Hansard Transcript 1994-May-02 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Just recently, on Friday, April 29, I visited a wonderful school, Lester B. Pearson Collegiate Institute. I spoke there on the matter of citizenship and family. I met some wonderful people there, as a matter of fact: the president of the student council, a very intelligent young lady named Stacey Ann Wilson, together with her principal, Ms Vera Taylor, and their guidance head, Grant Williams.

I left there feeling very confident about my country and my constituency because these young people look to the future and feel confident that they will participate. They were concerned, after finishing their education, whether or not they would have a job ready for them. I have reassured them, and they fully agreed, that their education is one of the main tools and skills which they would have in the future, to have a wonderful education.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, and my colleagues here in the House that the people of Scarborough North and Ontario should be very, very proud of those students at Lester B. Pearson Collegiate, and to share with you that one of these days one or two of them will be sitting right here, maybe in the same position I am or maybe in your seat, Mr Speaker.

STORMONT AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): This Friday the rural community in Stormont county will celebrate the 50th anniversary of our Stormont agricultural office.

Agricultural offices have played a crucial role in communicating new developments and techniques as well as government programs to the farming and rural community of Ontario.

The Stormont ag office opened its doors in Cornwall in 1944, during a time which saw significant change in agriculture. Right from the start Stormont's first ag rep, the late A.M. Barr, identified soils, crops, livestock and rural young people as his major organizational priorities. In fact that same focus was there years later when, at the tender age of 13, I personally became involved with the Sandringham 4-H calf club while Ron Crozier was our ag rep.

Stormont's ag reps have always provided needed leadership and advice: the late A.M. Barr from 1944 to 1947; Ken Lantz from 1948 to 1951. Ron Crozier filled the job from 1952 to 1956, followed by the late Ken Best from 1957 to 1966.

Our current ag rep, Dale Miller, has certainly earned his place in Stormont county's agricultural history. He has witnessed among other things the move of the ag office from Cornwall to Avonmore, the centre of Stormont county's farming community. Ag Minister Jack Riddell opened the new office after the move had been announced by a previous government. In fact moving the office was one of the top issues in the by-election where I came to this chamber.

I want to invite all colleagues, especially the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, to visit Stormont county during this our 50th anniversary.

ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): In the year 1852 Chief Seathl, a tribal nobleman native to the Pacific Northwest, shared the following thoughts with the white men who were attempting to buy his ancestral lands:

"This we know. The Earth does not belong to man; man belongs to the Earth. This we know. All things are connected like the blood which unites one family. All things are connected. Whatever befalls the Earth befalls the son of the Earth. Man did not weave the web of life, he is merely a strand in it. Whatever he does to the web, he does to himself."

These words formed part of the homily on Sunday in my church delivered by Mr Ted Blowes, chair of the Stratford civic beautification committee. There were many other environmental events this weekend in Stratford as part of a week-long celebration put on by the committee.

Howard Hampton, Minister of Natural Resources, visited with students of Hamlet Elementary School and the seniors of Cedarcroft to plant a tree in their intergenerational garden. He then made a slide presentation to Stratford Northwestern high school students about the new Keep It Wild campaign, extolling the virtues of our many natural wild places and the necessity of preserving them for future generations.

Irene Mathyssen, parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Environment and Energy, joined me for lunch with public school students and the members of the parks board. We heard about the many species of animals that will soon be extinct if we don't do something about our treatment of this planet. Then together we planted a tree in Stratford's Queen's Park.

As part of his sermon, Mr Blowes reminded us of the power of one to make changes and to make a difference. Part of the Earth Day creed reads, "I will no longer rely on others to take care of things and offer my individual commitment to help correct the imbalance in every way I can." We must never underestimate the power of one.

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a letter here from the Cornwall and District Labour Council addressed to the Honourable Bob Rae, Premier of the province of Ontario:

"Dear Mr Rae:

"The following is a resolution passed by the council at the March 10 general meeting:

"Whereas the city of Cornwall" -- and our area -- "is experiencing a difficult business downturn; and

"Whereas there is 40% of the population receiving some form of social assistance; and

"Whereas available jobs have hundreds of applicants lined up in the cold waiting for interviews; and

"Whereas all jobs are at a premium everywhere in eastern Ontario;

1340

"Therefore, be it resolved that the government of Ontario reopen in its entirety the provincial parks system in this region, which will spin off into more tourists, more spending and more jobs.

"We would appreciate your immediate attention to this resolution as timeliness is the important factor in this matter."

It's signed by the Cornwall and District Labour Council members.

Minister, it is very clear that you are the only block to reopening the parks. I join the Cornwall and District Labour Council in demanding that you take all necessary steps to reopen the parks now to allow job opportunity to our unemployed and employment opportunity for our students for this coming summer.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): It's Education and Training Week in Ontario, "With the Future in Mind." It's an opportunity for schools across the province to showcase their accomplishments in their communities. Schools will have special events and open houses for parents and the community to watch children at work in the classroom.

It's an opportunity for everyone to visit their community schools and to offer encouragement as they provide our students with quality education. Accountability is extremely important. Visit your schools and see at first hand the kind of education our students are receiving.

Congratulations to our educators. There are many examples in London of what's happening during this special week.

Arthur Ford Elementary School is hosting a Violence Awareness Week, including classes working on aspects of peacekeeping, positive solutions to problems and cooperative team games. The hallways will be lined with paper footsteps with positive messages.

Westmount Elementary School will display the artwork of primary students, Invention Convention and environmental work. They will also have two open houses.

Nicholas Wilson Elementary School will host a school-wide poster contest, parent computer workshops will be run by students, they will have a special music concert and will host a Preparing for the Future students workshop.

Holy Cross Elementary School will have an open house every day for classroom visits by parents. They will have a police department presentation on violence, a nature walk in Silverwood park and amphibians and reptiles project presentations.

St Jude Elementary School will host many festivals of mathematics challenges. The primary classes will make presentations on reptiles and there will be a garbageless challenge assembly for the junior division.

There's lots happening, and I hope all of us take advantage of Education and Training Week in Ontario.

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): This is Elizabeth Fry Week in Canada, and I would invite all members to join with me in recognizing the important role played by Elizabeth Fry societies across Ontario in assisting women in conflict with the law.

Elizabeth Fry campaigned for better treatment of women in British prisons in the early 19th century. Her work has been carried on by the Elizabeth Fry Society chapters across Canada.

Here in Ontario, volunteers and staff of eight chapters provide counselling, education and support to women and girls who have been admitted to correctional institutions. Elizabeth Fry chapters also deliver a wide variety of community programs on behalf of the Ministry of the Solicitor General and Correctional Services. Chapters are represented provincially by the Council of Elizabeth Fry Societies of Ontario, based here in Toronto.

The Elizabeth Fry movement has played a key role in drawing attention to the circumstances that commonly lead women into conflict with the law and the special needs women face emerging from the criminal justice system, with the goal of preventing crime by assisting women to become productive members of society.

This week there are events taking place in many communities to recognize the important work done by the Elizabeth Fry societies in Ontario, with a special emphasis on mothers and children. I would encourage all members and their constituents to support the Elizabeth Fry Society in its important work with women in conflict with the law.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On Thursday, April 28, members of the Legislative Assembly paused for a moment to remember those who have lost their lives in the workplace.

Across the province, people gathered in various locations, such as the Niagara Peninsula, in a similar expression of sympathy as part of the national day of mourning to remember those who have died on the job.

As we in the Legislature were remembering those who have lost their lives in job-related accidents, a ceremony was being held beneath the Garden City Skyway marking the passing of four workers who died at the site beneath the Skyway in an industrial accident, with Julie Davis of the Ontario Federation of Labour in attendance at that ceremony.

The day of mourning reminds us that we must all strive to make the workplace safe for workers across our land. It is in the interest of labour, management and society as a whole that every possible precaution be taken to avoid injury and death where individuals gather to work. Over the years progress has been made, but none of us will be satisfied until there are no more deaths on the job.

To the family, friends and co-workers, the day of mourning in Port Colborne or Pembroke, in St Catharines or Sault Ste Marie demonstrates that we have not forgotten and that we will continue to work for the goal of zero tolerance of workplace deaths.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. She's not here today but the Premier is, and I wish he would pay attention to my statement.

On April 29 TRW Vehicle Safety Systems Ltd announced the closure of its Penetanguishene assembly plant effective August 12. The closure of this assembly plant will result in the layoff of 270 employees.

TRW is a business unit of TRW Inc of Cleveland, Ohio. The company produces seatbelts and air bags for the automotive industry. There are three TRW operations in the Penetanguishene-Midland area: two stamping and metal-finishing plants in Midland employing 300, and a seatbelt assembly plant in Penetanguishene employing 290, of which only 20 will be offered jobs at the Midland plant.

TRW officials have indicated the free trade and the North American free trade agreements were not factors in the decision to close the Penetanguishene assembly plant.

Premier, I talked with Mayor Klug of Penetanguishene over the weekend and we agree that you should direct members of your ministry staff to attend an emergency meeting planned for Wednesday to look at modifying and upgrading the TRW plant, securing a new owner and, most importantly, saving the jobs.

The announced closure of the TRW plant has created a great deal of uncertainty to a very, very dedicated group of employees and their families. Premier, I urge you to act now because 270 of my constituents face the bleak prospect of joining the unemployment lines in this province and we don't want that to happen.

TEACHER INTERNSHIP

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): I would like to bring to the attention of the House an exemplary teacher internship project in the Kingston area that has been chosen for provincial funding.

Under the Ministry of Education and Training's education-work connections initiative, a cooperative partnership in Kingston called Future Dimensions in Teacher Internship has received a grant of $49,500.

In today's economy our students need relevant work experience and practical employment skills to get and keep good jobs. Future Dimensions in Teacher Internship is a way of bringing these essentials into the classroom by providing teachers with direct experience in the workplaces for which their students are preparing.

This project is a cooperative program of the Frontenac County Board of Education, the Frontenac-Lennox and Addington County Roman Catholic School Board and the Kingston Area School to Employment Council.

Recently I had the pleasure of interviewing on Cablenet 13 representatives of the three partners which are setting up the program: Laurie Preston, management of the public board's School of Continuing and Community Education, Mary Carroll, coordinator of the separate board's Loyola Community Learning Centre, and Mary Gayle Dillon, managing director of the Kingston Area School to Employment Council. The expertise and commitment these individuals bring to their job promises the teacher internship program will be very successful.

The Kingston project and seven other demonstration projects selected for the education-work connections assistance involve a shared commitment from the province, school boards, teachers, employers and local community groups. This is an excellent example of collaboration at the local level that will benefit us all, both in Kingston and across the province.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Sudbury, Mr Jim Gordon.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I am rising this afternoon to remind this House that May is Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. This campaign to increase public awareness of sexual violence against women comes at a time when there is much talk about the level of violence in our society.

People more than ever are looking for answers. We are trying to trace the roots of violence. We are doing our best to understand why our society appears to be becoming more violent. People everywhere are pointing to the violence in our schools as evidence of something going terribly wrong.

A frightening amount of gender-based violence goes on in our school system -- acts of violence both physical and verbal -- which are directed specifically at girls and young women. These acts are the first expression of the attitudes that cause boys to grow into men who are violent or harassing towards women.

So in this Sexual Assault Prevention Month, we draw your attention not only to the sexual violence and harassment to which men subject women but also that to which boys subject girls. And we seek to highlight behaviour that often doesn't get acknowledged or recognized as the violence it is.

I would like to say a few words about the kind of harassing behaviour towards girls that boys display early on and about the way that we as parents or as teachers or as principals respond to that behaviour.

As early as elementary school and junior high, it is routine for boys to lift girls' skirts, snap their bras, grab their breasts, humiliate them by rating them on a scale of one to 10 as they walk down the corridor. Girls who are seen as different because of their racial or ethnic background, because of a physical disfigurement or because of the food they eat or the clothes they wear are doubly harassed, first because of their gender, and second, because of whatever it is that makes them appear different.

Teachers and parents alike tend to downplay this behaviour and treat it as far less serious than it actually is. Anyone who questions or criticizes this behaviour is accused of making mountains out of molehills. We are told that it's all in fun or that the boys are just kidding. Any girl who has experienced this kind of behaviour will tell you in no uncertain terms that there is nothing funny about it.

Research indicates that it is commonplace for boys to traumatize girls with vulgarities which I would never think of repeating in this Legislature. This language, which slips all too easily into threats of sexual assault, threats which are far too often carried out, is commonplace. Too often the response to this kind of behaviour is, "Boys will be boys." Two things about violence we know for certain: Violence always escalates, and what children learn and are allowed to get away with in their youth they are likely to repeat in adulthood.

A recent study by the Canadian Committee on Violence Against Women found that one in five Canadian girls under the age of 18 has been abused by a boyfriend. Clearly, we are facing a serious problem.

By the time today's children reach adulthood, it will be too late to do much to reduce sexual violence within the next generation. We don't have much hope that our daughters and our granddaughters will suffer less harassment and violence than any of the women who have come before them if we don't take two important steps. The first step is that we actively challenge the belief that girls are inferior to boys. The second is that we stop regarding violent male behaviour as normal and acceptable.

The government continues its efforts to raise awareness about sexual assault during Sexual Assault Prevention Month and throughout the year.

Earlier today I announced, on behalf of the Minister of Health, $415,000 in grants to health care professionals, to teach them how to recognize and respond to women and girls who have been physically and sexually assaulted. This is but one of the programs in our government's interministerial strategy to address violence against women. Others include the victim/witness assistance program, the funding of sexual assault centres and the awarding of grants to community groups for local public education projects.

The Ministry of Education and Training is an active partner in our government's strategy to address sexual harassment. Over 150 English- and French-language school boards are working on this issue, and the ministry, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation and the Ontario women's directorate are collaborating on a student-to-student sexual harassment study. These initiatives, together with the Ontario-wide consultation on violence in the school system, are helping schools, parents and communities to identify and deal with sexual harassment and assault.

If we as a community are truly to make a difference in reducing the incidence of sexual assault and other violence against women, we must begin in our homes, in our schools, in our day care centres and in our nurseries. We must recognize sexual assault and harassment in all its forms and at its earliest stages, and we must begin to communicate clearly that this behaviour is wrong. We, as a community, are responsible for beginning the process of change.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Responses?

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): On behalf of the Liberal caucus I would like to add my voice of support for the minister's campaign during Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

There is a brochure called Sexual Assault which has been put out by the Ontario women's directorate, and I would just like to read a couple of the opening statements.

"One in four Canadian women is sexually assaulted. Most women live with the fear of being sexually assaulted.

"People don't like to talk about it, but as a community we should all be concerned. No one should have to live in fear."

Surely the people of this House do believe those words, but there are those who have attacked the reliability of studies on the extent of violence against women, attacks by people who don't believe and don't wish to believe that violence is that endemic and that widespread.

There are those who challenge the fact that sexual assault is occurring so often in the lives of women in Canada. However, a Statistics Canada survey from last year revealed that more than half of all Canadian women have been physically or sexually assaulted at least once in their adult lives. In hard numbers, that means that more than five million adult Canadian women have been assaulted. Statscan is noted for both its reliability and its accurate methodology. Surely the naysayers will now have to admit that we have a serious problem.

As the minister has stated, this is the sixth Sexual Assault Prevention Month, first initiated by the Liberal government in 1989 and continued as a priority by this government. I think it particularly fitting that this is both Education Week and the beginning of this campaign to educate people, particularly our young people, that sexual assault is never acceptable. Because education is what it's all about: changing attitudes and, hopefully, changing behaviour.

Two years ago during Sexual Assault Prevention Month, I was at Northern Secondary School when the minister introduced a radio and television campaign targeting young people. It was interesting to hear the comments of the students after the presentation. It was obvious that the young people had undergone a tremendous sensitization about violence during recent years.

I was encouraged. As both the young men and the young women involved spoke out, it was clear that they understood the issue so well and were responding to it very positively. They clearly understood the key messages: that any unwanted act of a sexual nature is sexual assault; that sex without consent is sexual assault; and that women always have the right to say no and that men need to understand and respect that right.

One thing I want my 16-year-old daughter to understand is that young women have a right to say no and not feel guilty. At the same time, I want my 18-year-old son to understand that young men have an obligation to listen -- to really listen -- to what women are telling them.

The minister has made the statement that sexually assaultive behaviour does not spring up out of nowhere, that it is the result of years of practice in the school yard and the classroom. I believe it is very important that as we raise our young sons, we teach them respect for other people, regardless of age or gender. Harassment of the type described by the minister is unacceptable at any age. If children learn something is acceptable when they are young, then surely this is influential in determining what they believe is acceptable throughout their lifetime. If we don't curb children's unacceptable behaviour now, we will indeed pay the price later.

One of the very encouraging factors in combating the myths surrounding sexual assault is that the members of this House treat it as a serious problem and in a non-partisan way. I think this is vitally important, that we in this House set the standard and work together to make a difference. We are, as the minister said, a community, and if we take the attitude, if we help to change behaviours by our words and our actions in this Legislature, then I think it's a job well done.

1400

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I would like to take this opportunity to truly congratulate the minister for what I believe to be one of the most outstanding statements she has made in this House each year as we have recognized Sexual Assault Prevention Month.

I'm extremely pleased that this minister has indeed been responsive to the concerns that have been raised by the opposition. In taking a look at my response of last year, May 3, 1993, I indicated at that time to the minister that I was concerned about the amount of gender-based violence that was going on in our school system, both physical and verbal, that was being directed specifically at girls and young women. Certainly today she has very adequately addressed that particular issue. The examples she's given here, although we don't like to acknowledge that they're indeed happening, I can attest as a female to the fact that they do, personally and as a teacher and also having a daughter.

I think it is time we take a look at some of the harassment that does take place. Unfortunately, some of it is very subtle. I'm pleased we have attempted to deal with that particular issue. I congratulate the minister for dealing with that issue today and for being responsive to the concerns of the opposition when we have suggested, as I did, that we need to focus our attention on the children in the elementary and the secondary school systems.

As I know the minister is responsive, there is another area I hope we can continue to focus our attention on. We've dealt with the adult for a long time now and I'm pleased that we're looking at the younger children. I would like to suggest that we take a look at what is happening with our children's aid societies. I've recently had an opportunity to meet with them. We know that children's aid societies throughout this province are in crisis. They are suffering from funding shortfalls and they are suffering from case loads that unfortunately are increasing. In fact, allegations of child abuse have increased by 200% since 1983. When you have about one million women in this province who are battered annually, in one of the four cases children are also being hurt or threatened at the present time.

