Hansard Transcript 1994-Jun-14 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): Last Friday was a great day for the Barrhaven-Longfields community in my riding. After many, many years of waiting, we finally received the exciting news that the government has approved two high schools for this rapidly growing neighbourhood of some 25,000 people.

The Catholic and public school boards had put a Barrhaven-Longfields high school first and second, respectively, on their capital priority list. To the credit of the Minister of Education and Training, he accepted the boards' recommendations, and I wish to express publicly to Mr Cooke my thanks and the gratitude of my community for his decision.

When the minister, last April, responded to a letter from me on this subject, I was encouraged by the positive tone of his communication. I was truly delighted, and so was all of Barrhaven, when his final decision was announced last Friday and two high schools received the go-ahead from the provincial government.

Over the past weekend, we celebrated Barrhaven Community Day with a parade, a fair and other neighbourhood events. The approval of two high schools was the best news we could get in time for this annual event, and I wish to thank the Minister of Education again for making this year's Barrhaven Community Day more memorable than ever.

HERSHEY CANADA YOUTH TRACK AND FIELD MEET

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On Saturday, June 4, I was presented with this T-shirt as I joined the 520 students who participated in the fourth annual Hershey Canada youth track meet in Smiths Falls. The number has steadily increased over the years from approximately 150 starting out. Students aged 9 to 14 from Lanark county and Renfrew county districts took part in a full day's program designed to develop winning minds and healthy lifestyles.

This year, students were fortunate to receive coaching and training advice from an exceptional Canadian athlete, Glen Roy Gilbert. Mr Gilbert participated on three Canadian Olympic teams and was the seventh Canadian Olympian to compete on both the summer and winter teams in one year. I commend Mr Gilbert for spending the entire day with the young competitors and providing them with an outstanding role model for fitness and excellence.

I also commend the plant manager of the Hershey plant in Smiths Falls, Stan Darcy, and the Hershey corporation for sponsoring this great event. Since the first youth track meet in Hershey, Pennsylvania, in 1975, this company has provided the invaluable community service of encouraging young people to live healthy and balanced lives. I am pleased to see this kind of good corporate citizenship continue for the young people of Lanark and Renfrew county, who once again had the opportunity to win through participation.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I would like to draw the attention of the House to a brochure that I recently received in the mail from the honourable leader of the official opposition. This brochure makes very interesting reading.

It's about Bill 91, the Agricultural Labour Relations Act. Ms McLeod claims that under this legislation "family members, including uncles, aunts and nephews, working on farms could be forced to join unions." Now, Bill 91 specifically exempts family members defined as "spouse, child, sibling, parent or grandchild of the employer" from the provisions of any collective agreement that may be reached between employer and employees, including seniority provisions. Nobody is forced to join a union, least of all uncles etc. Surely the leader of the opposition should know that.

The brochure gets even more interesting. Ms McLeod claims, "There is no provision to prevent strike action against family farms," yet section 14 of the act says clearly, "No employee shall strike or threaten a strike," and section 15 goes on to say that, "No trade union...shall call or authorize or threaten...a strike and no...official or agent of a trade union...shall counsel, procure, support or encourage a strike."

Has Ms McLeod read the bill? Has she understood it? Or is she seeking to sow fear in the hearts of the farming community by making such outrageous claims, full well knowing that they are not valid?

This brochure is an insult to the intelligence of the farmers and to rural Ontario.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): Normally, the birth of a first child to a couple and the arrival of a grandmother from outside this country is a celebration. Not so for a couple in Brampton. They brought their mother here. They wisely sought out $25,000 worth of insurance to cover any eventualities, medical needs. She had no previous complaints whatsoever. She came here and unfortunately suffered a stroke.

She entered Toronto Hospital, figuring $25,000 would cover her needs, and it turned out that it wasn't enough. She suffered a further stroke there, and the hospital is now looking for the balance, after the $25,000, of some $100,000.

This young couple, who live in an apartment and have one child, are going to be required to declare bankruptcy because of this event.

We hear all sorts of things here of people coming into this country and getting health care and never having to pay for it. Here's a couple who took wise steps to try to provide for their 71-year-old mother, who died.

I've sent two letters to the Minister of Health. I sent one to her on April 25, explaining the entire event, and I sent another one to her -- I handed it to her in the House -- on May 25. I have yet to receive an answer from the minister.

Is this the way the government operates? Is it only when there's great publicity to be garnered from helping people? These people in Brampton deserve your help and I suggest that the Minister of Health please answer. At least say yes or no.

I'll deliver these as well, Mr Speaker, over to the minister.

1340

PHYSIOTHERAPISTS

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): This year marks the 30th anniversary of the formation of the Ontario Physiotherapy Association as the Canadian physiotherapy professionals' first provincial branch on May 21, 1964.

A critically important part of modern health care delivery, physiotherapy prevents, identifies and corrects movement dysfunction. Physiotherapists are employed in a wide range of settings, including acute and extended care hospitals, rehabilitation and mental health centres, private clinics, government and community agencies.

Physiotherapists play a central role in a multidisciplinary approach to total health care and rehabilitation. The profession also specializes in preventive health care through education and community-based delivery services. Offering an alternative approach to health care, physiotherapists employ a dynamic rehabilitation model of treatment that seeks to enhance quality of life and increase the independence of its patients.

The Regulated Health Professions Act now defines physiotherapists as primary health care professionals who don't require a physician's referral to provide treatment. Some needless barriers to primary access still remain, such as the requirement for referrals under schedule 5 of OHIP, the Workers' Compensation Board and the Public Hospitals Act. Potential conflict of interest must also be examined where physiotherapy clinics are run by those who are not members of the profession. I call on this government to address these concerns as soon as possible.

I join with all my colleagues to congratulate the Ontario physiotherapists on 30 years of excellence in health care delivery in this province. We pledge to continue to work with physiotherapy professionals to develop cost-effective and commonsense ways to meet the health care challenges of the future.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Last Thursday, the halls of this building echoed with the word "shame" shouted in unison by hundreds of citizens and heard in every corner of the province: Shame on all of us politicians for failing to uphold the human rights of same-sex relationships.

To me, it was one of the bleakest days in the history of this House. Politics prevailed over justice, common sense gave in to ignorance, and decency lost to ignominy.

I was shocked by some of the offensive remarks made during the debate in this House. It astounds me that some members refused to reflect logically about the issue, preferring instead to give vent to their worst instincts and fears. I see this as an abdication of our duty as legislators.

Amid all of this, I was moved by the impassioned appeals made on behalf of gays and lesbians and their families by many members. In particular, I want to thank Mr Poirier for delivering the most moving speech I have heard in this House in years. Rarely have such words of respect for our fellow human beings been uttered in this place with such simplicity and conviction.

I salute the gay and lesbian people for their leadership and determination. The debate in which they engaged us has been a source of enlightenment for many people from all walks of life. The rights of same-sex relationships have been advanced significantly by this debate in spite of its conclusion.

I join Mr Poirier in his exhortation, "Vive la différence."

MULTICULTURAL EVENTS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Recently, we enjoyed a weekend in Mississauga where groups got together under the name and the banner of Carassauga, which was to celebrate all activities that go on in the multicultural community throughout our community.

Last night, the member for Brampton North hosted, along with our leader in caucus, a reception for folks from Brampton, who are leading up to the Carabram festivities, and of course we have Caravan coming up in the GTA in the Toronto area.

The purpose of telling you about this is to say that this is a real opportunity to foster understanding among the various communities in our city and indeed around the province, an opportunity for us to enjoy the many different cultures, the food and a little bit of the liquid refreshment from time to time.

In my own community, we had 17 pavilions that were set up around the entire city. My wife and I were able to attend at 14 of them before we ran out of steam on the Sunday and ran out of time.

Every year, this is an opportunity for us to get to know one another in the community, to enjoy the positive aspects of family life with the many different groups. This year, in Mississauga, we actually had an Ontario pavilion, where we learned about early life in Ontario with the settlers, and it was a great success in our city. I look forward to Brampton's and to Caravan in Toronto.

AGRICULTURAL LABOUR POLICY

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Recently, I received this card in the mail, which must be an embarrassment to the Liberal Party. The card is actually coming from Lyn McLeod, the leader of the Liberals. As we know, when a Liberal puts something down on paper, we ask ourselves, "Can you trust them?" Recent events would say not.

The issue is Bill 91. When the NDP first introduced this bill in July 1993, I was the only critic from any party to say that a PC government would immediately scrap the bill. The Liberal Labour critic, the member for Mississauga West, refused to make that commitment. During the Bill 40 debate, only the PC Party moved an amendment to exempt agriculture. The Liberals had the same chance and did nothing.

Why did they fail to act? you ask. Today, the Liberals claim they want to restore the exemption. Where were they? They were absent when they had chance to do it. We cannot trust them. Why is it that everyone close to the issue knows that the discussions that led to Bill 91 began in 1986, under a Liberal government? Is that why the Liberal Opposition Day motion on April 5 of this year only called on the government to redraft Bill 91? We said we would scrap it.

It is only now that some Liberals have said they are opposed to Bill 91, but if Lyn McLeod is opposed today, she probably would not be tomorrow. That's the Liberal policy.

Make no mistake: Even Lyn McLeod's card declares that Liberals intend to unionize the family farm.

The facts are obvious. The Liberals failed to do their homework on Bill 91. They intend to unionize the family farm. They cannot be trusted.

SYDENHAM STREET UNITED CHURCH

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): On Saturday, June 18, the congregation of Sydenham Street United will launch a public appeal to raise money to restore the 142-year-old church. The estimated cost of restoring stone, mortar and wood beams is $600,000, which shows the commitment of the congregation to ensuring that their building will continue to be an important landmark in the Kingston area.

But it's much more than a building. It's a dynamic group of men, women and children which, in the words of the 35th and current minister, Bill Hendry, continues a spirit that has always been one of giving and welcoming to all members of the community.

Certainly I've felt welcomed at special services I've attended, as well as concerts, both in the church proper and the hall. I vividly recall the singing of the choir from Kingston's Chinese community as they celebrated their New Year in the church hall. Like many other parents in the community, I've listened anxiously while my daughter has taken her Royal Conservatory of Music piano exams.

