25 years. That was the final year the Liberal regime had its full hand on the bank. That's irrefutable. That's not me saying it, that is the auditor. Then the auditor explains in detail how the $3-billion deficit came about. I always get a kick out of my NDP friends who say: "You didn't tell us the recession was coming. You didn't know things were going to be this bad."

Mr Wiseman: Oh, yes you did.

Mr Phillips: Of course we did. Here is exactly what we were predicting, and here is what the NDP said about what the Liberal government was saying. This is what the NDP said: "The Ontario Liberal 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 1990 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 the defence of the status quo by calling on the government to implement reform policies needed to bring fairness to our society."

My point in raising that was it was clear to those NDP members who were around that we saw the need for restraint. We could see what was coming. We warned the NDP about it, and the NDP, rather than responding to it, said we have dropped our Liberal pretence and shown our true Conservative nature.

I wanted to get those things on the record, Madam Speaker, as we debate an important tax bill.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I notice that the government is incapable of having its members in the House. We don't seem to have a quorum here.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk determine if a quorum is present, please.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Questions or comments?

Mr Turnbull: I always enjoy listening to my good friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. The last time he made this indictment and discussion about having a balanced budget, the Liberals having the only balanced budget in 25 years, I responded to it. Unfortunately, he'd left the chamber by that time. So I just wanted to put this on the record.

Yes, it's absolutely true, we've had one --

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, I'm in the midst of speaking, and this specimen across the floor is hammering his desk. I find that most objectionable.

The Acting Speaker: I ask and I caution all members that there's a certain decorum that is expected in this House. I ask the members to respect that decorum on all sides of the House. Would you continue, please.

Mr Turnbull: Please do that.

Madam Speaker, I would ask you to reset the clock, instead of allowing somebody to go like this throughout what I'm saying.

The Acting Speaker: I will give you a minute and a half. Please reset the clock.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you. Are you resetting the clock, Madam Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: I said I would give a minute and a half. Please go ahead.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: I beg your pardon? I cannot hear a word that you're saying.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I have told the member that he has one minute and 30 seconds.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you. There's only one balanced budget that has occurred in the last 25 years, and everybody who has been involved with any government that has racked up deficits should be ashamed. I've said this before, and that applies to all political parties.

The year that the Liberals in fact had a balanced budget, they had budgeted a deficit. They had budgeted a deficit of $550 million. They got an unanticipated $888 million from the federal government because the economy was booming and they hadn't estimated they'd get much. At the end of that, you should say, they should then have had $338 million surplus. Instead they showed $90 million surplus. In other words, had they not been bailed out by the feds, they would have been even deeper in the hole than they had budgeted.

We've got to start having fiscally responsible government that understands that every deficit is deferred taxes, which we're putting on the backs of our children and our grandchildren. This is not a partisan statement. Every single party has got to wake up to the fact. If we're going to spend money, spend our own, don't spend our children's future, and that's what we're doing.

That's what I would say to my friend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. Be honest with the people. Tell the people that you didn't anticipate making a surplus, it was just a fluke. You got some money from the feds.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment.

Mr Sutherland: It was very interesting listening to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, because he had to go into such a great defence about them having a balanced budget in the year 1989. But what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt doesn't want to do is to compare apples and apples, he wants to compare apples and oranges.

He didn't talk about how much more of a large revenue base they had. He didn't talk about how much the revenues increased that year, which I believe was in the double-digit figures, over 10% increases in revenues. Heck, anyone could balance the budget doing that.

Then he goes into the justification as to why we ended up with a $3-billion deficit by the end of the 1990-91 year. He talks about increases in social assistance costs. He talks about all those things that contributed to that, the downturn in the economy.

He's willing to give credit during that year in terms of the 1991 year and why it got up to that. He won't admit that we had an even more dramatic impact and more people went on social assistance in 1991. He won't admit that the revenues actually declined -- declined -- for the first time since the 1930s. He doesn't want to admit that fact in terms of understanding the different situation.

There's no doubt the 1990s are different. There's no doubt during the Liberals' time, they had the glory days. No doubt about it. Unemployment was low. Revenue was coming in throughout their ears, and they increased taxes galore. Unfortunately, they weren't doing much planning for the future.

When we came into government, we came in at a very difficult time and we had to deal with the difficult things. We had to deal with the impact of free trade. We had to deal with the impact that they hadn't managed the health care system and it was increasing 10% a year. We had to deal with the things that they avoided, that they didn't deal with.

For him to say, "Oh, we were so great because we had a balanced budget," I say anyone could've done it. Who can manage in tough times? That's what this government is doing.

The Acting Speaker: Being 6 o'clock, this debate will resume at a further date. This House now stands adjourned until Tuesday at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1801.