I am certainly concerned that the children's aid societies have suffered. Unfortunately, the child protection services have been deteriorating recently, particularly as a result of the actions taken by this government. I am extremely concerned, when I take a look at the time I have spent in this Legislature since 1990, I do not believe children have figured prominently on our political agenda, despite the promises we made to the contrary.

I want to quote the Premier, who stated on November 4, "Let me assure you that the healthy development of Ontario's children remains a priority of our government." Although I think there was a sincere commitment, I don't believe we have provided these children with the protection services that have been necessary. I would certainly encourage the government to do whatever it can, because children's aid has been forced into a position where it has reduced its staffing by 175 positions. Also, they have cut $13.5 million in preventive treatment and protective services in 1992.

I introduced, when I was first elected, a private member's bill that dealt with the need to provide mental health treatment for children in this province, because at that time we had thousands on waiting lists. Those people and those numbers have simply increased.

I just conclude by saying that the PC Party believes that Ontario's most vulnerable children have been forced to go without this additional support and protective services. I believe, as does our party, that it's absolutely time we continue to focus on really making children in this province a priority and that we look at all our policies and we make that commitment together today to ensure that our children will be healthy and will not have to experience further harassment or some of the other problems they are facing today.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I would ask unanimous consent to make a short statement regarding the Ontario Hydro negotiations and contract.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous agreement? Agreed.

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I thank my colleagues. I'm pleased to announce that the ratification vote by the Power Workers' Union has been completed and that over 87% of those voting have ratified the agreement.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): Do I have an opportunity to respond, Mr Speaker? I want to take the opportunity now at this time on behalf of my party to reflect on this issue. I think all of us agree that it reached critical proportions and we indeed faced a crisis at the time. People thought the lights were going to go out in this province as the result of an Ontario Hydro strike.

All of us, the people of this province, use electricity in our homes, our offices, our hospitals, our schools, our farms. All of us rely on electricity in our day-to-day lives.

My party saw this crisis coming over a year ago, and we sought a simple reassurance, on our own part and on the part of the people of this province, from the government and particularly from the minister that he had a contingency plan in place, that our fears were in fact unfounded, that he would ensure that whatever the outcome we would never suffer the effects of a strike. As we all know in this House, we simply cannot withstand a strike from Ontario Hydro.

If there is one criticism I feel we can legitimately level at the minister, it is that he never disclosed his contingency plan. He never provided the reassurance we sought, that the people of this province sought. He needlessly took us right to the brink with him and caused needless anxiety for the people of this province.

Now we've got a deal in place, but all is not well, notwithstanding what the minister would have us believe, notwithstanding that Hydro is spending millions of dollars on an advertising campaign to tell us that everything is okay and that the new Ontario Hydro will take us into the future. On the other hand, we've got the union spending all kinds of money as well on television ads telling us that all is not well.

It seems to me it would be nice if somehow we could get all the moneys and energies being channelled into the TV ads for waging some kind of television war into some kind of cooperative effort in ensuring that we have the kind of Ontario Hydro we're going to need to meet the challenges of the future.

Ontario Hydro is undergoing a massive restructuring, and that's having a tremendous impact on its workers and their families. Unfortunately, we don't really know, though, what the heck is going on over there. For over a year we've been asking for public hearings on the restructuring process. I am pleased to see that the minister has asked the OEB to look into this. We are looking forward to playing an active part in those hearings and to actually making a presentation in an effort to lend some positive direction to Ontario Hydro's changes in the future.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): Having been recently assigned the critic's role for energy, I'd just like to make a few comments on this agreement that has been reached with the union and Ontario Hydro.

There seem to be considerable misunderstandings about the surplus staff issue. Certainly there was an amount of money allotted to Ontario Hydro out of the pension plan in lieu of laying off, I understand, 600 to 800 people. In the meantime, over this two-year period, we haven't received any information from the minister about the type of employment, the type of training or what will be taking place with these 600 to 800 people.

Some of the message coming through tells me it's the shutting down of Lennox and Bruce that will create this surplus. If that is the case, I would ask the minister to direct the chairman of Ontario Hydro to further investigate the shutting down of Lennox and of Bruce, because, as the minister very well knows, Lennox is in a very good location to service eastern Ontario. It has the 500-kV system coming from that plant to Ottawa and eventually to Cornwall and joining in with the Quebec supply.

1410

So rather than taking a negative approach to Lennox and to Bruce, I think it's time this minister took a positive approach and started to market the product that he seems to have a surplus of. If we had positive marketing, instead of negative marketing, we wouldn't have 600 or 800 surplus people; we'd be out trying to hire twice that number in order to service the market that's there. If anyone is keeping up with the technology that's taking place today across this country and doesn't see the increased need for electricity in this province, they're just not keeping up with the times.

I think of all the time that was spent with Bill 118 to try to give the Minister of Energy some power of direction to Ontario Hydro. I think this is an excellent time that the minister should be exercising that power and getting the feelings of the people of Ontario over to the chairman and the board. I don't take away from the chairman and his board on their efforts to date to cut costs and restructure Ontario Hydro, but there is a type of slash-and-burn approach that we're going at here.

I'm hearing many reports that the union is saying, "We now have one supervisor for every 1.76 people." Management is saying, "We have one supervisor for every 20 people." Somewhere in between are the facts. I think the minister should look into that aspect of administration at Ontario Hydro because even an engineer is not classified as a manager; that individual is classified as a person not belonging to the union, not part of the working trade, and does in fact come under the administration budget for Ontario Hydro. So it's very important that we decide, do we want one supervisor for every two people, or do we want one supervisor for 20 or more? All of these things are going to affect the cost of power.

The other problem is the sort of dictatorial way that money was taken and used as a supplement to the bargaining on this issue. I don't think there was much consultation with the employees through the pension plan.

Hon Mr Wildman: It was negotiated.

Mr Jordan: That's the question: Who had the authority to lay out this amount of money in lieu of 600 to 800 jobs? Regardless of the arguments in favour of that and whether it was good business or not, I think a much more positive approach would be to get off our butts and get out and market the product and create jobs.

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When we were asked to grant unanimous consent for the Minister of Environment and Energy to make a statement, we of course agreed because we thought it was quite a serious matter. We would have looked for substantially more detail.

I would refer you to section 32(a), where it says:

"A minister of the crown may make a short factual statement relating to government policy, ministry action" -- and this is key -- "or other similar matters of which the House should be informed.

"(b)...shall not exceed 20 minutes....

"(c) Two copies of each ministerial statement shall be delivered to opposition party leaders, or their representatives, at or before the time the statement is made in the House."

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): That's why I asked for unanimous consent.

Mr Mahoney: My point of order, as the minister interrupts, is that it would have been most helpful for opposition parties and for the members of the public to have had this delivered as a minister's statement, complete with the details that surround the ratification, complete with all information with regard to this matter. It would have followed the rules, in my respectful submission to you, that are laid out under sections 32(a), (b) and (c).

This government continues to refuse to follow the rules that are here in this document and to give us the proper information and, by giving it to us, to in turn give it to the public. I just wish that in future, the government would make ministerial statements when they're due and follow the rules and give us the information we need.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order?

Hon Mr Wildman: Yes. The member knows full well that I indeed did follow the rules. I asked for unanimous consent. If the member and/or his party did not wish to provide me with unanimous consent but would have preferred me to wait until tomorrow to make a formal statement, as per the rule he quotes, I could have done that.

In fact, the House gave unanimous consent. That is in complete accord with the rules and it is quite appropriate, I think, on this kind of an issue, for a minister to request unanimous consent to make an announcement of tremendous importance to the people of this province, particularly when it's the ratification of an agreement that assures the members their jobs and also saves the corporation $67 million.

Mr Mahoney: On the same point of order: At no time was I or any member in this House questioning the significance. In fact, we believe it was so significant that a minister's statement would have been appropriate, complete with the documentation to the opposition parties. All they do is have press conferences and break the rules --

The Speaker: First, to the honourable member for Mississauga West: I appreciate the concern which the member has expressed. He will know that the minister did not make a statement during the time allotted for ministers' statements. Had he done so, of course, the rules apply with respect to details being provided to the opposition.

This is not a unique situation, where a minister of the crown has asked for unanimous consent from the House to provide some information to the House. Of course, when that is done, it is appropriate for the Speaker to allow someone from each party to have a brief reply to the information which has been provided to the House. That's in fact what we did today, so the member will understand that there is not anything out of order.

It is now time for oral questions and the honourable member for Mississauga West.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I hesitate to interrupt the honourable member for Mississauga West, but I wondered if I could just make a very brief announcement with respect to tomorrow's visit by Premier Johnson.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

VISIT OF QUEBEC PREMIER

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Just to indicate to members, Premier Johnson will be visiting Queen's Park tomorrow and all members obviously are invited to participate in the signing ceremony tomorrow at 11:30.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Oral questions. The honourable member for Mississauga West.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I assume the Premier will be providing a copy of his resolution for the Premier of Quebec so that he understands it.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier. On Thursday, my leader, Lyn McLeod, asked whether you felt it was appropriate for the Finance minister, the man who signs the cheques in this province, to use his position of influence to lobby the board of governors of the francophone college in Sudbury to take $43 million that the Finance minister gave them and spend it in his riding.

Premier, I trust that you have since had an opportunity to talk to the Finance minister about this matter. Will you now agree that the Finance minister was wrong to try to influence this body, that his influence was in fact a violation of your conflict-of-interest guidelines, and will you tell the House what action you have taken to correct this matter?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I have spoken to the Deputy Premier and I'm sure he'd be glad to answer these questions as well. In looking at the situation, I must say I don't find myself in agreement with any of his characterizations of what took place.

The minister appeared as a member of an interested public at a public meeting. He appeared publicly to support the position of his municipality and his constituency; he did not try to exert private influence on any decision-maker; he did not seek a benefit for himself or for any member of his family in his representations; he candidly and openly represented the interests of his constituency, and I can't see that that amounts to any breach of guidelines that have come from me or indeed from anyone else or the conflict-of-interest act. If the member disagrees, he knows there is a procedure which he can follow under the act to seek the opinion of the commissioner.

I think it's fair to say that in contrast to other circumstances, there was nothing clandestine or concealed in the actions of the member. He was very open at a public meeting in putting forward the point of view of his constituents.

1420

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): How about Joan Smith? Was that clandestine?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Hon Mr Rae: I can assure the honourable member that in considering what took place, I don't see any breach of any guidelines whatsoever.

Mr Mahoney: I'm going to have to check the Instant Hansard, Mr Speaker, but I believe I heard the Premier say that the Finance minister appeared before this body as a member of the public with an interest in this affair. The Finance minister himself in his defence has said he simply appeared as an ordinary MPP.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Right. That's right.

Mr Mahoney: He says he's an ordinary MPP. You say he went simply as a member of the public.

Hon Mr Rae: No, an MPP.

Mr Mahoney: I'll be happy to check the record on that, but that's what I heard you say.

The Conflict of Interest Commissioner has written, and I quote right from his letter:

"Once a member is appointed to the executive council, any action in which he or she is involved is the action of a member of the executive council. A minister is not an ordinary member of the Legislature. A minister always wears the cloak of ministerial responsibility. A minister is a minister is a minister."

These are not my words; these are the words of Justice Evans, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner. Yet the Finance minister made an unscheduled appearance in front of the provincially appointed board, was introduced not as a private citizen, not as an MPP, but as the Minister of Finance, and proceeded to pressure the board to award a $43-million government tender to one of over 20 proponents who happened to have a site in his riding.

How do you reconcile these facts, Premier, with your stated, written guidelines and the ruling in the letter of Justice Evans, the Conflict of Interest Commissioner?

Hon Mr Rae: If the member is alleging that there is a breach of the conflict-of-interest law of the province or is making any other allegation with respect to the conduct of the member, he knows perfectly well, under the act, what his responsibilities are. He knows perfectly well that he has a responsibility if he believes that's true. The honourable member from Mississauga has an obligation to ask the commissioner to rule and to indicate the opinion with respect to this situation.

Mr Chiarelli: Sit Justice Evans in your seat, then, if you want him to do your job.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: My assessment of the situation is different from the honourable member's. Of course the Minister of Finance is the Minister of Finance is the Minister of Finance. That's true. He is also a member who represents his constituency and who is allowed, it would seem to me, from time to time to speak on behalf of his constituents.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): That's not what you said about Joan Smith.

Hon Mr Rae: I do that without any sense of apology. Every member of the cabinet does it from time to time. There was nothing clandestine. There was no attempt to bring any undue influence. There was nothing of this kind. There's no tendering.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: The member for Oriole says there's tendering. Not so, Mr Speaker. That is not the stage which this process is at. This was a public meeting at which various views were expressed from all sorts of people with respect to the possible location sites of a college. It was not a meeting that was intended to reach a decision. It was not a meeting at which final tendering decisions or proposals were made. It was one in which a number of options were being canvassed in public.

I would have thought that the interest -- in fact I would argue quite the contrary. I would argue that the member acted with complete integrity. He acted completely openly. His entire actions and his points of view are now clear to everyone with respect to this question. As opposed to doing it on a telephone or through a back room, the member did it, as we always know the Deputy Premier and the member for Nickel Belt will do, with total and complete integrity, and I'm astonished that the member would take a different point of view.

Mr Mahoney: Premier, you and I both know that you're not astonished that I would take a different point of view than you. You and I both know that.

It's interesting to me, Premier, that you're the one who continues to say there was nothing clandestine. I readily admit, in fact this was not only open, this was blatant. It was unbelievable.

Imagine if you were one of the proponents, some of whom spent in the neighbourhood of a quarter of a million dollars to put their proposal together. Imagine showing up in front of the board to plead your case and make your representation only to find that the group directly in front of you is led by the Finance minister of the province of Ontario. Might you think that your quarter of a million might as well have been flushed down the toilet? Might you think that there is some disadvantage that you are facing in getting a fair decision?

I'm astounded at you, Premier, that you can stand in this House instead of admitting and recognizing that this is, if nothing else, lacking in fair play. I am just astounded.

Let's reconstruct the events for you. The second-most influential politician in the province of Ontario and the political boss of Sudbury appears before a provincially appointed board charged with awarding a $43-million provincial tender.

The Speaker: Can the member place his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: He will be signing the cheque. He will be remembering the board's decision. He wants to get re-elected. He wants the project in his riding. He says to the board: "I am here in support of the Rayside-Balfour proposal. It will benefit my constituents and I don't need any more reason than that."

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

Mr Mahoney: My question, Premier, is that, whether you or the leader of the third party think there's a problem here or not, we think there is. We think there is more at stake here than the integrity of the tendering process for the francophone college. What is at stake here is the integrity of the entire political process and the integrity of your government.

The Speaker: Would the member please complete his question.

Mr Mahoney: Premier, wouldn't you say this is just a little more serious than a minister's constituency staff fixing a parking ticket?

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is saying things that are utterly preposterous. They show a lack of perspective on his part which I find truly quite appalling. You are putting --

Mr Mahoney: The question's to you, not to me.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Rae: No, I'm answering the question and I'll answer it very directly. In putting forward your question, you're making allegations which have no foundation in fact. You are drawing conclusions which bear no relationship to the situation. You describe it as a tendering process; this is not the tendering process. You describe it as some sort of judicial inquiry; it's not that. It's a public meeting held by the board in which all sorts of individuals come forward and say, "Here's an idea, here's a proposal," in which the mayor for Rayside-Balfour came forward with a proposal and the member, who is also the Minister of Finance, indicated that there was public land here and it would involve some saving but it would have to be considered along with all the other proposals.

There was absolutely no attempt, no effort by the Deputy Premier, by the Minister of Finance, whose integrity is a watchword in this House, in this Legislature and in this province. The idea that you would cheapen it like that is just not becoming to your party; not becoming at all.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. Last Thursday, late in the afternoon, the Minister of Health announced, out of the blue, new rules on how Ontario's health insurance plan will cover emergency hospital services outside of Canada. The minister's new rules are illegal, a clear violation of the Canada Health Act, and are another frontal attack on medicare in this province.

My question to the Minister of Health is, where are you taking medicare in Ontario?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm delighted to answer that question, because our government is taking medicare in a direction that will make it sustainable for the future for the people of this province.

Under the Liberal government and under their predecessors we had double-digit increases in the costs of health care for a decade. We had an open-ended system in which there was no management, in which the red-and-white Liberal health card was proliferated across the province with no ability to secure the system or to avoid fraud.

Where we're taking the province and the medicare system is into the 21st century in a way that recognizes the broadest definition of health, the broadest teamwork of professionals in providing health care, and in a way which keeps it affordable to the people of this province for future generations.

1430

Mrs Sullivan: What the Minister of Health is doing precisely on this issue is breaking the law. She's breaking the law. The Canada Health Act is very explicit on this particular issue. Provincial health plans must cover people who are temporarily out of Canada on the same basis as it covers them if they need treatment inside Canada. Your announcement breaks that law. It introduces a new user fee of $100 a day for people who need emergency treatment and are entitled to it, by law, wherever they are. I'm asking the Minister of Health if she will for once stand up for medicare and withdraw these new rules.

Hon Mrs Grier: I won't respond to the inflammatory suggestion of the member that I stand up for medicare. That's what I've done throughout my life and will continue to do.

Let me say to her, though, that the Canada Health Act is a federal act. There are very inconsistent interpretations of that act across the country as different provinces over the years have interpreted various sections in various ways. As we looked at ways of reducing the cost of the health care system and making it affordable for the residents of Ontario, we looked at what was happening in other provinces and we looked at the interpretation of the Canada Health Act in other provinces. We found that since 1974 the province of British Columbia has paid $75 a day for out-of-country hospital fees. We found that Alberta and Saskatchewan were charging $100 a day. Some other provinces were charging more, but the Canada Health Act had not been called into question by those inconsistencies.

In order to make some savings in our health care system and to keep it affordable and to be enabled to provide free drugs for all seniors in this province, which other provinces don't do, we saved $20 million by reducing the amounts we pay for out-of-country hospitals. We still pay for out-of-country physicians at the OHIP rate, let me remind the member before she talks about user fees, and we imposed a cost that was consistent with other provinces, and with more than one.