Music is obviously an important activity at Sydenham Street United. The choir director and organist, F.R.C. Clarke, not only leads a first-rate choir but also adds to our musical heritage through his composing.

But Sydenham's community involvement goes far beyond music. It is an important meeting place for Alcoholics Anonymous and Alanon, as well as the Helen Tufts tutorial program for disadvantaged children. With other groups, it provides food vouchers, counselling and friendship to Kingston residents in times of need.

Obviously, these activities can and do go on at other locations in our community. We have only to step outside the legislative building to see the multimillion-dollar restoration program under way at Queen's Park. We support the restoring of our Parliament building because it's important to our province's political heritage.

So it is with Sydenham United Church. By restoring their building, the congregation now is reaffirming the commitment of the small group of Methodists who decided to build the original church. But most importantly, they are carrying on the tradition of giving and welcoming to all members of the community into the future.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, members of the consular corp stationed in Toronto, representing 12 countries. Welcome to our chamber.

CORRECTION

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I rise with regard to a petition I gave on primary health care in this House last week.

On Thursday, June 9, I read a petition regarding primary health care which I had erroneously attributed to the nurse practitioners of Ontario. The petition should in fact be attributed to the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

I wish to express my apologies to the nurse practitioners' association of Ontario for any inconvenience this may have caused, and would like the record to reflect that the proper sponsor of that particular petition is the Ontario College of Family Physicians.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Before I ask the question, my question was supposed to be for the Solicitor General, who is not here. The other lead question was for the Minister of Education and Training, who is not here. We were advised that both ministers would be here.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member will know that it is not appropriate to identify members who are not present. I would ask that he place his question.

Mr Chiarelli: In the absence of the Solicitor General, I'll ask my question to the Attorney General. Hopefully, she will be apprised of what's happening in this particular area.

The minister will no doubt acknowledge that there's broad public consensus demanding that governments act, and act now, to curb violence in our communities. In response to this consensus, our caucus supported the introduction of a private member's bill, Bill 151, to control the purchase and sale of ammunition in Ontario.

This bill was debated on April 21 and MPPs from all parties voted in favour of this particular bill in principle and voted to refer it to the justice committee.

I see that the Solicitor General is now here. Minister, and I'm addressing this to the Solicitor General, on several occasions you personally left the clear impression in this Legislature that you supported this bill in principle but your main concern was whether it was constitutional. This was also stated explicitly by the Attorney General's parliamentary assistant in second reading debate.

The justice committee has now heard from two constitutional law experts that the province has clear authority to legislate in this area, and there's no doubt about that, yet last night at 5 pm your NDP members of the standing committee on administration of justice presented recommendations that would leave this whole area up to the federal government, with the province doing nothing to control the purchase and sale of ammunition.

Minister, you have the authority and you have a bill before you which was approved in principle. Why won't you show leadership and legislate in this area?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Once again, we see the Liberals asking for a certain process to take place and then, when they're not satisfied with something or other, they change their minds and decide, no, they want it to be dealt with here and now in the House. That's pretty consistent with what we saw last week.

I will say again that we committed to the process because we sincerely wanted to have the kind of debate that is taking place in committee. I think we need to let the committee report. I have said very clearly that this government is very supportive of the issue of more responsible regulation of access to and control of ammunition, and we will follow up on that.

But I do think that if I did not wait until that report, which is due very shortly, within days or within a couple of weeks, then you, the honourable member, would be on your feet saying that it was a charade, that we weren't really interested in listening and that we were just playing games. I suggest to you, through the Speaker, that you're playing games with this and you're continuing to play games with it.

Mr Chiarelli: Minister, you have instructed your members of that committee to hijack the process. It's not the opposition. Minister, there's a broad public consensus for governments to act in this area. The Legislature has voted in principle to support the control of the purchase and sale of ammunition.

Minister, I want you to pay attention to the following advice from Mrs Priscilla de Villiers, from the victims' rights group CAVEAT, Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination:

"I would urge you to take the leadership here.... Ontario has a huge population in Canada, has a big voice...assist us as we pound on the gates.... I would urge you please to take the leadership role."

That's what she told your members of the committee.

Also, Constable Tom Whitehead of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force:

"I think the legislation that is being talked about and considered is going to make a difference.... I feel that it's a step in the right direction to help myself as a police officer and to help the citizens of this county."

Scott Newark of the Canadian Police Association: "Ontario should take a leadership role."

On second reading, Minister, the parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General:

"So who could possibly oppose greater restriction of the sale of ammunition? I certainly can't. Most people I know couldn't oppose further restriction of ammunition sales. However, we do have to be mindful, and I think that the member for Ottawa West is mindful, that there are some constitutional challenges here."

Those constitutional challenges have been met. There's no problem constitutionally. That's what the committee was told.

The Speaker: Does the member have a question?

Mr Chiarelli: My question is this: In light of these comments, Minister, why are you instructing NDP justice committee members to cool it on controlling ammunition sales in the province of Ontario?

Hon Mr Christopherson: The only thing that has been hijacked around here is whatever was left of the credibility and integrity of the Ontario Liberal Party. We continue to see that here today.

Let me be very clear, because the member is having a great deal of difficulty understanding some very simple principles.

First of all, this government is very supportive of the issue of putting more responsible control around the issue of ammunition.

Second, we agreed that because of the importance of this issue to the public, and I think to all parliamentarians here, we needed to have an all-party, non-partisan discussion at a legislative committee and to do it as quickly as possible, and we're doing that.

Third, we have said that the primary responsibility is obviously that of the federal government. If they don't move in this area, then the Ontario government needs to, provided we have the constitutional ability to do that. If, however, the federal government is going to take responsibility and move very quickly, then it's redundant for any province to move on its own legislation unless the federal government is taking longer than we think is appropriate or necessary.

But to stand up here today and talk about "Why haven't we done anything? and "Why are there delays?" is just another example of how you want to have integrity when you stand up in here, yet when you go out and work the process, you want to change it all to suit yourself. This is a bogus allegation that he's making, and he knows that. I say again on behalf of this government, we're very supportive --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- of the issue of ammunition control, and we'll prove it to you.

Mr Chiarelli: Notwithstanding that harangue, I happen to think you're one of the better ministers on that side of the House. However, you have a tendency sometimes to be very bureaucratic.

We're not talking about hypothetical or academic questions here. I was told several weeks ago by the owner of a hunting and fishing store in my riding on Carling Avenue in Ottawa that he has no problem selling ammunition to a 15-, 16- or 17-year-old student. As well, last month a Scarborough high school student was found in school carrying a backpack loaded with ammunition for an AK-47 assault rifle, ammunition which can be purchased over the counter by a 14-, 15- or 16-year-old in Ontario.

Minister, you don't have the luxury to write to the federal government to ask it to control over-the-counter ammunition and to wait for some future action. You have the obligation, you have the authority and you have a bill before you to act now. Why don't you show the leadership? Why don't you instruct your members on the justice committee to move on Bill 151 and get this thing passed to respond to the people of Ontario?

Hon Mr Christopherson: First of all, let me say that I appreciate the compliment. I hope that, given recent experience, the member doesn't change his mind tomorrow, but I do with respect acknowledge the remark and thank him for that.

However, back to the issue. The fact of the matter is that I've made the commitment on behalf of this government. We will honour that commitment. The question now is, what's the best way to proceed in the interest of public safety? I would like and I would think all members of this House would like the benefit of our legislative all-party committee that has taken the time to look at this in detail and report back to us. Then, when I respond on behalf of this government to the recommendations in that report, we can have this debate. But until that happens, let's let our honourable colleagues do the job we set for them to do rather than change the process in midstream, which the Liberals continue to want to do on this particular issue.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Minister of Education in the absence of the Minister of Labour. I think it's an issue he may have some interest in or some knowledge of.

My question concerns the Golden Key Centre for Learning, which is the school of choice for the Workers' Compensation Board to send its workers for retraining. This Golden Key Centre is located in Richmond Hill. According to its promotional material, it is designated as a private school inspected by the Ministry of Education and provides programs to prepare adults for entry into community colleges.

The curious thing is that it seems the Ministry of Education has never heard of the Golden Key Centre for Learning, and until they received calls from my office and my colleague Mr Kwinter's office, the Ministry of Education had indeed, contrary to their statements, never inspected this school. Yet this school is issuing certificates -- I have one here fresh off a word processor -- granting grade 12 equivalency to its students.

1400

Minister, why is the WCB referring injured workers to a school to upgrade their academic qualifications when that school is not a recognized institution by your ministry and in fact has no business issuing certificates that claim that their students have achieved grade 12 equivalency?

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I will want to get the information from the ministry and from the Ministry of Labour before I try to answer the question. I'd certainly be interested in seeing the certificate that the member is referring to. He will understand that there is a difference between a certificate that an institution might issue and a secondary school diploma that would be issued with the sanction of the Ministry of Education and Training. There is quite a difference, but I certainly would like to check into the comments that the member has made.

Mr Mahoney: I'll be happy to send you a copy of this. It states right on it that it is a grade 12 equivalency. I can appreciate the fact that this should more appropriately perhaps go to the Minister of Labour, but your ministry is very much involved in inspecting these schools that are claiming to be issuing certificates that are indeed equivalent to grade 12.

An even more curious thing -- and you might check into this too, Minister -- about the Golden Key Centre for Learning is that all of their adult students are referrals by the Workers' Compensation Board. Small wonder, actually, because they charge the WCB $1,350 per student per month. By comparison, the Peel Board of Education would charge an adult student for the same course a cost of $50 for the entire course, a portion of which is refundable when the books are returned.

The Toronto Board of Education would charge anywhere from $10 to $30, depending on the course, and injured workers graduating from these courses would have something to show for their work: a legitimate diploma recognized by your ministry and by post-secondary institutions.

Minister, will you, along with your Minister of Labour, instruct the Workers' Compensation Board to refer their injured workers that they send out for retraining to a public board of education so that the courses are up to your ministry's standards and so that the Workers' Compensation Board can save tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of dollars in retraining costs?

Hon Mr Cooke: As I indicated to the member, I certainly will check into the situation. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare the $1,300 to the $50 or $10, since with the courses that are offered at the public school system, there would be additional costs to the program that would be picked up through either the local levy of property taxes or provincial money, but more likely the local levy. So the comparison wouldn't be entirely fair. But I want to get more information about the situation before I comment about the specifics.