Mrs Sullivan: I point out to the Minister of Health that Ontario does not want to be cloned with Ralph Klein and if she sees herself as a clone of Ralph Klein, well, that's her business. But the people of Ontario did not elect this government to destroy medicare. It did not elect this government to add new health taxes to business people, to families with children, to senior citizens who are entitled to health care under the Canada Health Act and under OHIP wherever they are.

In particular, this is another attack in a series of attacks on Ontario seniors. We've seen those attacks: withdrawal of drugs from the Ontario drug benefit plan, increased cost for accommodations in nursing homes, and now a new tax on the sick, a double billing for services which should already be covered by OHIP, and which are in fact. I challenge the minister to check the act, subclause 11(1)(b)(ii). It requires that these services be paid at Ontario rates.

She's breaking the law. It's illegal. It's arbitrary. It's unjust. I'm asking her if she will commit to withdrawing this new measure.

Hon Mrs Grier: I've explained in this House on a number of occasions that we've had to make some tough decisions in order to protect both the finances of this province and the health care system of this province.

Mrs Sullivan: Breaking the law to do it.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I explained to her in my response, the Canada Health Act is a federal law, and if in fact the other provinces and us and the federal minister, as there has been a working group in place for many months to look at the inconsistent interpretations of the Canada Health Act --

Mrs Sullivan: Bob Rae, where are you on this?

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mrs Grier: If the member would just calm down and listen to the answer, she would understand that any actions this province has taken are not out of line with interpretations of the Canada Health Act in other provinces and are not out of line with interpretations that Liberal governments have given to the Canada Health Act, and are designed to protect the health care system of this province.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. Under the expenditure control plan, the government wants to cut $5 million from the budget of the provincial rent supplement program. Last year, the government said it would achieve this cost savings by renegotiating agreements with private landlords.

Not so. Instead, tenants are in effect being evicted by the province. For example, tenants who receive rent supplements through the Oxford County Housing Authority have already received letters saying that unless they can pay the market rent, the tenants will have to leave their homes and move to vacant Ontario Housing Corp or non-profit units. If a tenant rejects the alternative accommodation offered, the housing authority will discontinue the tenant's subsidy. Needless to say, the tenants are very upset and very worried.

Minister, why are you of all people forcing these tenants out of their homes?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I will be glad to examine the particular situation referred to by this member, but it is not the intent, through the expenditure control program, to leave tenants in anxiety about their future. It is part of the expenditure control program that we review the rents, some of which have been allowed to rise each year on an annual basis to the point where I think the rent supplement program has been much too rich.

It is part of our commitment at the Ministry of Housing to review all those rents, to make proposals that can be implemented by the local housing authorities to achieve better deals on behalf of taxpayers in this province, and to try and ensure that tenants who are reluctant to move from what may be quite high-cost apartments when there are other, lower-cost apartments within the community will be assisted to find lower-cost units.

Mrs Marland: What you are saying is that you really don't know what's going on, because this was a direction that came from your own ministry. If the timing outlined in the letters to the tenants which they received from the Oxford County Housing Authority is accurate, some tenants will be forced to break 12-month leases. Even those tenants with month-to-month tenure will be unable to give 60 days' notice as required in the infamous Landlord and Tenant Act.

Minister, you are putting tenants in a legal and financial bind. As you know, they are responsible for paying the rent on the unit until the lease expires or the required notice period has passed. Why are you putting these tenants in the position of either breaking the Landlord and Tenant Act or being responsible for a financial load they cannot possibly bear? I haven't even asked you about their moving costs.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I'd be happy if the member wishes to ask about the moving costs, but to get to the point she raises in this question, in fact there is a lease between the local housing authority and the landlords in the rent supplement program. It is that lease which is being renegotiated. The situation of the individual tenants will be taken into account in those measures which the Ministry of Housing will be undertaking to assist tenants who are in apartments which we have found to be over the normal kinds of prices at which we would expect to be able to find rent supplement units within that community. We will also assist tenants if they find themselves in a position where it may be necessary to move in order for them to find less expensive rent supplement units.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I'm sorry you're not up to date on this particular issue and this example, because if you were, it's not about renegotiating their existing leases; it's about telling them to move. It's unfortunate you don't know that.

Originally, in your expenditure control plan, it was talking about renegotiating leases, but that isn't what's happening. They're being asked to move and that's what we are concerned about. We have to wonder what you're achieving by forcing these tenants out of their homes. You're taking assisted housing units out of commission when there are still thousands of families on waiting lists for assisted housing, perhaps in excess of 60,000 families in this province on those waiting lists. Moreover, the government doesn't have to worry about guaranteeing mortgages for these units or making reserve fund contributions for their repairs or maintenance.

1440

Even if the minister tries to justify her shoddy treatment of these tenants on the basis of saving $5 million a year, it's still hard to see where the savings are going to be possible. Some tenants will be moved to non-profit projects which have vacancies.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mrs Marland: Minister, the Provincial Auditor estimated the average provincial subsidy for a non-profit unit to be $1,000 per month. By contrast, this move that you're making deals with a subsidy of $565 a month.

The Speaker: Could the member please place a question.

Mrs Marland: Where is your cost saving if the subsidy for the new unit is greater? Therefore, what is your justification?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member is confusing apples and oranges, because in one case, in the non-profit housing program, we are generating new affordable units with that program, as well as providing people with assistance in housing.

Second, when she discusses the cost of the rent supplement program, she is discussing an average cost, and some of the apartments which have been included in the rent supplement program have in fact been above that cost.

The province has decided, in terms of making sure that we have expenditures under control, through the Ministry of Housing to make moves in the rent supplement program which we believe will be to the benefit of tenants in the longer run in Ontario. We believe the measures we're undertaking to assist tenants who may be asked to move are ones which will support them. The fact is that we cannot go on without the assistance of the federal government in a program which does not create new affordable housing.

I'll be glad to look into the particular circumstances she's talking about with the Oxford local housing authority.

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Premier. Today the Ombudsman's nine district offices are closed because of a labour dispute. The Office and Professional Employees International Union has been trying to negotiate a first contract for over one year.

Premier, if the Office of the Ombudsman cannot manage its own internal labour relations, how can the people of Ontario have any confidence that this office can arbitrate other disputes between individual Ontarians and provincial government ministries and agencies? What does your government intend to do about this dispute?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): As much as I'd like to answer it, I think I'll refer it to the Minister of Labour.

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The parties are involved in first-contract negotiations. Sometimes this is difficult. The union commenced a rotating work stoppage on May 2. The mediator met with the three parties on April 14, prior to that, and again on April 27, but a number of issues remain unresolved and the mediator is remaining in close contact with them as they go through the normal collective bargaining process.

Mrs Witmer: I would suggest that we've had problems there for a long time. The 1992-93 budget for the Office of the Ombudsman was $9.4 million, and the Provincial Auditor indicated in his November 1993 report that there were a number of spending irregularities at the Office of the Ombudsman.

First, there was a $223,000 advertising campaign launched but there was never an evaluation carried out to determine the effectiveness of the campaign.

The competitive bidding process was not followed. The office paid approximately $29,000 for two voice-activated computers without obtaining competitive bids.

When the lease of its high-volume photocopier expired, the office replaced it with another machine from the same supplier. No other suppliers were contacted and no needs analysis was done. It was determined that if this had been done, there could have been a potential saving of $14,000 over three years.

They spent $327,000 on consulting services. Six of the nine consulting contracts were not selected using a competitive process even though their value exceeded $5,000.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, given the lack of spending controls at the Office of the Ombudsman, will you lend your support to refer this matter to the Ombudsman committee for a full and open review of the auditor's report?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I don't know how the irregularities, if indeed they exist, that are being mentioned by the member across the way have anything to do with the fact that the local union was certified on February 5, 1993, and is currently involved in collective bargaining, which is what she asked me about, and that process is ongoing right now. It has nothing to do with the various irregularities, or alleged irregularities, she's listed here in this House.

Mrs Witmer: The questions I'm asking today are related to the Office of the Ombudsman. This is not the first time today. As I have indicated, there are other instances where we have seen controversy emerging around the Office of the Ombudsman. If you remember, in 1993 the Ombudsman indicated that she did not feel she was accountable to the Ombudsman committee of the Legislative Assembly. Given all that has happened in the area of the Ombudsman, would you not agree that it is time for a full review of the role of the Ombudsman in this province?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The question that was first asked by the member across the way was about the current strike and labour dispute and I'm not sure what that has to do with the role of the Ombudsman.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I'd like to return to the Premier with regard to the Laughren affair.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Mr Mahoney: I can appreciate the fact that the government doesn't think this is a serious problem.

Premier, I just want to tell you that I think all members in this House recognize the integrity of the Finance minister as one of your more senior and more capable members in your cabinet. That is not in dispute, nor is it a question. The question is, did your Finance minister make a serious mistake?

Premier, you will be aware that there is a growing sense, both in Sudbury and around the province, that your Finance minister has pushed his own influence far beyond an acceptable level. Will you, Premier, at least acknowledge that he indeed appeared on behalf of the proponent to attempt to influence the decision of the board?

The members of the board have now been put in an untenable position. If they go against the will of the Finance minister, and the political boss of Sudbury, I might add, they now have to wonder how that will affect their future relations with the Finance minister and with the government.

Premier, how can you let this blatant example of abuse of ministerial privilege go by and continue to refuse to deal with what can only be termed a serious political mistake by your most senior member of your cabinet?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The political boss of Sudbury is sitting in the gallery above the opposition's benches at the moment. The member for Nickel Belt has been called many things, but your description of him as a political boss is absurd, it's ridiculous, and it shows the level of rhetorical abuse to which you are prepared to go in order to make something out of nothing.

I would say to the honourable member that the board in question is going to be canvassing a number of options and sites. From what I understand, there's a consultant who's hired by the board who's going to make an objective assessment of the cost and benefits of each site that's being proposed. There will then be a short list and there will then be a recommendation made by the board.

I would say directly to the honourable member that your description of the member for Nickel Belt as somehow trying to go in and intimidate or do anything untoward is absolutely absurd. It's ridiculous. It bears no relationship to the facts or to what has taken place. I just don't think it passes muster. If you really believe what you're saying, then make your allegations in writing to Judge Evans and let's use that process.

1450

Mr Mahoney: Is the Premier really trying to suggest that the Minister of Finance, prepared, going before a board appointed provincially making a decision on how to spend $43 million of government taxpayers' money, would not be listened to, that he would not have any input? Well, why did he go? Why would he bother?

Premier, every time your ministers get in a little bit of hot water, it's because they don't understand why they cannot use their ministerial position to influence. You said "intimidate"; I didn't. I said "influence." They cannot influence and they cannot interfere in areas where they have no business interfering.

In fact I question whether an elected representative should be going before a board like that, never mind the Finance minister of the province, whether it's Shelley Martel smearing a doctor or Mike Farnan's office fixing a ticket for political benefit. And I would suggest, Premier, there's one heck of a difference between a $26 parking ticket and a $43-million taxpayer-funded project. Each time they broke the rules, you defended them for a time until you axed them.

Premier, are you going to simply turn a blind eye to this abuse by your Finance minister or are you going to act to ensure that this kind of influence is never used by one of your ministers again?

Hon Mr Rae: I think the member's characterization of what took place is grossly unfair to all of us, and I wish he would really think it through. If you have an allegation to make with respect to conflict, then I would suggest --

Mr Mahoney: You don't think that he had an effect? Why did he go, Bob?

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: Why did he go?

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: The honourable member is out of control. He's out of control. If he's making an allegation with respect to a conflict, he knows perfectly well there's a law in place. He has a place to go. Use it. Use it. Use it.

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is to the Minister of Health. On January 24 of this year, a letter was sent, addressed "Dear Community Partners," to 120 families on active treatment and a further 90 families on waiting lists for outpatient speech-language pathology services at the Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in the city of Burlington.

They received this form letter advising them that the program that was currently being covered by your ministry was being cancelled with one week's notice. They were given and circulated a list of three hospitals outside of their city and several private clinics as an opportunity to pay up to $80 per hour to replace this vital service to children.

My question to you is, why is it that a hospital can terminate a vital children's service and then promote a private-fee alternative service and only give one week's notice to its patients?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As I'm sure the member knows, hospitals are autonomous organizations that frequently make their own decisions. I'm not familiar with the details of the situation the member raises. If he would be good enough to send over the material that he has, I'd be more than happy to look into it and respond at a later date.

Mr Jackson: Thank you, Minister. The minister is familiar, though, that preschool speech-language pathology services are severely strained in this province. Many of the families contacted the representatives in this House for Burlington, including one family, the father of a young boy, Robbie, whom I got to meet. He's four and a half years old and he is academically delayed. He is functioning at the language level of a one-and-a-half to two-year-old at this point. This child will confront the rigours of kindergarten this September, yet that's how far this child is delayed with developmental apraxia.

The father wrote me a letter indicating, based on Joseph Brant's suggested options, that Chedoke hospital had an eight-month waiting list, and Oakville-Trafalgar the same, yet you had to have a doctor with privileges in that hospital. At the Children's Assessment and Treatment Centre, there are no openings till September, and it had only 18 to begin with. This was no relief for the 120 children in active treatment being told there's no longer any service.

Minister, I want to let you know that your critic from the Liberal Party, from Halton Centre, my colleague from Oakville South and I were at Joseph Brant hospital last week and were advised that the hospital expects a $1-million operating surplus this year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please?

Mr Jackson: I ask the minister, why is it that a program of such a vital service to children, to learn how to speak their first language in this province, would be dealt with in such a fashion and escape the scrutiny of your ministry? Would you please undertake to open up this case and examine why these services have been diminished for children in Halton county?

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly will, and if the hospital has $1-million surplus, I find his question even more surprising and I want to look into it.

I am well aware of a very troubling increase in the need for speech and language assistance for young children. I know the community health centre where I get my health care has a speech pathologist on staff and the waiting lists are growing. It is an area where there are waiting lists; I acknowledge that.

I will certainly look into the specific situation the member has raised and get back to him when I can. I'd be happy if he would send me over whatever material he has.

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Housing. The Massey Centre for Women provides housing and resources for young, pregnant women and single mothers. As you know, the Massey Centre has asked for an exemption under Bill 120, the Residents' Rights Act, because they believe, and I do too, that they will not be able to run the program they do now under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

You have told them that they should continue to enforce house rules, as they do now under their current exemption, with the help of the police. The Massey Centre feels that an inability to evict visitors in a timely manner will be counterproductive to the treatment program that they provide.

Will the minister reconsider her decision and grant Massey Centre an exemption?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I'm certainly aware of the concerns that have been raised by the Massey Centre and in fact by other non-profit organizations which, like the Massey Centre, are running programs specifically addressed to young mothers living by themselves with a baby who need a lot of support. Part of the program in these cases is to make sure that the young women and their children are not going to have their lives disrupted by unwanted visitors. I think that is in particular what the member for York East is concerned about in the case of the Massey Centre.

Under the Landlord and Tenant Act tenants and landlords have a right to take action against unwanted visitors, particularly visitors who pose any threat to the residents. It is the right of every tenant under the Landlord and Tenant Act, and this would apply to other young women and their children living in the program, to expect to find peaceful enjoyment of their residence. If the visits of threatening or violent people are disturbing their peaceful enjoyment under the Landlord and Tenant Act, with the cooperation of the police, the landlord and other tenants can take moves against such unwanted visits.

Mr Malkowski: Will the minister agree to work with Massey Centre to deal with the problems it faces as a result of this legislation?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I met about a week and a half ago with representatives of the Massey Centre. I had previously visited the centre. I made the offer to them that in any way possible the Ministry of Housing will assist their particular program as it comes to grips with operating within the Landlord and Tenant Act, which, I should point out, has been the operating framework for many non-profit programs in the past, programs that have care components attached to them. So it's not impossible, and the ministry will undertake a proactive effort to advise and assist programs which, once the passage of Bill 120 has been assured, will be operating within the landlord and tenant framework of this province.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): My question is for the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Last year your government introduced a $50 annual filing fee for small businesses, in fact for any businesses in the province of Ontario. What it was essentially was a tax grab that provided absolutely no service for those businesses. If it was a onetime filing fee, that might be understandable, but this is an annual fee. You're coming back to businesses year after year and asking them for that $50.

1500

Minister, will you commit to getting rid of that tax grab in the budget this Thursday, when the Treasurer reads his budget, Thursday, May 5? Will you commit for your government to remove that obvious and very blatant tax grab on the small businesses of the province of Ontario?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Just say yes.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): He wants me to just say yes. That would simplify it, wouldn't it? However, I can't do that, because, as I've explained in the House before, the reason this government brought back this annual filing fee is because the records were in such disarray.

Thousands and thousands of companies and people use this information on a daily basis, and it's really important that these notices be kept up to date. Unfortunately, what happens when there isn't a specific requirement is that businesses and non-profits do not let the ministry know when circumstances change. It is a real problem.

Other provinces do this. The federal government does this. I believe it was a Tory government which years ago removed it, and it just didn't work. We have to keep those records up to date for the benefit of the people who use them.

Mr McClelland: Quite frankly, Minister, your answer defies logic. If in fact the records needed updating, and let's consider that a given for a moment, it would seem reasonable that you'd have a fee to go with that. It would also seem reasonable, therefore, that you would have a fee when you change and amend filing. But don't have a perpetual annual fee that punishes people for being in business.

Minister, everywhere we've gone across this province on our jobs and growth paper, our jobs task force has heard from businesses over and over again that your government refuses to allow businesses to breathe and operate in this province. What you continually do, Minister, and the message you send business, is, "We're going to hit you at every turn."

Minister, last week your Treasurer, the Minister of Finance, said that this was going to be a budget that was committed to creating jobs and it would be pro small business. You can send a very clear, obvious signal that business is welcome in this province of Ontario by taking a simple step and being reasonable in removing an unreasonable fee.

Minister, it is not reasonable to ask people to file when they're not providing any new information and to punish them every year for being in business. Will you advocate on behalf of small business and go to your colleagues and say, "Get rid of that fee," and allow businesses the opportunity to do what they should do, create a profit and create jobs in this province?

Hon Ms Churley: I realize that this is a very popular fee for the opposition to be slamming. I understand that in certain quarters it's symbolic. However, it's $50 per year for corporations and $25 per year for non-profits. Every other province in Canada, I understand, has this fee. The federal government has this fee. We only hear about it here in Ontario because it's fairly new again.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The least you could do is throw in a lottery ticket.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Ottawa West.

Hon Ms Churley: We looked very closely at the necessity to bring this annual filing in. We think it is important -- it has been proven that it is important -- that we keep these files up to date. It seems the only way to do it is to require that people file every year, and yes, there's a cost associated with that that we believe the general taxpayer shouldn't have to cover.

I hope that explanation, although I recognize the opposition likes to make a big deal out of this, and I know it's unpopular in the business community -- it is only $50 a year and it ensures that for these corporations, the information we have and the information to the public who are searching through these files is the correct information.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): To the Minister of Transportation: The minister, I'm sure, remembers that the Chrétien federal Liberals in the election campaign of last fall promised to pay one third of the cost of completing Highway 416.

I understand that you have met with the minister responsible for the infrastructure program recently. Can you tell this House today what the results of that meeting were? When is the money coming? We're most interested. That highway has to be completed soon.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member is right: Highway 416 is a link of symbolic importance to the nation's capital.

Despite the promise of Liberal MP Jim Jordan of $60 million, there is no money coming from Ottawa. I met with Mr Eggleton, who is the minister responsible for the infrastructure program -- I'm talking here about the municipal-provincial-federal infrastructure program -- and Mr Eggleton personally assured me, when I met with him for two hours nine days ago, that the money is fully committed.

What we've done singlehandedly today on Highway 416, the northern section, the Ministry of Transportation, since 1990, has spent $75 million, creating 1,500 jobs. We've also accelerated the date of completion, so when all is said and done, by 1996 we will have spent $125 million on the northern section, creating 2,500 jobs with not a penny from federal participation.

Mr Villeneuve: A lot more than symbolism here, because we have many --

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): It's not selling in Ottawa.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Ottawa West is out of order.

Mr Villeneuve: We have many tragedies on that highway, and that's more than symbolism. These are lost lives, and it's because there is a lot more traffic than the highway was ever intended to carry. We're talking about $175 million and many thousands of jobs.

From 1980 to 1985 the Ontario Progressive Conservative government acquired all the land and got everything ready for this highway. The Liberals came to power, made all sorts of promises. They didn't quite occur. We now have another government in power. Highway 416 is urgent. It's more than symbolism to the nation's capital; it's a safety factor for many American tourists coming in.

When can we expect completion of Highway 416?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member is right: They did some value engineering, property acquisition. We're putting people to work shovelling the ground. We realize the safety importance. We have a safety program never equalled before. We're going forward with our safety program.

When you're talking about the southern portion of Highway 416, you're looking at $380 million. We can't do it alone. What we need is participation from the federal government. You're right. Where is the $60 million? Where is it?

Then we're also looking to tolling the 416, but tolling will not pay for the cost of the project. Tolling by itself won't do it because of volume. Innovative financing, federal participation, we've already shown our cards and our willingness -- the political will is there -- to do it on the northern section. We'll look forward with the commitment. Put the money, the cheque, in the envelope and address it to Queen's Park. We're going to the private sector for innovation in tolling. Then we'll put more people to work and we'll have the 416 if they will participate.

ASSISTED HOUSING

Mr Donald Abel (Wentworth North): My question is to the Minister of Housing. In today's Toronto Star there is this editorial entitled, "Let Auditor Probe Housing Boondoggle." This article claims that you were "aware of financial irregularities at a provincially funded non-profit housing agency in Toronto, but" were "too slow to act." It also claims that you "knew about financial troubles but" were "reluctant to make them public."

It goes on to say the ministry "tried to hide two 1990 audits...that uncovered questionable spending and hidden bank accounts at Houselink Community Homes Inc." It also makes mention of "unauthorized spending, shady accounting and excessive salaries at Houselink."

1510

I find this extremely disturbing. I want to know, Minister, are you trying to hide the results of this audit? Is this mismanagement and misspending really going on in your ministry?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I read the Toronto Star editorial too, and while I was encouraged by the fact that the Toronto Star editorial indicated support for the non-profit housing program on the whole, it certainly did make some questionable kinds of conclusions about the discussions which had gone on here in the Legislature and in public discussion over the last several days.

If I could just make the record clear, the Ministry of Housing undertook an audit of its contracts with Houselink in the early period of 1990, before our government was elected. That audit was reported to the Ministry of Housing in the fall of 1990, and from that point on the Ministry of Housing undertook a series of measures in order to ensure that the recommendations put forward in the audit were being carried out, and in fact had a great deal of cooperation from Houselink, the non-profit organization, in that whole effort.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Look up there when you're saying it to the Star.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for St Catharines is out of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: There was no attempt to hide audits. There was a request from a reporter at the Toronto Star to have access to the audits. That request was turned down. A few weeks ago, when I learned that it had been turned down on the grounds that it would interfere with third-party interests, I asked for a review of the decision by the Ministry of Housing, and the audit has been made public.

SECURITY AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. Minister, you will know that in the good riding of Brampton South we have Vanier Centre for Women, the Ontario correctional facility. I'm sure you're concerned about safety, or at least I hope you are.

However, I wonder if you're aware of the fact that a new locking system was installed at Vanier Centre for Women at a cost of $160,000. As a result of a Ministry of Labour hearing on a grievance, they have indicated that this locking system -- at $160,000, which is money that's needed for other things -- is going to have to be replaced.

I further understand that rather than accept that and remedy the situation for an additional expenditure of money, your ministry is planning on appealing this decision, which will cost far greater amounts than replacing the locking system.

Mr Minister, are you concerned about the safety of the residents in my community because the locking system is a danger to them? Equally, are you concerned about the people who work in the correctional facility at Vanier in terms of their safety? What are you going to do about it?

Hon David Christopherson (Minister of Correctional Services): The safety of our employees, the community and inmates is clearly a very high priority for this ministry, and let me say that it was under the leadership of the honourable member's government and the preceding government. On that, we never have any disagreement.

Let me say that with regard to the issue of locks, as the honourable member will know, there was an issue some months ago that has been addressed and dealt with in concert with the Chair of Management Board, who has responsibility for facilities in the province of Ontario. With regard to the specifics at Vanier, I would have to take the questions as a matter of notice and get back to him on the details of the local officials' apparent position that he's offering up today.

Mr Callahan: Minister, the $160,000 that was spent on this locking system that doesn't lock could have been spent on a higher fence. It's well known that there have been numerous people who have decided to take a walk at night and not come back by scaling the fence that surrounds Vanier Centre. They couldn't put in a higher fence because they didn't have the money to do it.

So I have to say, Minister, are you really serious about the safety of the people in my community in terms of potential escape? Are you really serious about the safety of the workers in those correctional facilities when you can blow $160,000 on a locking system that is unsafe and not be able to put up proper fencing to ensure that the inmates remain there and not stroll around Brampton South and the environs?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I obviously take at value the comments the honourable member is making with regard to the safety of his community, and that indeed is his role here. Let me say that I am not of an opinion that Vanier is of particular concern right now. However, out of respect for the specifics he has raised here, I am prepared to take the matters as notice and I will respond to him in detail with regard to those specifics he has raised here today.

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. It's a question that was asked of him at least twice last year and it has to do with the Liberal requirement that 30% of soft drinks must be sold in refillable containers. That question was put to you at least twice last year. What has the ministry been doing to ensure that the 30% requirement is being fulfilled?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member is probably aware that the 30% has not been met and that there has not been any action taken, as far as I am aware. In the interim, the ministry has been actively involved in negotiations with members of the private sector, including the soft drink manufacturers, for an approach that would mean a considerable increase in the private sector financing for the 3Rs program, specifically for the blue box, to assist in the funding of the blue box. The question of the 30% requirement has not been a matter of discussion in those negotiations, but the question of how we deal with that will certainly be one of importance, pending the result of those negotiations.

Mr Tilson: I am aware that you're having difficulty with this policy. That leads to a question I'd like you to be little more specific on, because either you're going to enforce the requirement or you're going to drop the policy. If it's not working, why have it?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member will know that the minister does not make a decision with regard to enforcement or non-enforcement. It would be quite improper for me, as a minister, to make a statement that we would or would not enforce.

The question of whether the policy should remain is one that, as I said, will be addressed anon, after the outcome of the negotiations. I want to make clear that the two matters are not connected, but of course they involve both the government and the companies that are committed to the 30%. I would think we will be making some decisions around the policy in the not-too-distant future.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that, notwithstanding any standing order, the House will meet on the morning of Wednesday, May 4, 1994, for the consideration of private members' public business and that the House will not meet on the morning of Thursday, May 5, 1994.

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

1520

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island, which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods;

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I affix my signature to this document. I'm also sending to the Minister of Transportation and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs cards that were sent by my constituents.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I have a petition that says:

"Save our medicare plan. I believe we have the best medical system in the world. Skyrocketing costs and abuse are going to kill it. I believe one way of saving what we have is a fee for service, payable by each patient."

It's signed by a number of constituents in my riding and I put it forth to you.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): It's my pleasure to present a petition signed by 350 electors. It reads:

"Whereas it is a basic right of every adult human being to form a committed spousal relationship with another adult person of their choice under the protection of the law and without discrimination based on whether the individuals are the same or opposite gender;

"Whereas persons in this province who are members of same-sex families are improperly denied basic, fundamental protection, freedoms, rights and advantages accorded to families solely because they are not of opposite sexes;

"Whereas the Ontario courts and tribunals, the Ontario Law Reform Commission and the Parliament of Europe have found that the denial of these rights is discriminatory and unfair; and

"Whereas an incorrect perception has been generated that members of faith communities oppose ending such discrimination;

"We, the undersigned, as members of faith communities, support the extension of full benefits and responsibilities accorded to heterosexual couples to persons in established same-sex relationships."

I affix my signature to that.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. 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 school 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 costs 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;

"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."

I am very supportive this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition from Middlesex constituents who utilize the emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury. Approximately 1,600 people dependent upon the services of Four Counties General Hospital petition the Legislative Assembly to call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of emergency medical coverage in rural emergency departments and ensure that rural residents have the adequate emergency care to which they are entitled. I have signed my name to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

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

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition addressed to Ontario Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and 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 Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and 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 300 Ontario citizens.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from the Oshawa branch church of the North York Chinese Baptist Church, brought to me by Ivy and Donald Yan from Whitby and signed by a number of hardworking Chinese Christians. This petition is to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and they are concerned with a Liberal bill, Bill 45, and they want to express their concerns about that bill and about its effect on their families.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I have a petition signed by almost 1,000 people in the riding of Durham East and the surrounding area.

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a sacred union between men and women are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the issue of legalized casino gambling is a sensitive issue; and

"Whereas 'This government has said it will not put a casino anywhere there is not overwhelming support' (written statement by NDP MPP Margaret Harrington of Niagara Falls presented at the September 2, 1993, public hearings of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs regarding Bill 8); and

"Whereas we believe that the city council of Niagara Falls, Ontario, has not received a mandate to introduce casino gambling from the people of Niagara Falls at the last municipal election;

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

"We, the undersigned, who are opposed to casino gambling, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of St Catharines to become a candidate for a gambling casino unless there is broad-based public support for such a facility, which we are requesting to be determined through a referendum vote by the citizens of Niagara Falls."

I put my signature to this petition.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the Legislative Assembly urge the Minister of Health to respond forthwith to issues raised in the Liberal task force on cancer care, including the urgent need for radiation equipment, addressing shortages in trained personnel and providing adequate information and non-medical services for patients."

This is signed by several residents of Metropolitan Toronto.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition sent to me by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; 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 the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

I've got about 10 pages of these, and I'll just pass these on to the table officer.

1530

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition on behalf of my constituents from Twin Elms in Strathroy, who petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"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 owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many 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 with third reading of Bill 21."

I have most certainly signed my name to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): "To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly:"

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: You don't need to heckle petitions, for goodness' sake.

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

"Bill 55" -- which, I would add, has not been formally withdrawn from this place -- "would make it illegal, with fines of up to $50,000, for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation" --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Is that Don Cousens's bill?

Mr Mahoney: It is Don Cousens's bill.

"This is a grave threat to free speech in a democratic society.

"Mr Cousens's Bill 55 is also an attack on freedom of those religions which do not condone homosexuality, ie Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, Baha'i, Christian etc.

"We want to maintain our basic right to disagree with homosexuality, which in no way should be equated with hatred.

"We have moved away from a position where homosexuals and other special-interest groups are no longer content to express their ideas, but demand that contrary views be suppressed with stiff penalties.

"At the same time, these special-interest groups will be allowed to teach their controversial alternative lifestyles to youngsters in the classroom, thereby proselytizing children with their viewpoints without allowing for differing opinions.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 55."

ENTERPRISE PUBLIC SCHOOL

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I rise to present this petition on behalf of the Honourable Fred Wilson, member for Frontenac-Addington, from a number of his constituents. The petition reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, taxpayers of Lennox and Addington, register our opposition to the board motion to twin Enterprise Public School."

The member for Frontenac-Addington has affixed his name.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party government has had an historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

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

"That the government immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my name to this petition as I am in agreement with it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe that when we adjourned the debate the last time, we had two more questions or comments to Mr Phillips's remarks. Are there any questions or comments?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I well recall that the remarks made by Mr Phillips were extremely important in that they pointed out that to derive not only the amount of revenue that this legislation might produce but a much greater amount of revenue, all government had to do was simply close a number of loopholes.

There have been significant studies done in this direction. As I recall, last week when Mr Phillips was speaking on this, what he had to say at that time was that when, as the government calls it, the Fair Tax Commission -- I call it the NDP Tax Commission -- reported, one of the things it dealt with was this kind of legislation.

There was division obviously within the people who were on the commission as to whether it was advisable to move forward with such legislation, but they could not agree to it, and the reason was that they said there was a better way of doing it and that was to close some loopholes.

They said that at the present time, as Mr Phillips has said, governments have set out programs that encourage business to do certain things with what are potentially profits; that is, to reinvest those profits so that they would in fact provide new job opportunities. There isn't a member of this House at this time who wouldn't like to see those new job opportunities.

Second, they could be in a position of enhancing the remuneration of those who are in their employ, and of course the government can receive from that income taxes, or if the money is in the hands of those people, the government can receive sales taxes if they are spending that money.

So I think the suggestions that were made by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, Mr Phillips, were very good observations. They're very accurate observations, and the government should certainly take them into consideration this afternoon and beyond today.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there questions or further comments? Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to make a few comments with respect to Bill 146, which basically involves two issues: One is the minimum corporate tax, as well as the issue of tax-deductible meals and entertainment expenses being reduced from 80% to 50%.

It is interesting that this bill deals with budget matters that go back to the 1992 and more specifically the 1993 budgets. The Minister of Finance has indicated that his budget four days hence, which itself is an irony -- we're now debating a bill involving the past two budgets when we're about to introduce a budget this coming Thursday, which the Treasurer indicates is going to help small business. He has indicated that he hopes this forthcoming budget will help small business, the very group of people who are creating jobs in this province. So it is ironic with that as well that we are now about to embark on passing Bill 146.

Bill 146, which replaces two other bills, was just introduced on March 30 last, but it does replace Bill 66 and Bill 133, and no question, it creates something of a tactical problem in terms of voting on the legislation, since it contains corporate tax decreases provided in the 1992 budget, but as I said, more importantly, provides for the implementation of the corporate minimum tax, as was proposed in the famous, or notorious rather, NDP Agenda for People, which was the platform of their last election.

1540

The NDP has indicated that this is a tax that's coming, and it has indeed arrived. Of course, it was proposed in the 1993 budget. As well, tax-deductible meals and entertaining expenses are reduced from 80% to 50%. I am sure the members for the New Democratic Party will say that this is the same level as is in Quebec and in the United States. In fact, I think the 1994 federal budget paralleled this move as well, so it's not something that's new, although I guess the main crunch of my remarks is that clearly small business is hurting, the whole operation of small business is hurting, and it's a very strange time to bring it about when small business is trying to develop in this province.

Now, the bill indicates that the tax, if I could deal specifically with the minimum corporate tax, applies to firms with gross revenues of more than $10 million a year or total assets of more than $5 million. I suppose the Minister of Finance has indicated, "Oh, well, it mainly applies to the big companies that are trying to get a hold of tax loopholes." But when you think of what small businesses own, whether it be large amounts of capital or large amounts of real property, it doesn't take long for those small businesses, which may be struggling to keep alive and struggling to keep employment going in this province, to have assets that total $5 million. I think that if the stats were looked at, we would see that there would be a large number of small businesses that this particular piece of legislation is going to apply to, although the government has indicated that the corporate minimum tax will apply to only 10% of Ontario firms. I hope they have stats for that, because I think it's going to apply to a lot more.

Although it's been said before, I think we should be clear how exactly this corporate minimum tax is going to be phased in. As of January 1, 1994, it will be calculated at 2% of the average book income; in 1995, at 3%; in 1996, at 4%. It has been said in the media reports and elsewhere that it's expected it will generate $100 million per year.

The other interesting thing that I think we should all realize is that it's not included in the 1993-94 provincial revenue projections, which means, I suppose, to be cynical, there's a nine-month window to flee the province, if you really are cynical about how a bill is affecting the way that you operate.

I would like to refer to some comments that have been made about the Treasurer and his philosophy, because you have to look at his philosophy -- not specifically with Bill 146, but his philosophy to get the economy in this province back on track. There's no question that the major concerns of us all, of all three parties in this place -- or members of this Legislature, which would include independent members -- are with the issue of unemployment. When saying that, you have to look at the effect that Bill 146 is going to have on those businesses that are providing employment to this province. The Treasurer has said, "Oh, well, we're just trying to fix up tax loopholes," as if, of course, the province of Ontario doesn't follow loopholes. I mean, to be cynical, we look at what the government did with respect to the GO Transit and taking a junket to Bermuda to work out some strange transaction there simply to take advantage of certain laws.

I guess I look at small businesses and corporations that are trying to create capital, to create a profit, to reinvest in capital, to reinvest for the purposes of expanding, to create more jobs, and here we are with Bill 146, putting a corporate minimum tax on it, whether they're making a profit or not or the size of their profit, on a company that perhaps would be reinvesting in this province and reinvesting in jobs in this province. So the rationale is questionable.

There was an article in the Windsor Star, and I suppose this type of comment has been referred to throughout the province, the minister saying that things are looking up in this province. There was an article of April 7 in the Windsor Star where the Minister of Finance said that things are looking up. He said his words may be cold comfort for the more than 10% of the population who are unemployed, but he said the economy is improving.