Mr Mahoney: Minister, we're going to be debating later today a major bill on reforming the Workers' Compensation Board, and I recognize that your responsibility is in the Ministry of Education, but this is an agency under your control that is referring workers out for retraining to an institution that is approved by that agency, which claimed to have the blessing of your ministry and which is charging $1,350 per student per month, as opposed to a $50 cost by a public board which obviously is endorsed by your ministry.

The injured worker who brought this to my attention, through Mr Kwinter's office, is Mr Ronald Bowyer. Mr Bowyer has spent the last seven months at the Golden Key Centre, and he had no option in this matter. It was, "Attend this school or lose your benefits under the WCB." At $1,350 per month, the board has spent $9,450 for Mr Bowyer to earn this certificate right here, which is not even recognized by the Ministry of Education or any post-secondary institution.

You could have spent less than $50 and enrolled him in a public board. You could have enrolled 189 workers for $9,450.

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

Mr Mahoney: For that matter, you could have sent one to university, including all costs, including room and board.

I understand that the WCB presently has no process in place to monitor or approve educational institutions for their injured workers --

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

Mr Mahoney: -- not even anything as simple as contacting your ministry.

Minister, will you put the brakes on this reckless spending at the WCB and will you, along with the Minister of Labour and the Premier, ensure that injured workers are indeed sent to institutions for retraining that are recognized by your ministry?

Hon Mr Cooke: The short answer to that very long question is that I told the member that we would check into the situation and get the facts. The minister who is primarily responsible for the issue is the Minister of Labour. Between the two of us, we'll get the information. I wouldn't necessarily go by all of the so-called facts that the member has laid out for us.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. I'm disappointed that in a day that we're discussing Bill 165, the Minister of Labour's not here to respond to the questions. In his absence, I will go to the Minister of Finance.

Last fall, after an extensive study of the WCB, the management representatives of the PLMAC advised the government, and I want to quote:

"The workers' compensation in Ontario is in crisis. The system is already technically bankrupt and owes workers $11 billion more than it has money to pay them. Without fundamental reform, there will not be enough money to pay injured workers unless the taxpayers of Ontario assume the payments."

Further, the minister will know that the bond rating services have identified the WCB's unfunded liability and the failure of the government to come up with a sensible strategy for dealing with it as a cause for concern with respect to the province's credit rating.

I want to quote Walter Schroeder, the president of Dominion Bond Rating Service, who, in the Globe and Mail on November 8, 1993, said, "If the government doesn't deal with it, it could raise the province's debt rating level 15% to 20%."

Despite these warnings from the business community and from the bond rating people, Bill 165 does nothing to address the unfunded liability crisis. In fact, according to the bill and your best estimates, after 20 years, the unfunded liability is going to increase further to $13 billion.

Minister, given that the bill will increase the unfunded liability, can you tell us today how you can expect that this will not adversely affect Ontario's credit rating?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): The member raises an important issue, namely, the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board, which has been building for many, many years, as I'm sure she'd acknowledge.

When we were looking at the unfunded liability the board was heading for without any intervention on the part of government, it was obvious that by the year 2014, as I recall, the unfunded liability of the board at that point was going to be over $30 billion. It seems to me that was completely unacceptable, which is one reason the Premier's Labour-Management Advisory Committee was struck, to deal with that and many other issues.

Rather than casting it in a light of increasing the unfunded liability of the province, I think the member would agree that what we will accomplish by the changes that will be made at the WCB will be to reduce the unfunded liability from almost a dead certainty of over $30 billion, down to a level -- I think she used the number of $13 billion by that year, which seems to me to be a major accomplishment.

Mrs Witmer: Minister, you didn't answer my question, and that was, how can you expect that this will not adversely affect Ontario's credit rating? That's what I'd like to know. But the other issue we need to come back to is the fact that the management caucus of the PLMAC did have a proposal which would have allowed the unfunded liability to be eliminated by the year 2014, and that's what our objective needs to be.

Unfortunately, this bill you've introduced is still going to leave it at $13 billion, which is beyond what we have today, $11.5 billion. So this bill doesn't address the unfunded liability crisis at the WCB. I'm concerned because it will have an impact on workers in the future.

One of the elements in the bill is that you have increased for workers and given them $200 per month for those who are receiving awards for permanent partial disability. The public needs to know that this increase is being paid to all workers in the designated category regardless of need, and that's important.

1410

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

Mrs Witmer: This aspect is going to add $1.5 billion to the WCB's unfunded liability. Considering that the WCB had a cash flow shortage of $74 million in 1993, where are you going to find the money to pay the additional benefit?

Hon Mr Laughren: I hope the member will be fair in acknowledging the fact that on the advisory committee there was labour represented and management represented. One position a person could take is that since the Workers' Compensation Board is funded totally by employer contributions, therefore the unfunded liability should be resolved completely by increases in employer contributions. That isn't what came out of that committee. Fairminded people sitting on it recognized the fact that the assessment rates are already relatively high for employers in the province who contribute to the Workers' Compensation Board system.

At the same time, there are groups of workers out there who are not doing very well under our present system of compensation, the older workers for whom there's little chance that they will be rehabilitated. It was felt very strongly by most fairminded people that those folks should get an increase in their benefits. I don't think that's irresponsible; I think that's simply being fairminded.

Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, Minister, what you've done is you haven't even maintained the status quo at $11.5 billion; you've increased the unfunded liability to $13 billion. I guess the only person suffering the consequences at the end of the day might be the injured worker who because of the bankruptcy of the system receives no benefits whatsoever.

However, I want to be fair to you and your government, because the crisis we have today has been bequeathed to you by your predecessors in the Liberal Party, who expanded the unfunded liability from $2.7 billion to over $9 billion during their tenure.

What they did was to fully index benefits, a move which added $2 billion to the unfunded liability, and they introduced the future economic loss awards, which immediately added an additional $1 billion to the unfunded liability. However, at the time they did this, the Minister of Labour at that time, Gregory Sorbara, said: "The overall financial impact of these reforms will be revenue-neutral. They will reallocate resources within the workers compensation system to compensate for loss of earning ability and help focus our efforts on the priority of rehabilitation."

Minister, we know that hasn't happened. Will you explain, despite the fact that the PLMAC identified those FEL awards as a serious concern, why Bill 165 does not address this problem of the FEL awards?

Hon Mr Laughren: There are some specifics in the member's question that I prefer were dealt with by the Minister of Labour, but I would say to the member opposite that to put in perspective the number of $13 billion -- I'm not suggesting for a moment that this doesn't represent an increase from the unfunded liability today of $11 billion, but if you work backwards the way the actuaries do to net present value, that $13 billion in the year 2014 will be the equivalent of -- I don't have the study in front of me, but I seem to recall it will be the equivalent of something like $3 billion in net present value. I don't want to dismiss that or regard it as unimportant, but at the same time it really is, in terms of present-day value, a major reduction in the unfunded liability of the WCB.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's still $13 billion.

Hon Mr Laughren: Of course it's $13 billion, but in today's terms that is about $3 billion.

To be fair, you should acknowledge the fact that because employer contributions have not kept up with the payout of benefits by the WCB, what the board was headed for was an unfunded liability in excess of $30 billion. To put it in perspective, I believe this bill goes some way to reining in the growth in the unfunded liability of the board.

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is to the Minister of Housing, and it has to do with the purchase list for housing on the Toronto Islands.

According to information I've obtained, these people, whose claim to an existing house is in dispute, will be given the highest priority for purchasing new homes and land leases -- but remember, many disputed claims come from tenants who for years did not pay rent on their homes when Metro Toronto owned the land. The second priority is islanders who wish to move to another site. The third priority is residents of the islands' cooperative housing association, islanders with joint tenancy who wish to separate, and the adult children of island residents. The last priority, of course, is outsiders.

Yes, the tight NDP enclave on the Toronto Islands will be well protected. They will reap the benefits of Bill 61, which gave them the sweetheart deal of the century, with a-dollar-a-day rent, a-dollar-a-day land lease for 99 years. Indeed, those who were essentially squatters for years are being particularly well rewarded. They had a chance to save a pile of money and will now get first preference for purchasing a home.

Minister, do you agree with these priorities for the purchases of Toronto Island housing?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The member opposite, as a member of the Conservative Party, of course has always been dedicated to the destruction of housing on the Toronto Islands, though I wonder if her memory goes back far enough to recall that one Conservative member, who became the Conservative leader in this province for a short period of time -- I refer to Larry Grossman, of course -- was always in favour of continuing a community on the Toronto Islands.

It has also been a great bugaboo of this member and some other members of her party, and indeed some Liberal members, that when non-profit housing is developed and when communities are being preserved, there might be some people who might have voted for the NDP who would live in the housing involved. There are also some Conservatives and there are also some Liberals, and I hope she will begin to understand that situation.

The Toronto Islands community is like other communities. The people who live in it, who wish to continue to live in it and who wish to see it developed as a wonderful community within Metropolitan Toronto, supported, I might say, at this stage by the Metro government, contain all varieties of people: sizes, shapes, hair colours, ages, and indeed political parties.

Mrs Marland: The Toronto Islands are not like any other land waiting to be developed. The Toronto Islands are a park, for crying out loud.

It's no wonder that you, as minister, can't see the error of your government's ways when the policy adviser to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Mr Bill Freeman, is a Toronto Islander himself. It is no wonder that housing is planned for environmentally sensitive sites when Bill Freeman was also Ruth Grier's policy adviser on the GTA when she was Environment minister.

Mrs Grier's communications adviser, Madeleine McLaughlin, is a Toronto Islander, as are Ms McLaughlin's brothers, Frank and Terry McLaughlin, who also have summer homes there. Think about that. They also have homes in the city. So much for the government's arguments about housing people in need.

We already know the lawyer for the island trust, Bruce Lewis, is married to Minister Grier's chief of staff, who, like Mr Freeman and Ms McLaughlin, worked for Mrs Grier in the Environment and GTA portfolios when Bill 61 was being drafted and debated.

There are many more connections like these. These NDP members and their pals are getting the housing deal of the century in Toronto.

1420

How can we trust your government's judgement on the Toronto Islands when senior advisers to cabinet ministers, including the former Environment minister, have a vested interest in maintaining their cosy island community?

Hon Ms Gigantes: This begins to be ridiculous. To hear the member opposite speak, somebody who votes NDP shouldn't have a place to live in Ontario. I mean, you'd drive them right across the American border, I suppose, or up into James Bay. What is this nonsense? These are not questions being raised by the member for Mississauga South; these are a bunch of slanders which she wouldn't repeat outside the Legislature.

I'd like to call to her attention the fact that the Toronto Star carried a very careful and lengthy apology about an article which contained some of the so-called facts she is using in her rhetorical statements today. She might be well advised to refer back to the Toronto Star of last Thursday and see which facts she has wrong, again.

Mrs Marland: If this minister would like to go through the list I've given today and tell me that those people don't own houses on the island and don't own properties in Toronto, and at the same breath say they still want to provide housing for the poor, the people in need -- that's what's ridiculous.

What is even more ridiculous is that this government is fast-tracking this process. They are exempting the Toronto Islands development from every other control that every other developer has to face. In fact, the Crombie commission recommended full protection of the Toronto Islands. The member for Dufferin-Peel and I have written to the Environmental Commissioner, Eva Ligeti, asking her to consider the environmental impact of building houses. Also, the Metropolitan Toronto and Region Conservation Authority, the city of Toronto and the Ministry of Natural Resources all have concerns.

Now we learn that the seawall lands, which to date have been ruled out as a housing site, are considered the best site for new housing because they are the highest parcel of land within the trust boundaries and flooding is a serious problem.

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

Mrs Marland: Yes, I do have a question. Because the seawall side is still hazard land subject to spring flooding, public money will therefore go to support housing on a site which under normal regulatory process would not be approved. Moreover, the seawall area should be parkland, not housing. Minister, will you allow housing to be built on the seawall lands and extend this élitist NDP enclave?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The housing that will be developed on the Toronto Islands will be developed within the Jobs Ontario Homes program, meeting all the tests of the Jobs Ontario Homes program. It will be built within the environmental guidelines that have been established in this province.

It will be a community which, though she may not like to see it, in fact will provide housing for people of low income. She does not like to accept that fact. I know the Conservative Party doesn't want to see housing developed in the non-profit housing program anywhere in the province. Don't talk about environmental regulations. Don't talk about program rules. They don't want to see non-profit housing developed anywhere. They should come clean and say, "We don't favour non-profit housing anywhere, and on the Toronto Islands."

HEALTH FUNDING

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): My question is to the Minister of Finance, and it has to do with the issue of how much money is being spent on health care in the province.

The minister will know that the government issued a report recently that outlined the amount of money the province was spending on health care, which is an important component. But as the minister knows, about two thirds of the spending on health care is provided by the province, and well over a third comes from other sources, as the minister will know. If we want to understand what is happening to health spending in the province, we have to understand the total amount being spent on health in the province. The province, as I said, provides about $17 billion, and another $9 billion is provided from other sources.

Can the Minister of Finance confirm that we are spending an additional $9 billion, roughly, from other sources? And more important, can he confirm that the percentage of funding coming from non-provincial sources is actually growing much faster than provincial sources and increasing as a percentage of the amount of money being spent on health care in the province?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Just say yes.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I won't say yes, because I'm somewhat puzzled by what may be built into the question, and I may find out on the supplementary.

I would say to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that he's right about the amount of spending on health care. It's about $17 billion a year.

I don't say this as a partisan shot, but during the 1980s, provincial health care expenditures were increasing each year over the previous year by about 11%, and drug benefits by almost 20% each year over the previous year. That was completely unsustainable. It's thanks to the work of the present Minister of Health and the previous Minister of Health that we've reined in that growth in those costs, because that really was unsustainable. It's one of the areas that simply had to be addressed. It means making difficult decisions, but I really think it had to be done.

I await with some considerable interest the member's supplementary.

Mr Phillips: The purpose of the question is, if we don't understand and we aren't monitoring how much money is being spent on health from non-provincial sources, we frankly just aren't managing the health system.

The minister will know that we talk in this report about hospital spending but we ignore $3 billion of hospital spending that is raised from non-provincial sources. So I say the report is useful but extremely incomplete: It doesn't report on health spending in the province; it reports where the provincial spending is going. If the minister doesn't understand that, I think we have a problem with how we are managing our health care system. In our judgement, the province is systematically looking to offload its health spending on to other areas. The minister shakes his head, but the hospitals tell us they increasingly have to find other sources of funding besides the province.

My question is this, and it's an important one: Is it the plan of the government to systematically move health spending off your books and on to someone else's books, whether it be private insurers or hospital fund-raisers or billing directly to employers? Is that the health plan, to systematically move health funding off the provincial books and on to other sources? Is that where this provincial government is heading?

Hon Mr Laughren: There's no question that any government in this province, and indeed other provinces as well, is having difficulty funding a universally accessible health care system. All provinces are having that difficulty, for obvious reasons. We have an aging population and we have increasingly expensive technology and procedures that are in place and that people demand, so there's no question that there's an increasing problem in funding our health care system.

My own view is that unless provinces contain the growth in the cost of health care and medicare, we will slowly but surely be unable to pay for it and we'll lose the basic ingredients of a health care system of which most of us are very, very proud indeed.

Our attempt is not to shift the cost to anybody else. Despite what the federal government has done to us on health care, we are not trying to shift it to anybody else, but I say as vigorously as I can, we are attempting to rein in the growth in health care costs while at the same time continuing to provide the essential services.

1430

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question is for the Deputy Premier and Treasurer today. Minister, your government recently made a dramatic and rather draconian move to reduce OHIP coverage for emergency hospital services outside of Canada.

Although there have been several questions raised in the House, today there was a rally in front of Queen's Park with several hundred senior citizens, and they brought a different perspective to this debate. They in fact served notice that they were taking you and your government to court and they were taking it on. I quote directly from the comments that were stated this morning: "It's a tax equity issue, and we understand that by approaching the issue in this manner, we will be granted standing by the courts to present our case and ultimately may be granted leave to address the issue in the Supreme Court of Canada."

Given the fact that your government will now be sued over this issue, given that the minister herself said there is a task force studying this issue and the report will be coming out soon, and given, thirdly, that your own ministry has indicated it's not sure exactly how much of a savings this is going to be, can I ask the minister why it wouldn't be a commonsense, wise decision to delay implementation of this edict, which is set to occur in two weeks, until these matters are resolved, to avoid additional costs to taxpayers for this costly legal exercise? We could, at the end of it, find out that what you're doing is illegal and we could avoid a lot of expense. Would you not consider delaying this decision, please?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Personally, I wouldn't. I haven't talked to the Minister of Health about that possibility, I must say.

It seems to me that what we are simply trying to do, and it ties in nicely with the previous question from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, is that at a time when it's very difficult to rein in the growth in the cost of health care, governments have to look for ways to reduce their expenditures in the health care system. Out-of-province costs are one way in which we continue to be able to put the resources into the health care system in this province, not somewhere else. So that's one of the reasons we did that.

Everyone has the right, if they feel there are adequate grounds, to take it to the courts. That's fine. They can do that. The Minister of Health has indicated I believe that she's going to be talking to the federal Minister of Health and the other provinces on this matter; that is, keeping an open mind on the whole question.

Mr Jackson: I understand what you're trying to say, but I'm trying to convey to you the sense of what people are concerned about right today. Today they're concerned that you might save maybe $2 million or $3 million over the course of the summer -- no, just hear out this concern -- and we're saying you may end up spending $4 million or $5 million administering it and fighting it in court. There's compelling evidence here that this would not be a wise fiscal decision for the government.

My question is going to the Treasurer and Deputy Premier, so it's very much a concern of yours. Frankly, with the public statements of the federal Minister of Health basically saying that they don't agree with your government's decision and going to court in all probability in the next several weeks or months to test this question, it makes eminent good sense for the government to take one step back in the best interests of keeping those dollars in health services and not off fighting some legal debate in a court.

That's the point of raising this question with you today. This is new information to the debate. It's compelling evidence that we could lose an expensive court case.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Jackson: Quite frankly, at the end of it all, a lot of Ontario citizens, average citizens who are travelling abroad for whatever reason, could get caught in the crossfire, and the courts may rule ultimately that you owe that money back to those citizens who are out of pocket as a result of needing emergency care.

I ask you again, Minister, will you not please consider the financial arguments for delay briefly until this matter's resolved, to keep us out of court and keep those dollars in the health care system where they belong?

Hon Mr Laughren: The dollars in the health care system belong in this province. That's where the health care dollars belong.

I would remind the member opposite that we are one of, I believe, four provinces that have reduced rates for out-of-province coverage, so it's not as though we are out there all alone in this regard. I think there needs to be a consolidation of the position by all the provinces with the federal government in their interpretation of the Canada Health Act.

Rather than make a commitment like that to the member opposite, I would let the process unfold as the Minister of Health talks to her colleagues and to the federal Minister of Health.

RESIDENTIAL REHABILITATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): My question is to the Minister of Housing. Minister, I understand that you were in New Brunswick last week for the annual federal, provincial and territorial ministers' conference on housing issues.

On behalf of my constituents -- Lambton county, that is -- I would like to know if the Liberal government will keep its election promise found in its red book and renew the funds for the RRAP program, the residential rehabilitation assistance program. As recently as last month, my office was told by the administrators of the program for the Lambton area that the program was out of money.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Shortly after the election of the new federal government -- in fact, we had an earlier meeting of the housing ministers across Canada and at that time the federal minister indicated to the provincial ministers that the RRAP program, as it's called, would be reintroduced by the Liberals. However, we have not been given confirmation on when that program will be restarted.

Ontario has put forward a very strong position to the federal government that we should see some changes in the RRAP program administration so it will be open to use by people who can make better use of it in Ontario. In particular, we are looking at the situation of rooming house owners and other landlords who are able to provide tenancies for low-income residents of Ontario and asking that the federal government broaden the administrative rules for RRAP so that they can be provided that way.

But the simple answer is, not yet.

Mrs MacKinnon: Thank you, Madam Minister. The Tories cancelled non-profit housing construction and the urban native housing program, and from what I can see the Liberals continue to cut money from national housing, just like the Tories did.