The fact of the matter is that this employment issue continues to exist. The Jobs Ontario adventure that the government has got us into has failed miserably, and if he doesn't do something with respect to encouraging small business to reinvest in this province, to increase the size of its operations, then this province is in big trouble.

It's for that reason that I and members of my caucus are opposed to Bill 146, because it's discouraging the doing of business in this province. We want companies to invest, small and large. We want companies to expand so that badly needed jobs can be created in this province. Bill 146 does nothing but discourage the promotion of jobs and of expansion in this province.

Getting back to this article, Mr Laughren said that he gets the impression that with the sharp dip in the stock market and rising interest rates, people are beginning to feel pessimistic again about the future. Then the article concludes by saying: "Laughren said unemployment is the biggest nagging problem facing Ontario. 'We should be fretting about the fear of inflation. We should be doing what we can on the job side.'" If he believes in that, if he believes that what we should be doing is what we can do on the job side, then he shouldn't be implementing these 1992 and 1993 -- mainly 1993 -- implementations of the budget and the corporate minimum tax, because it clearly is not going to increase the job creation in this province.

I tried to find some different resources as to what jobs are leaving the province, what companies are leaving the province. There are periodically articles in the media across this province that indicate where different companies are going.

They're going for any number of reasons, and I'm sure it's not specifically Bill 146. It could be tax measures that the federal government's put forward, it could be tax measures that the provincial government's put forward, but the fact of the matter is that Bill 146 is part of this mosaic of making it very, very difficult to do business in the province of Ontario. I can tell you that you have to start somewhere stopping this practice of making it difficult to do business in the province of Ontario.

There was an article in the Toronto Star on April 23 which talked about job losses specifically in the city of Barrie, although I think this article could apply anywhere in this province. It talked about a tool plant that had moved to the United States, 100 jobs moved there to the United States, and then it went back and talked about the number of job losses there have been in that area over the last number of years.

There's no question that these losses, as I indicated, cannot be attributable to Bill 146, but the overall piece of the puzzle which Bill 146 is is indeed causing that.

Quoting from the article, "Cooper Tools, one of the last survivors of this city's manufacturing base" -- and that's Barrie -- "is moving most of its operations to North Carolina." That seems to crop up more and more as to the number of businesses that are moving to that area.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Does that mean the end of industries?

Mr Tilson: Well, they're moving to North Carolina, in answer to your question. I'm hearing specifically from businesses that are moving to that specific state and they're moving because of the strange tax laws this province has and, to be quite fair, our country has. We should be stopping that move.

"The decision to move to the low-wage US south spells the end of about 100 jobs at the Barrie factory, which opened in 1948.

"The closing is the sixth major blow to this city since 1987. Nearly 2,000 jobs have been lost in the last six years.

"Black and Decker closed its plant here in 1987, laying off more than 300 workers. Other plant closures include Hill Refrigeration (in April 1993, 140 jobs); Tambrands (March 1992, 190 jobs); Kolmar (December 1991, 210 jobs) and General Tire (September 1991, 820 jobs).

All of these businesses moved to the United States -- every last one of them -- "which have weak minimum wage and severance laws and low rates of unionization."

1550

How does that apply to Bill 146? Probably not much, but I will say that you have to look at all of these things as to why businesses move. There is no question that all of these businesses that are moving are looking at our tax laws, and to simply put a minimum tax on corporations, specifically at the low end of $5 million, is inexcusable.

I think I will be interested, as will all of us, as to what the Treasurer will be doing this Thursday. Perhaps he's going to reverse this policy. I hope that by that time we will have voted against Bill 146 and that it will be defeated, although knowing the way this place works, it will be carried with the government majority.

The whole philosophy of doing business in this province: Things aren't what they were five years ago, four years ago, three years ago; they're not the same. Yes, to be fair to the NDP, it happened to take power at a time the recession was coming to the fore, and to be fair to the government, it's not the sole cause of all our woes. On the other hand, you look at what has been going on in the other provinces and it's clearly not the same type of climate in these other provinces that exists in this province, so something has been strangely happening since 1990.

The issue of the AAA credit rating we lost: We have been spending, the province of Ontario has been spending millions more to service a net debt which in Ontario is at $70 billion and this was after we lost the AAA credit rating. Right now we're at a AA- and bond rating agencies have put the province on alert. They're going to be looking at what the budget is going to be doing with respect to its philosophy, and after that we could simply go to an A credit rating, putting our once very powerful province in a very serious position economically. We have to be careful with all the bills we're passing in this House, the money bills, and Bill 146 is no exception.

You can't ignore the fact that since this government came to power it has had two of the largest tax grabs since Confederation: $1.6 billion in 1992 and $2 billion in 1993, which have pushed our top marginal income tax rate to 53.19%, rather astounding figures as to where this province is going. You have to look at these things, the issue of doing business, of even living in this province. We're paying for services that we can't provide and to be specific, in many cases we don't need. The waste is astronomical and no question that this bill, I'm sure the Treasurer hopes, will pay for many of these things but I can tell you that if this bill passes, it's going to create more harm than not.

We will wait anxiously as to whether or not this budget on Thursday will spark a downgrade of our credit rating. No question that Ontario is the key to the country. It's predicted that the downgrading may apply not only to Ontario but across the country and it will be because of the financial policy of this province. I can tell you that the other provinces across this great land are looking at the fiscal policies of the Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario.

On the issue of the corporate minimum tax, to spend a bit more time on it, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business has been referred to by various members in this House, including myself, on other bills and on this bill, specifically with the employer health tax. They provide wonderful research that we should consider before we pass this type of legislation. They have put forward statistics that show that the corporate minimum tax does in fact hit small businesses in Ontario. This is what they say: "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 are they doing? For some companies there are different ways that they're paying the taxes. This government hasn't acknowledged any of the contributions they are making. I have to say there are other ways of going after them than starting up a whole new type of tax.

There may be some matters in which ingenious accountants have been trying to create an avoidance of tax in the province of Ontario, but this corporate minimum tax is not the way to solve it. There's no question that we want businesses to be successful, that we want businesses to be profitable. Why? It isn't all going into the hands of the people who run those corporations. They have to reinvest in capital. They have to reinvest for the purposes of expansion and for the purposes of creating jobs, and we should never forget that.

When we look at what Ontario is doing in this bill, it's creating a bigger and bigger hole for itself right now with the passage of this bill. We're paying about a billion dollars a month, and we're overspending; that's the amount this province is overspending.

The government of Ontario is clearly spending beyond its means. You have to stop it. You don't stop it by taxing organizations such as the corporations that are trying to create an economic environment in this province that will increase jobs. That's not the way to stop it. Clearly, this government is spending as to what we're capable of living and affording. In the last three years, we've seen Ontario's credit rating go down three times. I hope it's not going to go down again after this budget.

Bob Rae's government never did anything about the huge hiring practices the previous Liberal government had. The Liberals added about 10,000 more public servants to the payroll during their five years. I don't think we have statistics as to what the New Democratic government has, but there were 10,000 added. How many of those 10,000 employees who were adding during the Liberal reign have been removed?

We can't afford the bureaucracy that we have in this province. We simply can't afford it, and we know we can't afford it. We've seen with the social contract that we can't afford it, and now we're trying to pay for this overspending with such bills as Bill 146. It's almost as if it's a war on businesses that make a profit. It's as if we're trying to put businesses down. If they're making a profit, we're trying to put them down, and I don't think that's the way to keep this province moving as far as jobs are concerned.

What we should be doing in this province is creating an economic climate that will encourage business, that will encourage the hiring of employees for new jobs, for the expansion of existing firms. If you were a firm, to use the example, and you had $5 million in assets, why would you expand in the province of Ontario? Why would you even stay here when you have to keep looking at this and the other taxes, the tax that I think we're voting on this afternoon, the employer health tax, and other types of taxes? Why would you stay and do business here in Ontario?

1600

You can't just come along and say, "You're employed." You've got to be both pro-employee and pro-employer. I think that's the problem with this government. If you're an employer, you're evil, and we're going to tax you because it's evil to make a profit. That's not the case. We want businesses to make a profit in this province, and Bill 146 is as much as saying that you're hiring accountants, that you're wheeling your way around and avoiding the issue of paying taxes.

I would encourage the members of this House to vote against this bill, Bill 146, because of the fact that it's against good business in Ontario.

The other issue, I suppose, that we should spend some time -- if I could say one more issue, I guess that's the issue of the perception of fairness. Ernst and Young, who we have all heard of, has said that the purpose of the corporate minimum tax is "to maintain the perception of fairness in the Ontario corporate income tax system." The perception of fairness: Of course, that was said by the Minister of Finance in his opening statement with respect to this piece of legislation.

In other words, the government is more interested in the perception of fairness. That seems to be his rationale with respect to this bill, although the real reason of course is to squeeze money out of the system to pay for a government that's going broke. But it is a strange philosophy to take, that you're more interested in perceptions than with respect to the real issue of trying to work out a problem that we're trying to do, and that is to balance the books and to cause people both within and outside of Ontario to have confidence in Ontario's fiscal policy. That's the problem. The average person who looks at this bill says: "Oh, it's just another bill. Who wants to invest in Ontario? It's just another bad business bill in Ontario."

All this government's trying to do, I would submit, is to create a public relations scam that will satisfy the needs of the unions and say, "Well, you're going after business." That's not the way to encourage jobs in this province; that's not the way to encourage people to come to this province and invest.

The other issue, of course -- I have a very few minutes left -- is to talk about the issue of the meals and the expense allowance, of reducing that in this province. I can tell you that it's going to affect quite a large number of people, particularly the entertainment business, the hotel and the restaurant business.

The tax-deductible meals, as I indicated, are reduced from 80% to 50% and the hospitality industry will be affected by that policy. There's just no doubt about it. The tourism industry will be affected. There is the very fact that businesses do move around in this province; they do have meals outside this province. You have to pay for their employees to have meals. They try to encourage people to reinvest with their companies and part of that is done in the issue of hospitality. Again, it's an anti-business measure. It's as if business is ripping off the system with respect to hospitality, and I for one don't think that's particularly wise with respect to this province.

We in the Progressive Conservative Party have opposed the introduction of a corporate minimum tax, arguing in summation that it has sent the wrong signal to investors and that it has compounded the cumulative negative impact of a decade of tax increases on the Ontario economy.

You have to look at what's been going on for the last 10 years. You have to look at all of the taxes, not just by the New Democratic Party but the Liberal Party. Somewhere, the taxes have got to stop. They simply have to stop.

I know we have to pay for all these services, which I suppose all the interest groups will say we need. But if you don't do something, the credit rating of this province is going to fall. We're going to have to spend more and more and we're going to become a third-rate nation. It's creeping more and more with the passage of bills such as this.

The other issue which some members have spent some time on and others haven't is that we in the Progressive Conservative Party have described this tax as a nuisance tax, since the compliance and administration costs will likely exceed the revenue yield. That's something you've got to look at with all of these taxes: What is it going to cost to administer? It's going to cost a lot to administer, not only from the government's perspective but from that of business. It's another cost. So there's the issue of paying the cost, and it's more paperwork, it's more grief, it's more bureaucracy, it's more spending that this government doesn't need to be getting involved in.

We're opposing the corporate minimum tax for those various reasons. The corporate minimum tax certainly won't be welcomed by Ontario's manufacturing and resource section. Ontario industry has been showing some recovery in the last little while, certainly in the first quarter, and the introduction of taxes such as Bill 146, there's no question, will hinder the long-term prospects for investment in the province of Ontario.

The tax will also, in conclusion, serve as an additional cost of doing business in the province of Ontario, and I would submit, may become a factor in decreasing potential investment.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Sutherland: The member for Dufferin-Peel has tried to imply that because this government has said we're going to bring in the minimum corporate tax, somehow that's turning business opportunities away from the province of Ontario. I just want to take the member to task and set the record straight.

For example, in my colleague's riding of Lambton, the Tender Tootsies plant in Watford has expanded. My colleague for Lincoln was telling me about the CanWeb Printing plant in Grimsby. We know that the member for Cochrane South, in the response, was talking about new mining activity in his riding. Through the work of the Minister of Northern Development and Mines and the Minister of Natural Resources, we have new mills opening up in northern Ontario. In my riding I think of Kelsey-Hayes and its expansion.

I think of the over $4 billion of investment by the auto industry in this province since this government was elected, and I think of other examples. I think of Dimona Aircraft that came to London. I think of Husky, which is expanding. I think of all these companies -- GM Diesel in London -- that are hiring new people. These people are hiring and they're expanding because they know Ontario continues to be a good place to invest.

They also know that we have a very qualified workforce, that the skills of that workforce are increasing tremendously. One of the reasons too is the great success of the Jobs Ontario Training program, because that program is very specifically designed to meet the needs of business, to train new workers who may be on social assistance and need their skills upgraded, but also to train their existing workforce to fully develop a training climate and a training culture in the business community.

The member for Dufferin-Peel is wrong. Businesses want to invest. They are investing and they're hiring many new people in the province of Ontario.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise to give credit to my colleague the member for Dufferin-Peel for his fine presentation on Bill 146, but I must mention the comments of the member for Oxford, who just previously stood up and told us everything is wonderful in Ontario. Well, everything is not wonderful in Ontario.

Yes, there have been some amounts of investment in the last number of years. We in the opposition have never said there's been no new investment in Ontario. We've never said that. We've said that if the government were interested in encouraging investment, if the government were interested in reducing the tax load, reducing the regulatory burden, then investment in Ontario, the job-creating investment we need, would probably go through the roof and the unemployment rate, which is hovering in excess of 10% in Wellington county, would go down. If the member for Oxford sincerely believes the unemployment rate in Ontario today is acceptable, he is sorely mistaken.

1610

The member for Dufferin-Peel made a number of excellent points with respect to his contribution to this debate. I will be voting against this minimum corporate tax, not because I believe that profitable corporations shouldn't pay tax -- in fact, I believe the profitable corporations should be paying tax in Ontario -- but because I believe we need to send a strong message to business people, to people who have the means to invest in jobs in this province, that we are not going to levy any new taxes in this province. That's what the Treasurer's talking about for the budget. He's said he's got to send out a message to small business; he's got to send out a message that Ontario is open for business. This bill, coming the week of the budget, runs contrary to that argument. As I say, I believe profitable businesses should be paying their fair share of tax, but this is not the way to do it.

There's another major problem with this bill, and that is the reduction of the write-off for entertainment from 80% to 50%. That will harm the hospitality industry. They talk about the fat cats who won't be able to write off their meals, but the government members forget about the waiters and waitresses, the cooks and the maintenance people who will lose their jobs as a result of this new initiative.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): This is really quite something. Here we have a Tory -- a Tory -- trying to portray himself as somebody who really cares about businesses in this country, when it was the Tory government that inherited in 1984 a tax revenue base of about $74 billion per year, and by the time they were finished had pushed that to $120 billion a year but had not even managed to eliminate the deficit. They had managed to expand the deficit by over $30 billion per year.

It's almost incredible that the Tories should stand here pretending to be the defenders of small businesses when they jacked the interest rates to 15% or 16% and sent the dollar, in 1987, from 72.5 cents to 89 cents. That cost countless jobs, thousands of jobs. Businesses left this country because of that and moved to the United States because of their financial policies.

We have other examples of the great acumen of the Tories: in Saskatchewan, for example, where they inherited a budget that was balanced, for all intents and purposes, with no accumulated deficit. They inherited that from the NDP, and they ran that to an $18-billion deficit for 800,000 people in a matter of about 12 years. Now we're looking at what's happening in Nova Scotia after Tory governments had run their budget deficits, accumulated deficits, way up into the stratosphere.

But beyond all credibility, it's a Tory GST. Come on, folks. They cannot stand in this place and say they don't support taxes.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it would be nice to have a quorum in here to hear the final two minutes and the balance of the speeches for the afternoon.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes.

Mr Tilson: All this rhetoric from the government is very fine, the shots at the federal government, but the fact of the matter is that we're talking about a provincial bill that really amounts to a disincentive to invest in the province of Ontario. It's just as simple as that.

Even the final report of the Fair Tax Commission argued against the imposition of an income-based corporate minimum tax. The commission said on page 437 that while it had considerable sympathy for the motives behind the introduction of a corporate minimum tax, "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."

Notwithstanding that advice that was given by the Fair Tax Commission, the Minister of Finance has bulldozed away with respect to this legislation. When we hear the Treasurer's comments this Thursday about how he's going to encourage small business to create jobs in this province, think back to the debates on this series of bills we've been doing in the last week or so with respect to the employer health tax and the corporate minimum tax and you'll see that this philosophical system, this fiscal policy, is not going to work. This is not a way to create jobs in this province. The creation of these types of taxes is not going to create jobs; in fact, it's going to do the exact opposite. It's going to drive employers and corporations to sell their stocks here and move to the United States.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Mahoney: Bill 146 is just another in the long run of tax bills this government is introducing. The difference with this one is that -- would I be wrong, is it almost two years since it was introduced? It's unbelievable, actually, how long it takes this government --

Mr Sutherland: You are wrong.

Mr Mahoney: I am wrong. Well, it's a year and a bit. It's your last budget, I would say to the member for Oxford. Here we are, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, three days away from introducing the long-awaited, probably final budget of this Treasurer -- with any luck at all, the final budget. We're three days away from the introduction of that and we're still debating a bill that was introduced in the last budget; rather curious. The public doesn't understand that. They say, "Why can't these guys get their act together?"

The facts are that all this government does is pass legislation by time allocation and closure. They cannot manage their agenda. They cannot cooperate in any way with the people who are affected, regardless of what the issue is.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): What nonsense, Steve. You guys are holding up all the legislation.

Mr Mahoney: It's not nonsense. I wish the minister of casinos and keno, or whatever it is she likes to play in her spare time -- the minister of gambling leading this province down that rather interesting road is over there chirping away at everything I'm saying.

Madam Speaker, nice to see you in the chair.

The reality is that the public does not understand how a government can be so incompetent. But the reality is that they are consumed by mistakes, consumed by errors and consumed by ministers doing things they shouldn't do.

1620

Hon Ms Churley: You just hold everything up and play with our lives. You're arrogant, Steve, really arrogant.

Mr Mahoney: Well, it's true, and the interesting thing -- now I'm getting the finger. Don't wag your finger at me.