What did your meeting with the federal minister result in to alleviate some of the hardships experienced by Canadians without decent housing?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The federal government has indicated that due to cost-cutting measures within the existing social housing programs across Canada -- and indeed, a large contributor to these cost savings has been the province of Ontario administration -- they will be used to assist programs that may affect aboriginal housing and may also be used for some special-needs housing in the future. But again, we have not been able to get a commitment from the federal government about the nature of the program that it is willing to be involved in or indeed about when those moneys would start flowing. We're certainly very anxious, and I have expressed that view on behalf of Ontario, to get on with some of the investment of the savings that we've managed to generate.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): My question is to the Minister of Education and Training. May I ask a page, Mr Speaker, to take this binder over to the minister? This binder contains an open letter from a mother in my riding and 2,400 other people in eastern Ontario who have a question to ask the minister.

Many of these parents have been requesting this from the minister for a long time. This mother is requesting "the provision of full funding for individuals with developmental handicaps beyond the age of 21 years to the same extent that is available to other individuals and including an automatic eligibility for high school status."

Mr Minister, why are you discriminating against these vulnerable young people?

1440

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): The ministry, with groups in the province, concerned parents and others, has been working on a policy, as the member will know, at the elementary-secondary level in terms of integration of special-needs students. We did take a major step forward with a program directive a couple of years ago in terms of integration at the local level, not at the neighbourhood level but at the community level.

We have now been working very extensively with groups and have determined a policy that will go the next step in terms of integration of special-needs students, and that policy I have discussed with advocacy groups and expect to be making announcements very soon. That covers the elementary and secondary levels.

Mrs O'Neill: Mr Minister, I don't know how comforting that letter is going to be to that mother. I just don't. You have said, up to this point, and I hope that you will reiterate this, that the Ontario Association for Community Living support is crucial to this matter. You likely know, as I do, that at the annual general meeting of that association held earlier this month, that support was obtained.

But, Mr Minister, the waiting lists continue to grow and this matter gets put further and further on the back burner, if not into oblivion altogether. I have the question for you then, Mr Minister: When are you going to give these young people -- and I'm talking about the 21-plus, not the elementary and secondary -- the educational opportunities they need and want?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think what we have to try to do during this difficult time of controls on expenditures is to make as much progress as we possibly can. We've done that through the development of a policy of integration of special-needs students at the elementary and secondary level, a policy that we talked to the advocacy groups and parents' groups about last week. They have been very supportive of the steps that we are taking, very supportive.

If the member is indicating that we're not moving quickly enough, I'd like to move more quickly. I'd like to move at the post-secondary level, but everything costs, in terms of resources. There was absolutely no progress made in this whole area between 1985 and 1990, during a time when dollars were rolling in at record levels. So don't lecture this government about the lack of action in terms of special-needs students. We're making progress during really difficult times. Where were you as a backbencher when your party was in power?

ENVIRONMENTAL TAXES

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Minister, your government is collecting $35 million each year from the distillers. Your government is collecting another $50 million each year from the 10-cent tax on beer cans. Can you tell us how you are using these two taxes on environmental matters?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member knows full well that revenues to government go into the consolidated revenue fund and are distributed through all government programs, whether they be environmental programs, health care, education and so on. So the member is quite aware of that and knew that before he asked the question.

Mr Tilson: I did know that and I guess my concern is, Minister, that when these taxes were introduced it was indicated that they would be used specifically for environmental matters. They certainly were. If you check Hansard and the arguments that were made by members of the government, that's exactly what they were intended to be used for.

You have made it clear that your government certainly has no intention to continue funding the blue box program in Ontario. In fact, last week you released a discussion paper indicating that the private sector would be leading a proposal to fund the blue box program.

Since the private sector appears to be going to be taking over the funding of the blue box program, my question is specifically -- there doesn't appear to be any need to have these two taxes, and it falls into the category of the Liberal tire tax. The Liberal tire tax, of course, had much criticism from your government and from our side that it simply went nowhere.

My question to the minister is: Wouldn't it be more commonsensical to discontinue the levying of these two taxes, when all it's doing is going into the consolidated revenue fund and not being used for any environmental purposes specifically?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member raises a number of questions and he is confused. The fact is this: The revenue going into the consolidated revenue fund from these particular levies is for the general revenues of the government, which are used for environmental programs as well as all the other programs of the government. That was always the question.

It was never suggested by anyone that these levies were equivalent to the Liberal imposition of a tire tax. That was never suggested. Because the tire tax was not used and never was used by that government or the subsequent government as it was originally proposed by the Liberals, we discontinued that tax.

The fact is this: The member seems to be opposed to product stewardship. It seems to me that if anybody is interested in the environment, they would want packagers that produce a great deal of packaging to contribute to the stewardship of those products and to contribute to the blue box.

This government is committed to the blue box. There are over three million households in this province now using the blue box and we intend to ensure that continues. We intend to ensure that the private sector makes a proper contribution to that program.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs that's going to deal with the environment, family farms and jobs, especially in rural communities.

It is well known that this government fully supports the development of the ethanol industry in Ontario. Ontario corn producers, rural communities in southwestern Ontario, now await the matching federal response to the potential investors in a $160-million ethanol plant in Chatham for greater certainty regarding the federal excise tax.

Time is running out, Mr Minister, for this project because of the realities. Given the potential of rural employment and economic benefits generated by the ethanol plant, what steps is the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs taking to ensure that the federal government will also support Chatham's ethanol project?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): We've done a number of things. We continue to write letters on an almost weekly basis to my counterpart in Ottawa, the Honourable Mr Goodale, to encourage him to follow through on their commitments to provide the tax exemption for ethanol.

The other thing that we have done is last week, with my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, Frances Lankin, we actually signed an agreement with Commercial Alcohols which guarantees this province's commitment to provide the provincial sales tax exemption for the next 15 years. So we actually have a signed, legal agreement which guarantees and encourages this private investment, which is good for farmers, good for jobs and good for southwestern Ontario, and we're doing everything we can to encourage the federal government to follow suit.

Mr Hope: The minister is well aware that there is strong community support, as was indicated last Friday in the arena in my community, where over 2,000 people participated in support towards the ethanol industry.

You know that the public is very supportive of this plant being located in the city of Chatham. We also want to know what further support is required for his federal colleague to make a decision. My understanding is that we have the Tories, who just about signed an agreement and were ready to give the exemption; we have a New Democratic policy, which you just indicated, which would set out a 15-year exemption; and we have a Liberal red book, by the way, which is going a little white and pale because they haven't lived up to some of their promises.

Mr Minister, I need to know, how do we support the family farms in Kent county and throughout central and southwestern Ontario --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Hope: -- and how do we make these things a reality for my people?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I have been following what's been going on in Chatham. The honourable member was at the rally, I believe it was last Friday. I think it's important for us to recognize that there were also some federal Liberals there, who were all singing from the same songbook. We know that the member from Kent and the member from Middlesex were both there saying that this is important, that it's important for the federal cabinet to follow through. I noticed that the member from Middlesex yesterday said that the Ontario government had guts to proceed on this issue and that she wished her federal counterparts had the same kind of fortitude.

I know there is support from the Liberals in Ottawa and the only thing I can suggest is that the Liberal Party in Ontario perhaps should talk to the federal cabinet minister, who I believe is the Honourable Herb Gray, from Windsor, who represents that part of the province, and get some pressure on him.

I understand the cabinet in Ottawa has looked at this issue several times. The member is quite right that the federal Tories were within about a week of reaching agreement with Commercial, and they called the election before they signed it. I'm hoping that with the support of our colleagues across the way, perhaps together we can make this project come to successful fruition.

The Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired.

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: Earlier today, in a statement to the House, I indicated to you an event that's taking place in my riding. One of the basic tenets of Parliament is the fact that members can communicate effectively with one another.

On behalf of a couple in my riding, I sent two letters to the Minister of Health, one dated April 25, the other dated May 25, hand-delivered in the House. Copies of those were sent over to the minister, who is not here, and I'd like them back. That's for starters.

Mr Speaker, these people, this couple in my riding, are facing the possibility of bankruptcy as a result of having to pay a bill to the Toronto Hospital --

The Speaker: Order. Would the member please take his seat.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member please take his seat. The member will know that he does not have a point of privilege, but I appreciate the matter he's drawn to the attention of the House.

1450

MOTIONS

CONSIDERATION OF BILL PR119

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): This is a motion regarding a private bill from the town of Orangeville.

I move that at the request of the applicant and on the recommendation of the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, standing order 80(e), concerning publication of notice of an application for a private bill, and standing order 87, respecting notice of committee hearings, be waived with respect to Bill Pr119, An Act respecting the Town of Orangeville.

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

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 the 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 new 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 will affix my signature.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the existing free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national packaging strategy the most effective method of protecting the Canadian public;

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

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

This petition is signed by almost 100 individuals, in fact more than 100, basically from the city of London and the county of Middlesex.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I am presenting three sets of petitions on the same issue. I'm presenting these petitions on behalf of the member for Cambridge, Mike Farnan, who as a minister without portfolio for Education cannot present petitions in the House.

As I say, there are three sets. One set has 108 names on it, another set has 874 signatures, mainly collected from St Ambrose and St Patrick's parishes in Cambridge. All the names on these petitions were opposing the implementation of Bill 167 or giving rights to same-sex couples. Mr Farnan had made a commitment that these would be read into the House on behalf of his constituents, and I am fulfilling that commitment for him.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Workers' Compensation Board is in a state of financial crisis; and

"Whereas the future benefits of injured workers are at certain risk; and

"Whereas the Premier ignored the advice from his own business advisors on his labour and management advisory committee to eliminate the unfunded liability and to ensure that the WCB does not negatively impact the competitiveness of Ontario business; and

"Whereas Bill 165 increases benefits at a time when the Workers' Compensation Board is experiencing negative cash flow;

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

"That the Ontario government withdraw Bill 165 and accept the responsible business recommendations provided to the Premier to ensure the sustainability of the workers' compensation system."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

"Whereas this bill will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex'; and

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

"Whereas this 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 the NDP government has indicated it will force private sector employers to pay same-sex spousal benefits; and

"Whereas redefining marriage and forcing the private sector to pay same-sex spousal benefits will have serious negative economic and social implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the NDP government to withdraw consideration of private sector spousal benefits for same-sex couples and refuse to pass the Liberal private member's Bill 45."