Hon Ms Churley: Patronizing.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Chair, the man who is putting forward Bill 146 is the current Treasurer of the province, and today, in fact last Thursday, it was brought out that the minister responsible for this bill sees no problem in appearing before a government-appointed body on behalf of a proponent in his riding to encourage a $43-million benefit to go to his constituents.

Mr Sutherland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I would remind you that we are dealing with Bill 146, and I would hope you would remind all members of the House to try to keep their remarks related to that.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Would the member please proceed.

Mr Mahoney: I understand that they don't want to talk about those issues. I don't blame you. If I were over there, I would jump up on a point of order every time that kind of interference was brought up. But it is related to 146, because 146 is a tax bill put forward by the current Treasurer, the Minister of Finance. It's the Minister of Finance who's sitting in his office in budget meetings today, hurriedly dotting i's and crossing t's and getting ready to bring in more taxes.

They can say "No new taxes," but read between the lines. Just look at the fees they're going to charge. Just look at some of the things this government has already done, collecting three, four, five years' worth of driver's licence fees in one shot so the revenue comes into this year and is gone for the next three, four or five years.

The kind of smoke and mirrors this government has used is going to leave the next government -- and I have a suspicion who they may be -- with a more than just serious problem. They will have sold the computers and there will be lease payments to make. They will have sold some of the furniture and there will be rental charges to pay. They will have sold a number of the office buildings -- can you imagine that? -- right here in downtown Toronto and who knows where else. Maybe in Sault Ste Marie; maybe in your own community.

Government assets, bought and paid for by the taxpayer, are now going to be sold so this government can claim the revenue to try to keep its deficit from going any higher than it already is, and we're going to have to service the debt on the sale. We're going to have to finance these things, and we're going to have to lease them back, we're going to have to pay rent. I won't be surprised if you sell the desks and the chairs in here.

What's really interesting is the GO trains. They're selling the GO trains, and they're selling them to offshore investors. Can you just imagine? The New Democratic Party, the defenders of nationalizing corporations in Ontario and Canada, from British Columbia to Newfoundland. These people, this party, have stood on platform after platform to say we must increase Canadian ownership in our corporations and our assets and our natural resources and our water and everything else that is politically sexy for them to say. But it's okay: "We'll sell the Japanese our GO trains. No problem. That's different."

We've bought and paid for these things. We own them now. And you people over there are allowing this Finance minister to actually sell off the assets of the taxpayer of the province of Ontario so he can put a good foot forward and a good show into his budget to keep his deficit below $9 billion.

I'm surprised that the Minister of Transportation has not recommended we sell all our roads. We know about the revenue tactics Transportation has introduced with, "Smile, you're on photo-radar." We know this is nothing more than a tax grab and a financial boondoggle for this government to generate more money from the Minister of Transportation. I congratulate you for being so creative. I'm sure the Treasurer thinks you're wonderful for coming up with this.

We know that you've entered into some kind of an agreement -- there's a little bit of a cloud over the tendering; we're not quite sure about this one yet; maybe there's a brown envelope or two to come under the door -- to build the long-awaited Highway 407. I might congratulate the minister for at least putting forward the proposal on Highway 407, much needed throughout the north part of the GTA, much needed to relieve traffic off Highway 401.

But we don't know what you did. That's all that bothers us. We don't like secretive deals here in the opposition and we're just a little bit nervous. I think we may have a point of order over here from the minister.

The Acting Speaker: Point of order, the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Very briefly, Madam Speaker, one cannot sit idly by, with the highest of respect, and let people without a sense of responsibility impute motives, continuously go from minister to minister to ministry questioning, yes, the integrity of people. This is not the way this honourable House operates; this is not the way the people of Ontario operate. I don't think humour is becoming to the member opposite. I think it's a disservice to all of us here and the people we represent.

The Acting Speaker: It is not strictly out of order. The member does have a different opinion. I would ask him to be cautious in his remarks.

Hon Ms Churley: And apologize, Steve.

Mr Mahoney: I'll tell you what, to the minister of casinos, you should apologize because what your government is doing is really and truly a disgrace.

When I talk about some of these things, it's what people -- I mean, this is Monday afternoon. I've spent the weekend in my riding, as all members opposite have, and I hear from people about their concerns. I know that we're talking about taxes here today, but they're also concerned about integrity or a lack of it in any government. If you want to talk about sanctimony, this party, this group, when it was in opposition -- and with respect, there are only a few of you who were here -- they were the first to be on their feet. I can remember. That's right, the minister who was here cringes with some embarrassment at the thought of Elie Martel calling people over there murderers as a result of injured workers and problems with --

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: Well, that's what he said. It's in Hansard. Those are not my words. This party, they're the ones who would lead demonstrations, who would lead charges into this -- it's unbelievable to us and to the public in general how you have turned -- and I hear members opposite slamming the Tories -- how you have gone from the ideology of the Tommy Douglases of this world, who would be rolling over, I can assure you, at just the thought of what you're doing, to embrace the attitudes of even Brian Mulroney, how you have become Tories, is really quite remarkable -- but incompetent Tories, I might add, which causes some concern. There are some competent Tories. I'm not sure where, but there are some. The public is confused. They don't understand. They look at NDP governments from Victoria, British Columbia, to Ontario and they say: "This can't be a socialist government. Did they not believe anything they said in that document they put out to run on?" Jean Chrétien just ran on the red book. He said he was going to do what was in the book and he's doing it.

Interjections.

Mr Mahoney: You may not like him. Your partisan viewpoints are understandable. But you people put out -- what was it called? Help me. What was it called?

Interjection: The Agenda for People.

Mr Mahoney: The Agenda for People -- wonderful stuff.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member address his remarks to Bill 146.

Interjection: Minimum corporate tax --

Mr Mahoney: Minimum corporate tax is one thing that was in there, but here's what you do: As you have done with numerous other pieces of legislation, you create omnibus bills. You take a simple idea that might be supportable and you put in all kinds of things that you know the opposition cannot support and you destroy the integrity of the bill. It is a tactic that we have seen done on at least half a dozen bills or more in the past year by this government. Omnibus bills -- interesting tactic.

1630

In this particular Bill 146, there are a number of things that the Treasurer, the Finance minister, attempts to do: Introduce a minimum corporate tax. The corporations are saying: "All right, look; we understand we have to pay taxes. We understand that. I mean, there's no free ride." But the corporations say: "Just a minute now; I already pay PIT, GST, UIC, CPP, MBT, MPT, EHT, WCB. What do I get?" You have to answer that question. What do they get for that? People are not afraid to pay their fair share of taxes. Corporations are not afraid. In fact, in my view, the management of good corporations believe and good unions believe that if taxes are put to proper use, they don't object to them being charged. But they've got to be reasonable; you can't put people out of business.

This government -- I just delight when the young member for Oxford gets up to rail about all the great investment that's taken place in Ontario. You guys, you just don't get it. The number of decisions that are made -- and you know what? -- they won't go public, because they're afraid of retribution. They truly are.

There are number of corporations that exist here in the province of Ontario that have to make a decision whether or not to expand because perhaps they want to go into the US market. All we hear is, they stand up and they rail about GST for Mulroney, they rail about free trade and they rail about all kinds of things that they have no control over whatsoever -- none. You have no control over those things. You were not elected to come here and fight battles over which you have no say. You just do it because it's your only defence. I understand that.

The Acting Speaker: To the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: Madam Speaker, why can't we deal with the issues that affect Ontarians? Mr Rae, the Premier, stands up and reads a resolution -- unbelievable -- just damning the feds, damning Quebec, on issues over which he has no control. But I understand and I think the people of Ontario understand the agenda, the speculation about an election.

Why would Bob Rae go to the polls when he's doing things like introducing a tax bill like 146 which has many things that affect the fishing, the manufacturing, the mining, the farming, the logging industries, many negative aspects to all of those businesses, when business -- why would he go when clearly -- I don't even know. Are you guys even on the Richter scale of polls? Do you even show up on the blip? I'm not sure, but you're somewhere --

The Acting Speaker: Through the Chair.

Mr Mahoney: -- let's say, Madam Speaker, that the NDP is somewhere down -- I'll be generous -- in the low teens in popularity in the province, so why would he go?

Let me give you a scenario. There's currently an election in the offing in Quebec; we know that. There is a lot of talk about a separatist government coming into power in Quebec --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Stick to the bill.

Mr Mahoney: Yes, it is. It talks to the bill, because all of this, the political agenda of this government has everything to do, not only with taxation but with politics. The Premier says when asked if he's politicking when he's out there handing out money that he doesn't have, $7 million in Windsor -- isn't he a hero? "Here's $7 million, Chrysler. It doesn't matter that you made $418 million in profit last year; we're going to give you $7 million because we want to be nice to the auto workers."

Mr Sutherland: Don't forget about the --

Mr Mahoney: To the member for Oxford, he doesn't have the money. He doesn't have the money. He's writing cheques. There's no money in the bank and he says, "Well, no, I'm not politicking, I'm not campaigning; I'm governing" -- really interesting.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Are you saying it's not okay for people to create jobs?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I wonder. They say this creates jobs. Madam Speaker, can you answer to me why a company that made a profit of $418 million last year is entitled to $7 million from the taxpayer? Can you answer that question? Can anybody justify that question, other than the fact that it is nothing more than a politician buying votes with the taxpayers' money? It's an absolute disgrace. What about saying to Chrysler: "You have an obligation to keep that extra line going. You have an obligation to work with this community." No; he says, "We're going to give you $7 million." Then what does he do? What he does is bring in Bill 146.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): I want to know about the SkyDome.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Mahoney: Don't talk to me about the SkyDome. You guys sold the SkyDome three times. Three times you sold the SkyDome and kept coming in with announcements in this place to say: "Look at us. Aren't we smart? We got Bobby White to make a deal and we've sold that dumb SkyDome again. Look at our revenue; it's just shot up three times." The nerve of this government is truly unbelievable.

Mr Perruzza: Can you tell us who bought it?

Mr Mahoney: I'll tell you who bought it, who bought the farm on it, is the taxpayer because of your incompetence.

The Acting Speaker: Would you bring your remarks back to the bill, please.

Mr Mahoney: What happens is, they give $7 million to Chrysler, a company that made $418 million, and Bob Rae goes into Sault Ste Marie. The gloating was just difficult for me.

Hon Mr Pouliot: What happened to the Quebec election?

Mr Mahoney: I'm coming back to the Quebec election. Don't worry; I'll get back around to that. This is all what it's related to, you see. He's got to go around taking credit for things he has no right to take credit for. He takes credit for saving Algoma. What nonsense. You know who saved Algoma? The men and women on the shop floor in the plant saved Algoma Steel. The market turned around and there was a debt write-off of $700 million, gone. That's what saved Algoma. This government wants to pretend that it was the magic, intervening, divine force that put that deal together.

Let me tell you the deal you gave Algoma: You told them that you would back up their $100-million line of credit. You would come on after they'd used their $100 million and provide them an additional line of credit at prime times two. What a deal.

Do you know what? They don't want to touch it. They know they cannot possibly afford it. What business today could afford to pay double prime? That's a benefit? That's something this government can take credit for?

If, in fact, Algoma Steel gets to the point where it has to dip into the line of credit secured by the provincial government, its cost of borrowing will go through the roof and its cost of debt service will skyrocket. I can tell you that they don't want to do it. The message I would say is: Thanks, but no thanks.

Mr Perruzza: Are you saying that saving Algoma was a mistake?

Mr Mahoney: Saving Algoma was nothing to do with you or with the Premier or with the Finance minister. That's what I'm saying.

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat, please. Order. I would ask the member to more specifically address the act before us, which is Bill 146.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: It does, though. You've saved Algoma, you've bailed out Chrysler, and now you're going to bring in a corporate minimum tax and just grab it back, I guess, somehow. You see, it does relate to this. This is the skulduggery of this government; this is the game-playing.

Now, let's go back to the Quebec election. It relates here. Trust me, follow me on this. There'll be a bouncing ball; you can stay with me.

Bill 146 does relate to this, Madam Speaker. That was for them, not for you; I know you would have no trouble following.

The Premier goes around giving out money he doesn't have, putting forward $9-billion deficits, running the debt in this province from $39 billion to $80 billion, $85 billion, $90 billion by the time he is done, stripping the cupboard bare, destroying the business confidence of this province. He goes around giving out money that he doesn't have and then he taxes it back through trickery, through sleight of hand. Remember that old thing with the pea, the hand is quicker than the eye? This is the travelling Bob Rae road show: "No, I'm just governing. I'm not campaigning; I'm just governing."

You watch. He'll put together all of these tax bills, he'll put together all of these giveaways, he'll take all kinds of credit for saving things that he had no influence on whatsoever. Then you will see a separatist government in Quebec. Bob Rae will put on his Captain Ontario jacket and hat and he will go to Ontario and say: "I've got to save you, Ontario. I've got to save you from those Quebeckers who are going to take all of the federal transfer payments that rightly belong to Ontario. We're not getting our fair share and therefore the feds are giving the farm away to Quebec. I'm Bob Rae and I'm going to save you." What a phoney. What is absolutely the plan of this government -- he is not governing; he is campaigning. He is using trickery. Most cynical of all, he is using the taxpayers' own money, of which they have none, to hand out goodies.

Yet we tinker around bringing in things that will reduce the corporate entertainment deduction. Ask the people in the restaurant business how they feel about reducing the deductions for legitimate business expenses. Ask them.

It's okay for Floyd Laughren to appear on behalf of a developer in his riding to try to get a $43-million deal. It's okay for the man who signs the cheques to do that, but it's not okay, Mr and Mrs Ontario, for you to take a business prospect to lunch and deduct the expense. You can't do that.

1640

Hon Mr Pouliot: I thought Paul Martin did that.

Mr Mahoney: Well, you're doing it right here. Talk to me about the bill. You're doing it right here.

It's okay for a minister of the crown to interfere with impunity, but then they want to go and grab money back from small business --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Liberal Paul Martin did that in the last budget.

Mr Mahoney: You want to throw it back at the federal Liberals. That's your only defence. Instead of defending your decisions, the chirpers opposite continue to go on about -- what did he say over there? -- the Tories in Nova Scotia and about the federal government. Why don't we talk about the province of Ontario?

The thing that I guess bothers us the most out of this particular bill, aside from the fact that -- it's hard to admit that there is really an overall plan, but I think there is a hidden agenda in all these things. But the thing that bothers us the most is what they're doing here, now. Just take a look at this: The companies that have gross revenues greater than $10 million or assets in excess of $5 million will be subject to this tax.

On the surface, you would say: "That's not bad. That goes with the NDP philosophy to make the rich pay." Maybe they're not rich, maybe they are, but they're the big guys, $10 million in revenue increase. Really a radical idea here. Why not say to those companies: "If you are prepared to take a percentage of your profit and plow it back into job creation, back into training, back into high-tech exportable research and development products, with a Canadian maple leaf on them, that we can sell around the world, you know what? Instead of taxing you more, we're going to give you a tax break" What a novel idea, to actually say to the business community: "We, the government of Ontario, are going to provide you with an incentive to invest in our economy. We're going to provide you with an opportunity if you will enter into an agreement with us." Come on. Government can't create all the jobs.

Government does have a responsibility to be involved in creating jobs for certain infrastructure programs. We've got to build the sewers and things like that, unless you can get developers to build them as part of a development agreement, which many municipalities, mine particularly, have been very successful at doing, but not all of them can.

We can't expect the private sector to invest money to send Hydro into northern remote parts of Ontario. There is a role for the government in providing leadership and infrastructure so that things can develop in this province in an orderly fashion. I don't deny that for a minute.

But the majority of the jobs, of the economic growth in the future and the development of the jobs for your kids and my kids will not come from government. If they do, we will not be able to afford to pay the salaries. We will not be able to sustain the cost of increased government jobs. The majority of the growth and the development in this province must come from the private sector, and why?

Mr Sutherland: No kidding.

Mr Mahoney: You say no kidding, but you continue to bring in tax after tax on the private sector. Why not give them a tax break? Simple idea. To me, higher taxes are not the way to prosperity.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Commercial concentration tax.

Mr Mahoney: Look, he wants to talk about the commercial concentration tax, which you guys tore up with great fanfare and applause, and the hated tire tax to which you did the same thing; you tore it up. Two taxes you got rid of. What did you do then? By the way, they generated about $110 million a year in tax revenue, those two taxes.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Cut them out.

Mr Mahoney: "Cut them out. Get rid of them. Aren't we great?"

Then you brought in an insurance premium tax on every small business, on every automobile, on every home owner, on every apartment building, on every commercial development. On every single insurance policy that every Ontarian must have just to live day to day, you brought in another tax.

How much did that tax generate to the minister? Try about $700 million. It was close to a $600-million tax grab by this government. But because you packaged it up in getting rid of the hated commercial concentration tax and the hated tire tax and because people's insurance premiums come due at different times of the year -- it was brilliant -- you managed to diffuse the criticism. Until people got their bill from their insurance broker or their insurance company, they didn't realize the trickery that you had employed to take more money out of the marketplace. Where do you think this money comes from? It comes from people's pockets. When it gets into their pockets, it comes from the corporations they work for.

You can pretend you understand, but as I said the other day, the words don't match the music. There's something out of sync here. You just don't get it. Increasing taxes no longer leads to increased revenue. It really doesn't. You can see the underground economy. We had a committee do a report on it. We're talking about billions of dollars in money that people are paying in cash under the table for whatever. But you know why they are doing that? They have been forced.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Would you do it yourself?

Mr Mahoney: I'm not condoning it. It's against the law. The point is that people are so heavily taxed -- we have members yelling about the GST. Of course that's a problem when you figure that if you're making a $200 purchase, then you add 15%. People who come to this country as tourists, who are becoming fewer and fewer, are aghast. Even though they can get it back, they're shocked at the fact that they have to pay 15%. The fact that they get such a benefit from the dollar perhaps negates the problem, but they're shocked about it.

Get the message. The people will tell you this. The guy on the street, the woman on the street, the men and the women working in this province will tell you the answer. You can't increase taxes any more through one-way, through a trick or through open, honest tax increases. You can't do it and expect it to generate any more revenue. You people are wrong, this bill is wrong and we will be voting against it.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments to the member?

Mr Perruzza: Just very briefly in response to my honourable friend, I know his name is Steve Mahoney but it might as well be Brian Mulroney, because I look back at the budget document here. This is the former budget document. He talks about the business person who can no longer take his friend to lunch and simply have everyone else sort of pick up the cost of that. I look back at the budget document with amusement and see, from 1985, revenues to l990 jumped from a little over $23 billion to just under $43 billion.

Just imagine this: In five years these guys, the Liberals, went out and increased taxes, almost doubled the tax base in the province of Ontario. Did they go after the big corporations, as my good friend says? "Oh, leave guys who make $10 million or more alone. You can't touch those guys. They've got no money to pay." But they had no problem in raising the sales tax from seven cents to eight cents. Let the little guy pay. The little guy may not be making $10 million a year, but he certainly can afford to pay. They just taxed everybody to the tune of about double when they took office. My good friend should take the lesson of what happened to Mulroney, because the same thing's going to happen to him and his party.

1650

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I too would like to rise in reply to the debate from the member for Mississauga West and to compliment the member, because I think the member is clearly reflecting the concerns raised at all quarters throughout the province of Ontario. I think the member has clearly and well articulated how many people are so concerned with the direction and the action of the current government, how many people are so concerned how this present government seems to be so out of sync with the realities of the province in the 1990s.

The previous speaker, the member for Downsview, spoke about the previous budget. I just happen to have the previous budget here and they have these things on page 66 which are called "new non-tax revenue initiatives in 1993-94." That's from the budget that the member alluded to. I guess he didn't read page 66 of the budget, because these are these new non-tax revenue generators. That's what the minister calls them and that's what the Bob Rae government calls them, but the people of the province call it more money out of their pocket: general motor vehicle and licence fee revisions, product diversification, snowmobile registration fees, increased land registration fees, Assessment Review Board fees, commercial fish royalties, water power royalties, and it goes on and on and on.

I believe the member for Mississauga West was right on the mark when he underscored and underlined how the Bob Rae government is so out of sync with the province and the needs of the people of this province that it seeks to use a piece of legislation which does nothing less than increase taxes at a time when people are saying, "Hold the line on taxes and reduce them." I compliment the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Wiseman: I'm very pleased to rise today, because I have to build on the very fine analysis that my friend the member for Downsview made about the budget.

He missed the point. The point is that from 1985 to 1990, the added revenue that was collected was well in excess of $18 billion. They added expenses that far exceeded that amount because they were spendthrifts, shall I say. They increased their operating expenditures by 7.3% in 1984-85, 9.1% in 1985-86, 11.8% in 1986-87, 9.1% in 1987-88, 10.1% in 1988-89, and in 1989-90, it was 7.9%. But I have to say that of all the years, their 1990-91 budget was the biggest. They increased their growth in operating programs by 14.7%.

Mr Offer: You're into your years.

Mr Wiseman: No. The election was in September. Your budget came out. We were on your budget until 1991. No wonder you guys don't know what you're doing. You don't even know what year you were in. Last year, we decreased it by 4.2%. The budget was 1990-91.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): First, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Mississauga West for his normal, dispassionate debate on the issues before the Legislature today, in particular on Bill 146.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I need to be able to hear.

Mr Brown: I couldn't help but come up with some questions that I thought maybe should be asked of the member for Mississauga West, seeing as we seem to be debating records of parties in here.

One thing the Liberals are being accused of is spending too much. I would agree that perhaps that was a fault, perhaps we did, but my colleagues here in the NDP never thought we spent enough. We were told over and over and over again when we were the government that we didn't support public services with enough money. Strangely enough, we heard the same thing from the Conservative Party. There wasn't anything we spent enough money on during those years.

But I would tell you one interesting thing. We should maybe talk about what auditors say. When the Liberal government was in power it paid its bills.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): It did not. You can't say that honestly.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Brown: The only surplus in the last 20 years occurred in 1990. The auditor says so. I don't say so, the member for Mississauga West doesn't say so; the auditor says that. The Liberal government paid its bills. That's the way it was.

But the big issue here is that as we go after more taxes, taxes which are dramatically wrong, my constituents in Elliot Lake wonder, as the government comes out to grab more money, why is it that our hospital in Elliot Lake is laying off more and more people? Why is it that we can't provide the services, with this tax grab after tax grab after tax grab?

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. We now have two minutes for the member for Mississauga West to respond.

Mr Mahoney: It's not enough time. But it's interesting how people get manipulated into believing what they want to believe. It must be kind of difficult every day, with all the pressure. In fact, I know it is, because I was part of a back bench in a majority government and I know the frustration and the difficulty of sitting there thinking, "We shouldn't be doing this" or "We shouldn't be doing that." We made mistakes when we were in office; there's absolutely no question we did. I think the Conservatives could say they made mistakes.

But there's a fundamental difference. What I see happening here is a back bench that is -- I don't know. They've somehow been convinced by Premier Bob that they've still got a shot at this.

Mr Offer: The Bobster.

Mr Mahoney: The Bobster. They think the Bobster is going to save them by travelling around the province giving out money. It's really interesting to hear some of the members. I particularly note -- I don't mean to pick on him, but the member for Oxford came in here young and eager, with new ideas. I thought, "This is a young guy, right out of school; it looks like he's going to have some fresh, new ideas to bring into that caucus," and there's nobody in that back bench who sings the government tune better now than that particular member.

I guess it's ambition. "We're in the same boat now," is the song the Premier sings. Hazel McCallion says it's sinking in a sea of red ink, which I think is an appropriate analysis that should be one of the verses in the song. I doubt it is.

I don't understand how you can get sucked in so much. You, like me, have to go home and talk to your constituents, and you can't tell me for one minute that anybody in your community believes that what you are doing as a government is good for them. You're taxing business out of business, taxing people out of any kind of money, and you're taxing prosperity out of the province.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I have really enjoyed this debate up till this point. I might say that it's one of those opportunities where I agree with both of the other parties. I agree with the NDP and I agree with the Liberals.

The NDP has indicated that the Liberals did a lousy job between 1985 and 1990 in terms of managing the economy, and they're absolutely right. I agree with the member for Durham West. He indicated that spending -- I think that was the premise of the member for Durham West -- during the period of 1985 to 1990, when the Liberals were in power, was uncontrolled. Let's face it. Let's look at the numbers.

1700

Mr Perruzza: The Tories did the same thing.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Downsview is saying, "Yes, let's look at the numbers." That's what he's saying. Perhaps the most relevant number to look at is government spending to compare it with the rate of inflation. I haven't heard those numbers today, but those are the numbers that I think are very relevant.

If we look at 1986, the rate of inflation was under 5%, about 4%. So what level of spending should we see from the government if the rate of inflation is about 4%? The taxpayer would say that spending should be controlled, that spending should be no higher than the rate of inflation. But in actual fact the Liberal government in 1986 spent to the tune of a 12% increase, with a rate of inflation of about 4%. That's the kind of spending the members opposite me, the government members, are complaining about and bringing to our attention.

What happened in 1988 under another Liberal government? The rate of inflation was again under 5%, perhaps 4.5% that year. The spending again, unfortunately, was in the double digits. The spending was 11% that year. The spending was twice the rate of inflation in 1988.

Now, 1990 is an interesting year. It's really interesting to see the Liberals and the NDP fight over the carcass of 1990, because there was a Liberal budget --

Mr Wiseman: They had it for seven months, we had it for five.

Mr David Johnson: That's the point that's being made. That's the point the member for Durham West is agreeing with now. It was a Liberal budget, and what happened during the course of the year was that the government, notwithstanding the tremendous spending increases -- and I must say spending increases vis-à-vis the rate of inflation outstripped even the NDP --

Mr Wiseman: Not last year.

Mr David Johnson: I'm complimenting you. I'm with you on this. I'm saying that the Liberal spending, when you compare it with the rate of inflation, was higher than even your spending.

The Acting Speaker: Would you address your remarks to the Chair, please.

Mr David Johnson: Madam Speaker, when you compare the spending with the rate of inflation, the Liberals, in the period 1985 to 1990, were the all-time leaders. That's what is being pointed out by the members opposite, and they have a good point.

In terms of the year 1990, that's where the frenzy develops, because whose year is 1990? David Peterson thought he had it in the bag. He felt that if he went to an election, after about three years of a mandate --

Mr Wiseman: Yes, they made all the promises to the hospitals, to the municipalities, to the school boards.

Mr David Johnson: -- and made all the promises to the hospitals -- I'm getting lots of help from across the floor -- they would go to an election and would be rewarded by the people of the province. But it didn't happen. People in this province saw through that. They felt there wasn't enough substance to the finances, that there wasn't enough humility, and the election turned out a great surprise to everybody, including the members opposite, I'm sure.

Mr Wiseman: I admit it.

Mr David Johnson: The member for Durham West admits it. He did not expect to win, but here he is, sitting in his seat -- for another year.

Mr Wiseman: That's right. Doing a good job.

Mr David Johnson: I won't go that far. At any rate, halfway through the year the NDP came in and took over the budget from Bob Nixon and the Liberals. Who is to blame for the problems we encountered in that particular year? In 1990, the rate of inflation: under 5% again; the spending, about 12%.

Mr Wiseman: That's 1991-92.

Mr David Johnson: That's the year 1990. You're thinking that's not bad enough. There's a year that's worse than that, and you're absolutely right. It's the following year, 1991, where the spending was up about 12.5%, about three times the rate of inflation.

That was the year the NDP decided they would spend their way out of our economic woes, that they would spend their way out of the recession that was just developing at that point in time. We hope they've seen the error of their ways.

It's very interesting to hear this debate. I can agree with both parties when they say that the other side has caused enormous difficulties, unfortunately, for our economy in the province of Ontario, and that's the fact. The Liberal spending through those years, 1985-90, unfortunately has put us in a very bad position with regard to the expenditures of the province of Ontario in this day and age. The NDP have added to that and now the problem is that they're not coming to grips with the deficit, and the deficit is growing leaps and bounds. But I think I would agree with the government if it said that one of the main problems that it faces is the spending, spending which was built in the years between 1985 and 1990.

I can have a little bit of sympathy for you, that you inherited a mess, you inherited a very high level of spending. Unfortunately, you added on to that, though, I have to be truthful. You added on to that, made it worse. But still, from the Liberals you inherited that mess.

This particular bill that we're dealing with is a bill that could be about fairness, it's a bill that could be about generating more revenue to try to balance off all that increased spending that we've been talking about. But what will happen in the final analysis?

If we look, for example, at the one aspect of the bill that has to do with the deductibility of meals, that I guess is an easy target. What is happening here is that the proposal -- and it comes out of the 1993 budget. Some aspects come out of the 1992 budget in this particular bill, which I find very interesting. We're now two years behind, which is truly amazing. But this aspect comes out of the 1993 budget and it reduces the portion of the expenses for meals and entertainment deductible in computing income previously from an 80% level down to a 50% level.

Again, as the government members have pointed out, this is in a sense paralleling what Paul Martin has done, the Liberal government in Ottawa. So in a sense we have two governments in cahoots: the provincial government reducing the deductibility here in Queen's Park; the federal Liberal government in Ottawa.

It may seem to the ordinary person that this a good thing, that people should not be allowed to have entertainment, should not be allowed to have meals and have that deducted, so that less income tax is paid. On the surface of it, that idea has a great deal of attractiveness. People say, "Is that fair?" Should some people be able to get their entertainment and their meals deducted and in a sense perhaps, through lower income tax, have the rest of the taxpayers pick up the cost of that?

I must say, you have to think about that, you have to think carefully, because, yes, as a basic message, there may be a little bit of unfairness, but when we look at these kind of issues, we should be careful to ensure that we look at all aspects. Let's not just deal from a surface impression, what may be politically popular at one point in time; let's look at what this really means.

One aspect of what this really means has been enunciated by the Ontario Restaurant Association. This is a non-profit organization that represents, as you might expect, the foodservice industry, the restaurant industry, in the province of Ontario. They were founded in 1931, by the way, so this is a very old and respected organization. It represents about 4,500 members and, as you might appreciate, thousands and thousands of employees in the province of Ontario; thousands and thousands of people working counters, waiters, waitresses, thousands of people who for the most part are not among the most wealthy people in this province of Ontario. They represent people we should be concerned about, people we should be trying to support, trying to ensure that these people have jobs and are successful.

1710

What does the Ontario Restaurant Association say? They have done an analysis on business meals: business meals that we're talking about in this bill, business meals that now will be deductible at a lower level, making them less attractive. What they say may surprise some people. Some people may think that the vast majority of these meals is from corporate executives dining in the best restaurants with a huge price, maybe hundreds of dollars, but the analysis shows that 27% of these meals are actually what you would call "quick service." By "quick service," I assume that means sort of a McDonald's or maybe a Kentucky Fried Chicken or something of that nature. Another 19% are what we would call "family style," another 27% are "casual and informal" and 15% what would be called "fine dining." So only 15% of these meals are what you would term "fine dining." It's not just the very expensive restaurants that benefit from this and there is quite an array of different situations.

The analysis carries on and it asks the question, "Who uses this allowance?" Thirty-nine per cent of the meals are claimed by professions. We're talking about managers, business owners, accountants, pilots, engineers, librarians, clergy, dentists, nurses, teachers: real people; people, though, who are termed "professionals."

Twenty-six per cent are claimed by people in clerical professions, again real people, people probably at a much lower remuneration level: secretaries, clerks. Think about this. We think that when we bring in a bill to deal with this sort of aspect, we're dealing with the fat cats of society, but that's not necessarily true. We're talking about secretaries, clerks, bookkeepers, tellers, sales people, real estate people.

Twenty-four per cent are consumed by blue-collar workers: firefighters, police, ambulance workers, guards, forestry workers, refinery workers, taxi drivers, bus drivers.

So, you see, this is an aspect that touches all parts of our economy. I just wonder if the government has considered that aspect. It's a big target, it's an easy target, but have they considered that aspect?

Business meals account across Canada for $950 million in sales in the restaurant industry; $400 million in sales here in the province of Ontario -- $400 million in sales in the province of Ontario through the restaurants because of business meals. That's a lot of money. Now, guess what? It's not just money; it's jobs. We're talking about jobs here. Has the government taken that into account? Is this the time when we should be taking measures that would impact on jobs, that would result in job losses?

What sorts of jobs are going to be lost? Again, waiters, waitresses, people who are not at the high end of the income scale. Eleven thousand jobs are supported, in the province of Ontario, by business meals: 11,000 jobs is the calculation. Just think about that. In a day and age where --

Mr Perruzza: Who did that? Some guy in your caucus research?

Mr David Johnson: Yes. I'm being asked, "Who did this?" This research, because the members opposite find that this is not to their liking, that we're talking about ordinary people losing jobs because the government in a sense increases taxes, was done by Crest Canada, a Canadian company, and not partisan. It was done for the Ontario Restaurant Association. It was not done for the Progressive Conservative Party. It was not done for any particular party.

Mr Perruzza: Oh, they paid for the information. Oh, I see. The restaurant association got somebody to do a study for them.

Mr David Johnson: Well, you know, I see a tone of disbelief across the floor. Just think: Does it not make sense? Of course it makes sense. When taxes go up, jobs are lost. As a matter of fact, that is a theme that is prevalent in this day and age.

On Wednesday night, I guess it was, of last week, I had a town hall meeting. At that town hall meeting, one of the gentlemen who was present indicated to me that he had a company with 33 people who he employed just a year or two ago. He now has a company that employs himself. Thirty-two people are unemployed from this particular company. I asked him why. I asked him: "What happened? Why has your company that employed 33 people from the province of Ontario gone down to just one person?" He said the payroll taxes, number one, taxes such as workers' compensation. That was one he mentioned. He mentioned unemployment insurance. He mentioned all the taxes that are contributing to making our business in Ontario uncompetitive.

Here we are within the last two weeks debating the third bill, I think this is, implementing tax increases from the 1993 budget and the 1992 budget. Here we are, at a time when our economy is sluggish, the growth in our economy is negligible -- I saw figures just recently that the growth a month ago, I guess it was in the month of February, was 0.1 in our Canadian economy. We should not be implementing measures that would be detrimental to the growth of our economy. We should be looking to encourage growth in our economy. This is not from any particular love of corporations, but for our economy to grow, for people to have jobs so that we can build a society, we need companies to be successful and they should be encouraged. That's a message that comes from --

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: Yes, it comes from the business community and the member for Downsview might say that's self-serving, but that's where the jobs are going to be created. We can't afford to hire everybody in government. Government expenditures are too high already. The fact is that with the deficit now, what is the deficit going to be? Nobody even believes the Treasurer.

When you read the Globe and Mail this morning and you look at the stories pertaining to the deficit in the province of Ontario, you look at financial economists and you see, for example, an economist from Bunting Warburg, who says, "No one's going to believe them anyway."

What he's referring to are the forecasts for the deficit from the Treasurer, from the Minister of Finance for the province of Ontario. The forecasts have been so out of whack over the years, for revenue growth in particular, that our deficits are growing and growing and growing. We have at least three economists in the paper just today saying they don't believe the Finance minister any more. They don't believe he's giving us the straight goods. We don't seem to care about that. That's having an impact.

1720

What should happen and what this government should be promoting is a cut in expenditures. That should have happened -- this is how I got started this afternoon. That should have started back during the Liberal regime, and I'll admit it. Yes, it should have, but it didn't, and this NDP government unfortunately hasn't recognized that, so now our expenditures are high, our revenues are not coming in, and we have a tremendous deficit. What is it going to be this year? Is our bond rating going to suffer again?

Mr Perruzza: Thursday, hang on to your hat, David.

Mr David Johnson: Thursday, we'll find out.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): We'll all be suffering Friday.

Mr David Johnson: We'll all be suffering on Friday, the member says. That's for sure. But I don't see encouraging signals coming from the Minister of Finance. I think the Minister of Finance has given up on the deficit. That's my own personal opinion and I think that's a shame for the province of Ontario. But if he's given up on that, could he not at least look at measures to promote our business community?

The board of trade, for example, has said that we should be looking at the employer health tax. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents I think some 40,000 businesses across the province of Ontario, has said that one of the things the Treasurer could do in his budget that's coming down on Thursday is to do away with the employer health tax on the smaller businesses, on those businesses $400,000 and less, to do away with that tax, encourage business growth. Why doesn't he do something like that?

Instead, what we get -- well, I don't know what we're going to get on Thursday, but what we get today is this bill, Bill 146, which imposes another tax on the business community. It imposes a corporate minimum tax. Again, fine, some corporations do not pay tax. There are a few, not too many, but some corporations do not pay tax, and they should all pay tax. They should all pay taxes in terms of fairness. That's the fairness angle.