That's got 210 signatures from Orillia, Sebright, Penetanguishene, Lafontaine, Elmvale, Phillipston, Wyevale, Barrie and Midland, and I've attached my signature to it.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned" -- there are 973 -- "are of the opinion that private insurance companies are exploiting Ontario motorcyclists and snowmobile operators by charging excessive rates for coverage or by outright refusing to provide coverage;

"Whereas we, the undersigned, understand that those insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders with four or more years of riding experience and are outright refusing to insure riders who drive certain models of 'supersport' bikes; and

"Whereas we, the undersigned, believe this situation will cost hundreds of jobs at dealerships in the motorcycle industry and is contrary to the rights of motorcyclists and snowmobile operators;

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

These are from Toronto, from Ottawa, from all over Ontario.

1500

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I have a petition here signed by scores of my constituents from Pembroke, Petawawa, Beachburg, Eganville, which reads in part:

"Whereas in our opinion the majority of Ontarians believe that the privileges which society accords to married heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships;

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

"We request that the Legislature do not pass into law any act to amend the Ontario Human Rights Code with respect to sexual orientation or any similar legislation that would change the present marital status for couples in Ontario."

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by over 575 people from the province of Ontario:

"Whereas we the citizens of Ontario agree that the clear dealings between the present justice system and the public establish a positive relationship for all concerned; and

"Whereas one building block of such a relationship is a fair and accurate way of dealing with habitual child sex offenders;

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

"We believe that one way of dealing with convicted habitual child sex offenders upon release that his/her photo and address be available to the public for a minimum of seven years in whatever area of the province he/she takes residence."

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I would like on behalf of 100 residents of the peninsula, not only my riding but throughout the peninsula, to express their opinion that they, the undersigned, who are opposed to casino gambling, "request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of Niagara Falls 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 support that petition and have affixed my name to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): "We, the undersigned citizens of Canada, draw the attention of the House to the following:

"Whereas the majority of Canadians believe the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same-sex relationships; and

"Whereas societal approval, including the extension of societal privileges, would be given to same-sex relationships if any amendment to the Canadian Human Rights Code were to be included in the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation' as a grounds of discrimination;

"Therefore, your petitioners pray and request the Parliament not to amend the Human Rights Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in any way that would tend to indicate societal approval for same-sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the Human Rights Code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase 'sexual orientation.'"

I've also signed that petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the Ontario Workers' Compensation Board is in a state of financial crises; and

"Whereas the future benefits of injured workers are at certain risk; and

"Whereas the Premier ignored the advice from his own business advisers on his labour and management advisory committee to eliminate the unfunded liability and to ensure that the WCB does not negatively impact the competitiveness of Ontario business; and

"Whereas Bill 165 increases benefits at a time when the Workers' Compensation Board is experiencing negative cash flow;

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

"That the Ontario government withdraw Bill 165 and accept the responsible business recommendations provided to the Premier to ensure the sustainability of the workers' compensation system."

This has been signed by about 90 people.

MOTORCYCLE AND SNOWMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a number of petitions here and I think this brings it to over 5,000 petitions now that we have received. It's to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it states:

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

"That the government of Ontario should study the feasibility of launching public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance."

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition signed by hundreds of people from across the province who join with those who met on the steps of the Legislature today in petitioning the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Whereas the Ontario government has announced its intention to reduce emergency coverage for out-of-country health care on June 30, 1994;

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario are entitled to health coverage no matter where they are with payment made on the basis of the amount that would be paid for a similar service in the province;

"Whereas the Canada Health Act entitles all Canadians to health care on an equal basis;

"Whereas this decision by the Minister of Health is in direct contravention of the Canada Health Act;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to ensure the Minister of Health follow the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

I heartily endorse this petition and have affixed my signature to it.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and it's signed by a number of people in the town of Caledon in the county of Dufferin.

"Whereas the provincial government has slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized out of the country; and

"Whereas this will mainly affect the seniors who travel south in the winter for health reasons; and

"Whereas this is an indisputable violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act; and

"Whereas Mike Harris of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party makes the preservation of medicare a priority in his Common Sense Revolution policy document;

"We, the undersigned, petition the government of Ontario to act in a fair manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and restore the out-of-country hospitalization coverage to the rates charged by hospitals in Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): On behalf of residents of St Catharines as well as Fonthill, I would like to express their concern with regard to tobacco products. I'm not going to read all of the preamble, but the final be-it-resolved is:

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

I concur with this petition, and I have affixed my signature in agreement and for submission.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

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

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

"To protect our children by changing the current maximum penalty of 10 years, for sexual interference, to a minimum of five years, with mandatory counselling, and up to and including life imprisonment as a maximum penalty."

I have signed the petition.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I have a petition signed by over a score of residents from around my riding, and it has to do with the petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. I won't read the whole preamble. It's:

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LIONS CLUB OF KINGSVILLE ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr125, An Act to revive The Lions Club of Kingsville.

ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION ASSOCIATION OF HAMILTON INC. ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr126, An Act to revive Electrical Construction Association of Hamilton Inc.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

House in committee of the whole.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Consideration of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The First Deputy Chair (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are now resuming the committee of the whole House dealing with Bill 138 and we are at section 5 of the bill. We have a government amendment, and I believe the last person who was dealing with the bill was Mr Johnson, Don Mills. Is he available?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): He's not only available; he's present. This bill was being debated some time ago. I can't even recall now, Madam Speaker: Do I call you Madam Chairman or Madam Speaker at this point?

The First Deputy Chair: Madam Chair.

Mr David Johnson: The particular section we're talking about pertains to a tax on the you-brew industry. It had been the intention of the government to implement a 26-cent-per-litre tax on the you-brew industry. In fact that was levied as of June -- well, let me see. That was levied last year, and the intent was to increase the levy this month to 31 cents and next year to 38 cents. Apparently we have an amendment by the government now to forgo the latter two price increases and, in addition, to cut in half the original tax on the you-brew industry.

The you-brew industry pertains to those small business people who run businesses whereby people come and brew their own beer or make their own wine. The problem that we have brought to the attention of the government, indeed many people have brought to the attention of the government, is that because of the tax, there have been a great many business failures in the industry.

My recollection is that of some 220 or 230 businesses within the province of Ontario, some 30% or 40% have failed primarily because this tax was implemented in the first place. What happened then was that people who would use the services of the you-brew industry found that with the tax the product was not competitive and they lost interest. Certainly the patronage of the you-brew industry went way down and the revenues went down and people went bankrupt.

I don't know if the government has any statistics in terms of how many businesses have gone bankrupt precisely at this moment -- I suppose it changes from month to month -- but it indicates the impact of taxes on the small business community in the province of Ontario and it illustrates again that if we heap taxes on taxes on taxes the business community cannot respond and ultimately they collapse under the weight of taxes. That's what has happened to the you-brew industry in the province of Ontario, unfortunately.

Fortunately, in this case the government did recognize the error of its ways and has decided at least to cut back on the taxes. I suppose there would be many small business people out there who would say, "You could go the whole distance and eliminate all of the tax," but at least this is one step in the right direction. I think that's what we were debating when we last met to deal with this particular issue several weeks ago.

I would pose a question to the parliamentary assistant who's in attendance today. At this point in time does he have statistics in terms of the actual numbers of businesses that have failed in the you-brew industry? I believe it would be some 30% or so of the small businesses across the province of Ontario. What number have failed.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): What do you know about the you-brew industry?

Mr David Johnson: -- and is this a recognition --

Mr Perruzza: You're always quoting numbers that never, never have a good source.

Mr David Johnson: -- over the heckling, Madam Chairperson, that the government is recognizing the impact of taxes on the small business community?

Further, in terms of the employer health tax, where we've taken a holiday in the 1994 budget, is this a further recognition that we need to reduce taxes in the province of Ontario to allow business to grow and that the business community is smothering under the taxes we have in the province of Ontario? I pose that question to the parliamentary assistant and await his response.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Let me just say a couple of things in response to the member for Don Mills. First of all, he suggests that maybe all the tax should be taken off. The question I would come back to him with is: Does this mean the Progressive Conservative or the Mike Harris party's view on taxation on alcohol has changed, given that many of our taxes on alcohol were implemented by Progressive Conservative governments over the years, and therefore you-brew somehow shouldn't have any taxes at all?

The purpose of making the change was that there is recognition upon the government that sometimes in terms of new industries developing, which this one is, in terms of being a bit of a niche business development, sometimes it needs a little more time to establish and be a little stronger. So the government has acknowledged the concerns raised by the you-brew association.

I should say, though, from some of the information I have, that the figure Mr Johnson cited, about 30% failure, is not quite accurate. In fact, the failure rate is lower than that in you-brews.

I should tell him too that when you look at all small businesses in general and what their failure rate is in the first year, you-brews have not been much different than what goes on in other small businesses. So to say that all these you-brews have closed solely because of the tax implemented would not hold up, given the evidence of the failure of other types of small businesses in their first year.

1520

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions or comments to Mr Sutherland's amendment?

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Having listened carefully to what you said, why in fact is your government withdrawing that bill then?

Mr Sutherland: Obviously the member for Etobicoke West wasn't listening that closely as I explained. We're talking about a whole new industry, and obviously there are always challenges faced by new industries in their growth stages and initial stages. The Ministry of Finance has recognized the concern that has been expressed about this specific industry and has decided to reduce the amount of tax at this time to allow the industry to grow a little more and become a little more stable.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments to this amendment?

Mr Stockwell: If I get up, you don't have to keep repeating that.

It appears to me you're sucking and blowing on this one, member for Oxford. Let's just recap your point of view. You're telling me this is a fledgling industry that needs help and doesn't need tax implications applied against it in its initial stages of operation. Then you say in the next breath the failure rate of this particular industry is not much different than any other industry that's in a fledgling stage.

The question becomes, if their failure rate is no different, why do you have to give them an incentive by withdrawing the tax that you thought was a good idea a year ago, when you told us a year ago it would only be a fair tax considering the free ride they're getting compared to the breweries?