The reality is that businesses are struggling in this day and age. There are huge portions of some of our larger municipalities which have vacancies, many vacancies, in the industrial area. I can tell you that in the city of North York, which I represent, the mayor of the city of North York is very concerned with the vacancies in the industrial areas. It's some 25%, he's told me. Mel Lastman has told me that 25% of the industrial buildings in the city of North York are vacant.

Mr Sutherland: No, not North York.

Mr David Johnson: In North York; it's happening. I hope the members from the government wake up to this. It's happening across Ontario.

Mr Sutherland: Miracle Mel's city?

Mr David Johnson: I'm glad the member has mentioned the mayor of North York, because the mayor of North York has a plan to address this.

Hon Ms Churley: Mel?

Mr Sutherland: I thought everything was perfect in North York.

Mr David Johnson: Mel. Mel Lastman is working to address that problem. What he's doing is that he's putting forward a platform to tell business, "Welcome to North York," encouraging business, helping business. I can tell you that if the mayor of North York was here today and could see some of the tax increases that are going through, which the members opposite are supporting, he wouldn't be happy. Indeed he would not be happy. That's my estimation, that he would not be happy about the minimum tax, because he knows that this is not the time to put any additional tax on business, when you have a 25% vacancy rate in your industrial area.

Unfortunately, in East York, the other municipality I represent, we have the same kind of vacancy rate. When you have office space downtown in the city of Toronto, a 30% vacancy rate in office space right about where we are here today, is that the time to be putting on more taxes? Is that the time to be putting the kind of tax we're looking at here, a corporate minimum tax, on businesses? I say no, it isn't. That's the time to be looking at a tax reduction. That's the time to say to the business community: "We're going to take a new approach. We're going to reduce taxes. We're going to work with you. We're going to encourage you."

Mr Sutherland: Bet you there isn't any vacant land in Mississauga, is there?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please.

Mr David Johnson: The member opposite is talking about vacant land, but if the member will pay attention, I'm talking about vacant buildings. I'm not just talking about vacant land; I'm talking about vacant buildings. There are vacant buildings right across this province of Ontario. I'm distressed that the parliamentary assistant doesn't recognize that, that this is news.

I can tell you why there are vacant buildings, why rents are going down in vacant buildings. The reason is because the economy that we have in the province of Ontario is non-competitive. Businesses cannot compete. Businesses need encouragement. They need a reduction in the employer health tax. They need a reduction in workers' compensation.

Do you know that in the province of Ontario we have the highest workers' compensation rate in all of Canada? People may say that can't be true, but if you look at the statistics, we're higher than Newfoundland. Newfoundland is the next province in terms of the workers' compensation premiums. Here in Ontario we pay over $3 per $100 of payroll; for every $100 of payroll, there's over $3 paid to workers' compensation. Newfoundland is just a little bit less, perhaps 10 cents less than that.

You may ask, what do businesses in the other provinces across Canada pay? The answer is that there's a big drop, a substantial drop beyond what the businesses pay here in Ontario. For example, next door in the province of Quebec it drops down to just over $2, perhaps $2.20. It's the better part of $1 less per $100 of payroll. That adds up. That's one of the reasons our businesses have trouble.

Why don't we look at that? Why don't we take measures to address that? Do you know what would happen if we put in place policies that would reduce the taxes on businesses? Businesses would be more competitive with Quebec and more competitive with the United States and Manitoba and other provinces. They would be more successful. They would hire more people. Then we would have more taxpayers, because we'd have more people who are being employed.

I'm really very optimistic about our economy and our ability to generate jobs and to be successful, but the economy now has a ball and chain around its ankle. That ball and chain is called taxes, and that's what has to be reduced.

Those are the two main issues I wish to raise. On the issue of the deductibility of meals and entertainment, it will have a negative effect on many small businesses, many small restaurants, and it will have a negative effect on many people employed. I just hope we recognize that many people will lose their jobs because it's not as attractive any more and there'll be less business.

I also wanted to bring to the attention of the House that the corporate minimum tax, while again a seemingly attractive proposal, is another tax and another signal from this government that business is not welcome. Unlike the mayor of North York, who has taken an approach to support business, unlike the borough of East York, which has taken an approach to support business, this is another tax and another disincentive. I'm sorry.

Just as I close, I think there's a requirement on members to be fair, and I hope I have been fair in my comments. I will say that the government has implemented a couple of measures in this bill that I applaud. One of them is that the manufacturing and processing tax rate has been reduced from 14.5% to 13.5%. That comes out of the 1992 budget, so it's about two years ago. But that's the kind of thing that we should be looking at, and that applies to mining, farming, logging and fishing as well.

Hon Mr Pouliot: We could have passed this one in a week.

Mr David Johnson: All right, I tip my hat to you. That was a good thing to do. Small business deduction: The corporate tax rate applied on the first $200,000 of active business income earned by eligible companies has also been reduced, from 10% to 9.5%. That was way back in May 1992, so that's perhaps an old story, but again I tip my hat. That's the kind of thing you should be doing. Forget about the tax increases; now is not the time. Do a few more tax decreases such as I've outlined here.

1730

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Perruzza: I want to refer back to two things the member said. I can't help but label the two things, really, as providing information to this place out of sheer convenience. I know the member is new in this place, but I've listened to him on other occasions and he's generally very forthright in the kind of information he brings to this place, but I can't help today but feel I have to correct two specific areas where the member sold out some of his finer qualities for political rhetoric.

I want to go back to the study he introduced in here. I'll point out to the member that everything you say in this House is recorded and can be re-read at leisure or for information purposes in the future. To come in here and introduce a study commissioned by some restaurant association or some eateries who paid for that study, to bring it into this place and use it as factual information to try to make a point is beyond me. If one of the New Democrats on this side had tried it, they would have raked us over the coals. They would have taken us outside this place and dragged us around the streets till we bled. They would never, ever have permitted us to do that. I would wish that in his two-minute response he would go back and completely take back some of the comments he made with respect to that budget.

The other is McDonald's. If you follow his arguments, McDonald's is going to be out of business tomorrow. I say to him, he's going to be one of the billion people who's going to be able to eat at McDonald's in future.

Mr McLean: I want to comment briefly on the remarks of my colleague the member for Don Mills. I want to congratulate him on the appointment as our Finance critic. He will do an excellent job with the knowledge and background he has; he's perfectly set for it. I want to tell you, Mr Johnson, that I will take your comments ahead of the member for Downsview's any day as being fact.

Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, is a major bill. There are some 75 pages in this bill. Today I had the opportunity to make a statement in the Legislature about TRW in Penetanguishene that's closing the plant, laying off 270 employees. This type of legislation, increased taxes on businesses, is exactly helping companies like that to make the decision to leave. It is not good business. It's not good to be taxing corporations the extra money.

This bill also has provisions in it which will hurt the tourism industry with regard to entertainment and meals. It's reduced, I believe, from 80% to 50%.

There are others: The WCB premiums that we've had increased in this province is another move on the people out there who are sick and tired of being taxed to death; the employer health tax on small corporations, small businesses under $400,000.

There are ways to stimulate the economy. My member spoke on many of those ways that that can be done. These people over here are not listening. You've got to tax less. What we're doing here today is simply taxing more. It's unacceptable. You talk to those 270 people in Penetanguishene who are out of work today and see what they have to say about your increased taxes.

Mr Peter North (Elgin): I would enjoy taking a two-minute opportunity to participate in this debate. I wanted to go over a few of the things that have been mentioned this afternoon.

First of all, the member for Downsview speaks of the study that was referred to, and studies are used all the time in the ministries. I know I used them in the Tourism ministry.

This bill has to do with taxation and taxation on small business. To be honest, some sections of the bill are good. Section 14 deals with the small business tax from 10% to 9.5%. That's certainly a positive thing to have happen. Section 16 deals with an amendment to section 43 of the act, a 1992 budget proposal to decrease from 14.5% to 13.5% on mining, logging, fishing and some of those other areas. That's certainly good as well.

There is a section, section 9, which deals with the tourism industry, which is of some difficulty, I know. I've been told by people in the tourism industry that they're disappointed that we will be removing the opportunity to pay from 80% down to 50% as a write-off on their insurance.

In summary, I'd like to say that this particular bill is a bill that deals with taxation. It's a bill that all parties have had discussions about. This isn't the first time that there have been taxes in this province and it certainly won't be the last. I see it as something that Elgin would like to see balance on.

If you look at the you-brew industry and if you look at the tobacco industry, we can see that by moving taxation down, rather than up, there are positive things that will happen. We have some of those things in this particular issue and we have lost some of those things in this particular issue.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I'd like to compliment my friend the member for Don Mills, because certainly his speech showed a great deal of wisdom and insight and research, unlike that which preceded it. Before, we had a Liberal speaker who was ranting and raving about how everything has gone to hell in a handbasket because of this government.

On the other hand, the 45,000 jobs created by Jobs Ontario skills training or the salvation of Algoma Steel of course had nothing to with this government whatsoever. Somehow we can accept all of the blame but take none of the credit.

My friend speaks very articulately of how government can work, how taxation policies can work. He of course speaks from his perspective, which would allow business executives, would allow corporations to have huge tax write-offs, tax write-offs to go to La Scala, tax write-offs to go to the most expensive of restaurants and to write those things off somehow as legitimate expenses.

When the constituents in my riding go to McDonald's or Swiss Chalet, somehow they're not able to write that off on their taxes. They're not able to write off that 55-cent coffee on their taxes. But somehow the tourist industry in our province will become bankrupt unless executives have this extra compensation. I think most people in this province would agree with and understand that everyone should be paying their fair share, and everyone includes corporations, corporations that presently can earn billions and billions of dollars in profits and pay next to nothing or nothing at all.

I want to thank my colleague and I look forward to his concluding remarks.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions and comments. The honourable member for Don Mills has two minutes in response.

Mr David Johnson: I'm a little bit overwhelmed by the response, but I could say to the member for Durham Centre, bear in mind that it's not all big companies. There are some very small companies that could use this entertainment and meal deductibility. Many of these small companies do not have a boardroom, do not have a meeting room. There's nowhere for them to meet to swing deals or to talk business, so they go out to a restaurant. That's quite a common aspect. Think about that: There are some small businesses.

Interjection: What about the waiters and waitresses?

Mr David Johnson: As my colleague says, think about the waiters and the waitresses and the jobs. But at any rate, I appreciate your comments.

I appreciate the comments of the member for Simcoe East. This is a very difficult day for the member because of TRW, the 270 jobs that are lost. The member is representing his constituency very capably and he's very concerned about that. His concern, as he's enunciated it, is bang on, that what contributes to this kind of situation across the province of Ontario is high taxes, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, all of those kinds of problems.

I particularly appreciate the comments of the member for Elgin. He said in closing that this bill has some good aspects, that some taxes are down and that we should be looking at other alternatives for putting down. He's bang on. Good comment.

1740

The member for Downsview -- who has now left; I don't know where he is -- but he calls restaurants "eateries," and he has no respect, as far as I can see it, for the private sector in terms of coming forward with a responsive study, which they have done in this particular case, and I have a lot more respect for the private sector in terms of the studies and in terms of the business community.

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Before we resume second reading debate on Bill 146, I beg to inform the House that in the name of Her Majesty the Queen, His Honour the Lieutenant Governor has been pleased to assent to certain bills in his office.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): The following is the title of the bill to which His Honour has assented:

Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards / Projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

The Acting Speaker: We now proceed with further debate. The honourable member for Mississauga North.

Mr Offer: I'm pleased to rise and join in the debate on Bill 146. Let me say at the outset that I am opposed to the bill for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is that higher taxes are not the way to economic prosperity.

As you know, my riding of Mississauga North contains a variety of communities, all very important unto themselves and as they make up the riding and in the city of Mississauga -- the communities of Malton and Meadowvale and Meadowvale Village, Streetsville, East Credit, to name a few. All of those communities, no matter where you travel, the people within those communities are very concerned about the high incidence of taxation at the provincial level.

As we come to this Legislature on Mondays, after travelling to a variety of events on the Fridays, the Saturdays and the Sundays and through the week, the message is clear: We are fed up with the high incidence of taxation.

The level of taxation has reached a point where it is forcing people not to purchase, where it is pushing people into what is called the underground economy. For the provincial government not to recognize that this is indeed the impact of any new taxes on the system is folly on their part. They must recognize that, now, the more they tax, the less they receive; that people want to make this province work. They're asking the province, they're asking the Bob Rae government to listen to what they are saying.

Interjection.

Mr Offer: There is, Mr Speaker, as you can hear, a member on the government side chirping about. They chirp every time one speaks against a bill that imposes taxes on the people of the province of Ontario.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): More health tax. Remember that.

Mr Offer: He continues to chirp. Eventually, the next election, he will find himself falling out of the nest.

The fact of the matter is that the people of the province are saying to Bob Rae and to their government that a bill such as this, Bill 146, is one which is not needed and unnecessary in this province; that it is one which adds to the tax burden; that it is one which sends out the wrong type of message; that you cannot build economic prosperity on the backs of the people of this province. Indeed, this is what this bill is going to accomplish.

It is a bill on which I have heard from my constituents. They have said no to the implementation of this legislation. They have said no to increased taxes. Bob Rae and his NDP minions continue to foist more taxes on the people, not only in Mississauga North but indeed throughout the province of Ontario.

It is a piece of legislation which I will not support. If we want to rebuild the economy through the ridiculous policies of this provincial government, we must stop tax increases. We must, in fact, look to tax reduction. We must tell the people of the province that we have confidence and faith in the message that they are giving to us.

Bob Rae and his NDP government continue to turn their backs on the people of the province. They continue to say that their opinion and their thoughts as to what are in the best interests of the province are things that we are not going to listen to. I do not agree with Bob Rae and his government. I will not be supporting this piece of legislation. It is again increasing taxes at a time which will, without question, be a detriment to any economic growth in this province.

The Acting Speaker: We have now reached the time where a deferred vote is scheduled to be addressed.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This will be a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1746 to 1751.

The Acting Speaker: Would all members please take their seats.

Mr Laughren has moved second reading of Bill 110. All those in favour, please rise one at a time to be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Laughren's motion will please rise one at a time and be identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills). Jordan, McClelland, McLean, Miclash, North, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Ruprecht, Turnbull, Witmer.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 61; the nays are 25. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: The bill is ordered for committee of the whole House.

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

The Acting Speaker: We now continue and resume second reading debate of Bill 146. The honourable member for Mississauga North had the floor.

Mr Offer: As I was in my remarks before that brief interlude where we voted on another piece of legislation, I was trying to make the point that this surely is a time when any increased taxes are going to be an impediment to any economic prosperity. Surely we recognize that in the last budget a series of new taxes was announced by the government, but there was also a series of what are called non-tax revenue generators or initiatives, and I happen to have a list of those from the 1993 budget.

This is the week that the Minister of Finance is going to be announcing the new budget.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. There is a great deal of noise in the Legislature. It makes it very difficult to hear the honourable member.

Mr Offer: I believe the taxes and the tax policy of this government have resulted in an impediment to the growth of areas such as mine in Mississauga North, the city of Mississauga, the region of Peel and indeed throughout the province of Ontario.

But it goes even beyond the tax policy of the government when one takes a look at the non-tax revenue initiatives as referred to in the budget of 1993-94: increased fees for general motor vehicle and licence fees, snowmobile registration fees, subdivision approvals, increased technical standards fees, increased land registration fees, Assessment Review Board fees. We know the government has introduced legislation which imposes provincial sales tax on your premiums for your policy of insurance.

The point I make is that no matter what we call these things, whether they be called a non-tax revenue initiative, a non-tax revenue generator or taxes, for the people of the province they are dollars out of their pockets. That has an effect on the growth of this province, and it is negative. People are fed up with the level of taxation the government has imposed upon them. They are fed up with being told that in one area they are called taxes, in another area they are called fees, in another area they are called non-tax revenue initiatives. To the people not only in my riding but I believe throughout the province, that is money out of their pockets and it has an effect on their purchasing power. It has an effect on the growth of the province of Ontario.

It is for that reason that I am so against this particular piece of legislation, against this particular bill, because that is not the way to build economic prosperity in this province. Rather, we have to take a look at some of the suggestions that, for instance, were outlined in my leader's report on the task force on jobs, some ideas such as saying we can together make this place, this province of Ontario, North America's leading economy, that we can get Ontario working again, that we can reduce taxes 1% per year to 5% over the next mandate, that we can say to the people not only of the province but beyond its borders that Ontario stands as a place where people can do business, where people can start businesses, where they can expand existing businesses, and government will not stand in their way; that government, apart from standing in their way, will embrace the new ideas, the new energy, the entrepreneurship that is experienced by so many people in this province.

Unfortunately, the current government has a series of policies which do stand in the way of young people, of people throughout the range in our province who want to take a chance, who want to create jobs. Bills such as the one we are debating today create further hurdles. They create a further burden on the initiative of people in this province, on the spirit of entrepreneurship.

For that, I am opposed to this legislation. For that, I believe this bill to be wrong. For that, I would hope the members of this Legislature, including members of the government, would say and see that bills such as this cause problems, cause a province not to grow. We have to start reducing the impediments to economic prosperity in this province. We can do so by voting against this bill.

The Acting Speaker: It now being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow, May 3, at 1:30 pm.

The House adjourned at 1800.

May 2, 1994

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

LESTER B. PEARSON COLLEGIATE INSTITUTE

STORMONT AGRICULTURAL OFFICE

ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS

CLOSING OF CAMPGROUNDS

EDUCATION AND TRAINING WEEK

ELIZABETH FRY SOCIETY

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY

PLANT CLOSURE

TEACHER INTERNSHIP

VISITOR

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

MINISTERIAL STATEMENTS

VISIT OF QUEBEC PREMIER

ORAL QUESTIONS

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

HEALTH INSURANCE

ASSISTED HOUSING

OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN

FRENCH-LANGUAGE COLLEGE

SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

ASSISTED HOUSING

SECURITY AT CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES

SOFT DRINK CONTAINERS

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

HEALTH CARE

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

EMERGENCY SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

FIREARMS SAFETY

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

CASINO GAMBLING

CANCER TREATMENT

FIREARMS SAFETY

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

ENTERPRISE PUBLIC SCHOOL

GAMBLING

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

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

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

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