Now, through you, Madam Chair, to the parliamentary assistant --

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): "Madam Chair." You're politically correct.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. Madam Chair, through you, to the parliamentary assistant: It's one or the other. Either you're withdrawing this tax because it's onerous and too many businesses were going out of business or you don't need to withdraw the tax because the number of businesses that were going bankrupt was pretty much the same as any other fledgling industry. Tell us which it is. You can't have it both ways, and you've argued one side against the other. You've got to get your story straight here.

Mr Sutherland: First of all, let me say too that even with the tax as originally proposed, you-brews still had a significant price advantage over store-bought beer. The facts speak for themselves in terms of what their costs were.

What I was trying to say in terms of explaining the failure rates, talking about general failure rates of new small businesses, is that we're talking about an overall new industry, a new niche industry, and in terms of that there has been recognition on behalf of the government that it wants to provide some support for the industry and we're responding to the concerns they have raised.

I would hope the member for Etobicoke West would recognize that fact and show some appreciation for that, that we have listened to the concerns of the industry and have responded.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions, and maybe not the same question. Any further questions?

Mr Stockwell: Madam Chair, I don't ask you to grade the questions, I just ask that you chair the meeting, and the question still isn't answered, with all due respect, through you.

The question is, as I put to the parliamentary assistant, I'm not going to applaud you and the action you took in taxing the you-brew industry because you said you've learned and you listened to the industry after you implemented the tax.

Talk about a shortsighted, narrow-minded tax policy. You ruined businesses and potentially ruined people. We had the member for Wellington stand in his place and tell us about one couple who lost literally $100,000, who were in financial ruin, and you want me to congratulate you for figuring this out after the fact when you were warned very clearly before you implemented this tax measure that this was the wrong thing to do to this industry, you were going to ruin people and bankrupt them. Then you have the gall to stand in this House and say: "Why don't you congratulate us, because we're not quite as dumb as you thought we were. We learned our lesson a year later."

Now, Madam Speaker, I don't think that was a question. That was more of a comment, and maybe he can respond. But don't look for applause. Don't look for someone to pat you on the back because you bankrupt people in this province because of your shortsighted tax policy. Then you come back a year or so later and say: "Yes, we were wrong. We're not going to admit it. We're going to claim some marginal statistic or we're going to talk about some tax program in another province."

You're clearly wrong, coming back today and withdrawing this tax, because it was proven categorically that you were wrong by driving these people out of business. These people aren't looking to pat you on the back; they're looking for their significant investment that they made that you stole from them with a shortsighted, narrow-minded tax policy, the only interest in which was to grab as much money from the beleaguered taxpayer as you could grab. Come back a year later and look for applause? That's disgusting.

Mr Sutherland: If I could just respond, the member for Etobicoke West is trying to say that any bankruptcy that has occurred in this industry is a result of the tax increases that have been implemented. What I was trying to say earlier, and maybe I wasn't clear enough, is that you cannot establish for sure that the tax was the only reason these businesses have gone under. You cannot say that for sure because, as I said earlier about failure rates for small businesses in general, some of these may have gone under anyway.

In terms of new industries starting, sometimes the growth rate may be too quick, there may be too many, too much competition. All I was trying to point out was that for the member for Etobicoke West to say that the reason these businesses have gone under is solely because of this tax is just not the case, and he can't substantiate that.

However, I will admit that the industry has provided the Minister of Finance with some arguments that express concerns about the longer term; so what we've done is decide to not implement some of the future increases in taxes. There are still going to be some taxes in place, because this province has always had a policy, in terms of trying to promote responsible drinking, of having taxes on just about all forms of alcohol that are sold in the province.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to raise another issue. This has been labelled a sales tax. I would ask the parliamentary assistant to help me and the customers of you-brews understand why we are calling this a sales tax when, within any reasonable definition of the word, there is no sale taking place here.

A customer at you-brew premises first purchases the ingredients, and on those ingredients he or she pays a provincial sales tax. The customer also pays a tax, the GST, on the service component. The customer then mixes those ingredients together and at some point is asked to pay an additional tax. It's called a sales tax, but there is no additional sale taking place.

What I'm asking the parliamentary assistant is why he can call this a sales tax when there is no additional sale taking place.

Mr Sutherland: I didn't hear all the details of the member's comments, but I think what he was trying to ask is, why are we calling this a sale when no sale really takes place?

If you look at how a you-brew operates, in effect they are operating a brewery, except they are operating a brewery in a different system. Basically, they're allowing you or anyone who comes in as a customer to rent their brewery to carry out some of the brewing process. While you do some of the work, there's still a brewery process going on similar to any other type of brewery.

Mr McGuinty: With respect, the parliamentary assistant has not answered my question. The question, again, is, where is the sale that is taking place upon which this tax is based? When you buy the ingredients, you pay provincial sales tax. When you purchase the service, you pay goods and service tax. After you mix these goods together, at some later date you return and you are hit with another tax, but there is no additional sale taking place. So my question again is, why are you calling this a sales tax when there is no sale taking place?

Mr Sutherland: Again I would just say that there is rental of equipment going on here, and that is where the tax is being applied.

1530

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I would like to ask the parliamentary assistant whether his government looked at the impact of this new tax before they introduced it a year ago.

Mr Sutherland: I don't have that information before me, as to what information went into the decision to implement the initial amounts that were put forward on this tax, but as the Minister of Finance indicated when he made the decision to lower the tax on produce-your-own beer and wine, they had consulted with the industry, had been monitoring it, as had been asked for by the industry, and some impacts of that and future impacts of new increases were taken into account in the decision that was made.

Mrs Marland: You're saying some decisions were made on the impacts since the implementation of the tax. My question is whether there was some consideration made after the implementation. Obviously, with all the petitions and all the letters and all the telephone calls from these small business people around the province, you would have been forced to give some further consideration to this tax.

In my own riding, I had you-brew businesses open which have now had to close, so your lifebelt at this point, a year later, is too late for a lot of those businesses. If you look at the margin of profit they make, you would understand why any additional tax -- as has been said, they're already paying taxes -- was a penalty. It was punitive to small business and therefore it was punitive to the people who live in this province who chose that kind of brewing.

You said you've considered the impact and that's why you're making the revision now. I want to know so I can tell these people. Either you considered the impact before you implemented it in the first place or you didn't. The point is that if we are dealing with this matter now, it has to revert back to, what was your decision before it was implemented in the first place? You obviously now are saying, "We're going to amend it." How does this work? Does it mean that you only change something after the impact has been felt and after thousands of small businesses have been put out of business and you've got the phone calls and the letters and the petitions? Is that the only time you react? If you hadn't got the outcry from the public about yet another form of tax, would you have this amendment on the floor today? I need to know how you make those decisions.

Mr Sutherland: The member from Mississauga has been around this House long enough to know how a budget-making process occurs. She also knows full well that in terms of tax measures, the Minister of Finance cannot be releasing those measures ahead of time before a budget comes in, or else the member from Mississauga would probably be one of the first ones demanding the resignation of the Minister of Finance if that information did leak out.

And the member from Mississauga is getting into hyperbole again when she says thousands of businesses have gone under as a result of the tax being brought in. First of all, there aren't even 1,000 you-brews in the province to begin with. Second, as I mentioned earlier, the percentage of you-brews that have gone under is relative to the failure rate for any type of small business in the first year.

The member may be trying to say she doesn't know what the process is, but I think she's not being quite frank with everybody here, given the fact that the member has been in this House for quite a while and is very experienced with what a budget-making process is all about.

Mr David Johnson: This issue is being raised because it is an issue of concern. Within this bill there are two examples that are very worrisome for the members on this side of the House. One is the tax on the you-brews that was put in place, it appears, without proper analysis. The tax was put in place to generate a certain amount of revenue, $5 million in 1993 and $10 million on an annualized basis, I think was the assumption. But because so many businesses went bankrupt, of course the amount of revenue generated was a fraction of that.

It appears that the analysis was not in place and consequently the impact was greater than anticipated and it didn't work. Now you're recognizing it and you're responding, and we give you credit for responding. But the question is, in the first place --

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): Just vote for it then.

Mr David Johnson: Just vote for it? Well, that's fine. But what about, in the first place, the analysis that took place? There are other bills that are coming forward and we want to be assured that the analysis on a tax increase is done properly.

The second example I can give you in this bill is the tax on dirt and gravel and products that go into roadmaking and that sort of thing. In this bill, the provincial sales tax was applied to dirt, gravel etc. In the subsequent budget, in the 1994 budget, the tax has been eliminated on the delivery side. Apparently, here is a second case where a tax was implemented, yet the analysis was not done to recognize that the way the tax was implemented was not manageable. Apparently, what you found in terms of the delivery charges on dirt, for example, is that you simply could not administer or manage that. That's the second example where you've had to backtrack.

It raises the question about the thought and the analysis that go into these taxes in the first instance. That is a serious concern to us in the Progressive Conservative Party and I'm sure that's a serious concern to the people of the province. Why didn't further thought and further analysis go into this in the first place so you wouldn't be backtracking on both of those items here today in this bill?

Mr Sutherland: We could sit here all day and say: "Why wasn't it done this way? Why wasn't it done that way?" The third party has been constantly saying, "We want to lower taxes." We have an opportunity to do this here and all they want to do is talk about it. They don't want to get on with the actual lowering of the tax. I think it's time for them to stand up and put up, where they've been talking a great deal. Let's get on with doing the amendment.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments?

Mr David Johnson: Yes.

Hon Mr Wildman: What is this, a filibuster?

Mr David Johnson: No, it's not a filibuster, but I do have to correct one statement that was made. We are not lowering a tax through this bill. The tax that was in place before this bill came along was zero. Let's get that straight. Now, instead of imposing a 26-cent-per-litre tax through this bill and its amendment, you are imposing a 13-cent-per-litre tax. Let's be correct about that. Your amendment is introducing a lesser tax than you would have introduced otherwise, but you are still implementing a tax through this bill. Let's be straight on that. Let's not say we're cutting taxes. We're going from zero cents a litre to 13 cents a litre through this bill and its amendment. I think you owe that to the people of Ontario.

1540

Mr Sutherland: If the member for Don Mills is implying that it's the new policy of the Mike Harris party that it no longer supports the concept of taxation on alcohol as a way of promoting responsible drinking, no taxation at all -- let's be clear; that's what the member for Don Mills has just implied by his comments, that there shouldn't be any tax whatsoever on this portion of alcohol -- if that's the new policy of the Mike Harris party, then clearly state that. Come out and let everyone know that's what the new policy is.

As I said earlier, I'm not as old as some members in this House, but I do recall that in budgets under the Tory government taxes on alcohol were put up, and the justification at the time was that this would help deter irresponsible drinking. If the Mike Harris party has changed its mind, he should just clearly state that.

Mr McGuinty: I want to take the opportunity to inquire of the parliamentary assistant what precisely the policy is which informs this particular provision in the Retail Sales Tax Act. If I am to make beer or wine at a you-brew, I'm now going to pay a new tax I didn't have to pay before. We're calling it a sales tax, even though no sale is taking place, because I'm paying PST on the products I buy and I'm paying GST already on the service component. So there's no sale taking place, but I'm going to be paying what the minister is calling a sales tax. If I make that in my neighbour's basement, that's not subject to any tax, and if I make it at home, it's not subject to any tax either.

What I want the parliamentary assistant to do for me is to distinguish between those three possible locations for making beer or wine and to tell me how he justifies taxing only the location where the people who are operating it happen to be doing so for the purpose of making money.

Mr Sutherland: Let me say again, this bill has nothing to do with taxing people who make beer and wine in their own homes. They will remain tax-free. I imagine some of the equipment they purchase to do that, though, is taxable and they do pay tax on some of that equipment, as well as some of the ingredients they pay for.

I assume if they're doing it in their neighbour's place that is quite all right, provided their neighbour isn't charging them. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but if the neighbour was charging them for that product they were making, I think that would go against the laws of the province of Ontario.

Mr McGuinty: I just want to pursue that a bit further. If I buy those ingredients at the you-brew and pay my provincial sales tax on them and I take them home and I mix them there, I'm not paying a tax after I've mixed them there. But if I mix them at the you-brew, I'm paying a tax on a sale that isn't taking place.

This sale really is, and I'm sure the parliamentary assistant is going to want to admit this, purely a fiction. There is no sale taking place here. I want the parliamentary assistant to distinguish for me. If I get those ingredients there and I bring them home and mix them or I keep them at the you-brew and mix them there, why is it that I'm paying a tax at one location and I'm not at the other, even though at either location there's no sale taking place? I've already paid my sales tax when I bought the ingredients.

Mr Sutherland: Let me say to the member that there have been and continue to be many examples where people pay provincial sales tax on a rental-type service.

Hon Mr Wildman: Renting a car.

Mr Sutherland: For example, renting a car, as my colleague the member for Algoma mentions. In this case, what you're doing is renting the facilities to mix the beer, the facilities provided by the you-brew. In terms of paying tax on the rent, for lack of a better term, you are really renting the equipment provided by the you-brew.

The First Deputy Chair: Any further questions or comments regarding Mr Sutherland's amendment? Seeing none, shall Mr Sutherland's amendment to section 5 of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall section 5, as amended, carry? Carried.

Are there any questions, comments or amendments for sections 6 through 27 of this bill? Are there any questions, comments or amendments to the remaining sections of this bill?

Mr David Johnson: I thought you were going to go through them clause by clause or section by section.

Hon Mr Wildman: That's what she just said.

Mr David Johnson: All right. Subsection 9(2): As I understand it, this is the section that deals with the soil, clay, sand and gravel.

The First Deputy Chair: Excuse me, Mr Johnson. I'd like to first deal with sections 6, 7 and 8, and then we'll get to section 9.

Shall sections 6, 7 and 8 of the bill carry? Carried.

Mr Johnson, a question or an amendment?

Mr David Johnson: A question. In terms of subsection 9(2), which I alluded to earlier, one year ago the government introduced the provincial sales tax on soil, sand, gravel and clay. That applied to not only the product itself but the delivery charge, everything associated with the product. Now, one year later, apparently this has been unmanageable, at least the aspect that deals with the delivery charges.

I wonder if the parliamentary assistant would tell us what happened over the last year such that the government reversed its field. We certainly agree with taking off the sales tax from the delivery charge, although you're not doing it in this bill. I guess the second point is that perhaps an amendment should be brought forward to do that in this particular bill right now. Were you going to do that or were you going to wait until some subsequent opportunity?

Mr Sutherland: To respond, first of all, to whether an amendment should be brought forward to this bill, if we go back and look in Bill 160, which we were debating yesterday, I believe it deals with the concern about the change that was announced in the 1994 budget regarding the delivery charges.

The member for Don Mills asks, what was the concern? I'll explain to him what the concern was. Those companies that, for example, did both sand and gravel -- in other words, they had their own gravel pits and had contracts with individual companies or municipalities -- because they own the sand and gravel and they were also delivering, they had to pay sales tax. But if someone else contracted simply to deliver the sand and gravel -- in other words, they didn't own any sand and gravel of their own but just had a straight delivery contract -- they didn't have to pay sales tax.

That was creating a great deal of concern and problems and inequities for those sand and gravel companies that have always delivered the sand and gravel as well. Those concerns had been raised to the Minister of Finance. They'd been raised to individual members. I had a few in my own riding who raised that concern with us. They felt the way it was brought in made it unfair and was hurting some of their longer-term employees who had been driving the trucks, delivering the sand and gravel for many years. They were losing out on a lot of contracts, particularly those who were servicing municipalities. That is why the Minister of Finance brought in that change.

1550

Mr David Johnson: I thank the parliamentary assistant for that explanation. I thought it was probably something to do with that.

My concern is with regard to where the amendment takes place. Bill 160, of course, is an omnibus bill with some 17 different acts, I think, and 18 sections. We don't know exactly what the fate of that bill is going to be. There are some very contentious aspects. This would be a great opportunity right here this afternoon to put in that amendment to take the tax off the delivery charges.

But getting back to your major point, it's good to see you responding to business, but don't you think you should have done that in the first instance? The situation you describe, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that that kind of situation could come up. That's fairly basic, and a little bit of analysis would have identified that problem in the first instance. It raises the concern on this side again that these taxes are thrown in without much thought and then it's simply up to the business community to identify the problems after the fact, after they've suffered through the tax, and then hope that the government responds.

Apparently, in this case, the government has responded, but it gets back to the same issue of the thoroughness of the analysis.

Hon Mr Wildman: We listen.

Mr David Johnson: You listen but you listen after the fact. Why don't you give some thought before the fact so that people aren't put to the hardship of a tax that doesn't make any sense and causes severe difficulties in their particular industry?

Mr Sutherland: Just to respond to the member for Don Mills, I think the complication came up in this specific area because, as a general rule, I believe, in terms of paying sales tax, other types of companies that may own product and actually deliver the goods have to pay sales tax. It's not something that just applies to sand and gravel. I don't know for sure, but I'm assuming that type of policy has been in place for many years about those who own the product, produce the product and also deliver it paying the sales tax.

The application was also made here that some of the ownership for that problem, I guess, would go back to whichever government may have implemented that policy in the first place, which very well may have been the Conservative government.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like the parliamentary assistant to review what he just said. I'm completely at a loss as to what that has to do with anything we've been talking about. Please restate what your argument was.

Mr Sutherland: What I was trying to say was that from my understanding of the situation, it had been common practice that on those types of companies, not only on sand and gravel but on other forms of companies that may own a product and then deliver or produce it, application of sales tax on the delivery may apply. In terms of developing this policy, the same policy in terms of application of sales tax on delivery was put forward, and that may be where some of the problem arose.

The member for Don Mills was trying to say the thorough analysis hadn't been done, saying that this general policy about where sales tax applies on delivery of goods owned by a company may go back to whoever implemented that policy in the first place, which very well may have been the Progressive Conservative government.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): It's not the job of this committee to do your homework for you.

Mr Stockwell: I understand that. I think that's a very good point, I say to the House leader for the government. I don't think it's up to this committee to do your tax policy work for you either. Possibly, if you had investigated these programs before you implemented the tax, you wouldn't have the embarrassment of coming back to this Legislature with your tail between your legs and withdrawing taxes that clearly were not sensible in the first place.

I say the same to you, Mr House Leader. Before you come back to this committee and start caterwauling at us for not doing our homework, maybe you should do a little tax policy homework before you implement them and you wouldn't be embarrassed to come forward here and withdraw taxes that should never have been put in place in the first place.

I say to the parliamentary assistant, it would probably be better if somebody could give us an example of a situation that's applicable, as is the case with the sand and gravel situation. I'd be very curious to hear of a situation where if you own the product and deliver the product, you're not subject to the same tax as if you're just delivering the product. If you could give us an example of that, that would be very interesting, because I certainly can't think of one. If we introduced that particular policy, I'd be very interested in seeing where, because I can't think of an instance. I turn to the critic of our party and we can't come up with an instance where if you own the product and deliver it, you're not subject to the same tax as the person who simply just delivers the product.

Secondly, can you give us an example of the kind of onerous tax position this put those companies in that were just delivering these products? Did you drive any of them out of business with your shortsighted tax policy? Did you cost how many jobs in the industries out there because these companies were no longer competitive and subject to a tax implication that other companies weren't subject to?

Surely, your ministry must have done some examination of this, because it wouldn't be coming forward in the embarrassing situation of having to fix this tax mistake without obviously having some pressure brought to bear by companies that brought forward example after example where they didn't get contracts they would have got had they not had to subject those contracts to taxes that others didn't.

I think it'd be interesting because I think it's a good reason or a good example why tax policy is maybe the most important policy, because mistakes cost people jobs and businesses, and maybe you could give us not only an example of that but also an example where apparently you can own a product and deliver it and not be subject to the same tax as just someone who delivers the product.

The First Deputy Chair: Are there any further questions or comments to sections 9 through 27?

Shall sections 9 through 27 carry? Carried.

Shall the title of the bill carry? Carried.

Shall I report the bill, as amended, to the House? Agreed.

Hon Mr Charlton: I move that the committee rise and report.

The First Deputy Chair: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with a certain amendment and asks for leave to sit again. Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): We're going to be doing a series of private bills, both on second and third reading, by consent.