Hansard Transcript 1994-Jun-15 vol. a | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Unlike shuffles in the past, which saw the Premier give the boot to such talented individuals as the members for Peterborough, Kitchener, Welland-Thorold, St Andrew-St Patrick, Perth, Fort York and Elgin, all booted from his inner circle, this time the Premier didn't tell a soul -- not the media, not the opposition, not even the man turfed by the Premier, former Minister of Labour Bob Mackenzie.

Bob Mackenzie tried to put on a brave face as the Premier made it clear that he was taking the lead on Bill 165, the government's half-baked and ill-conceived scheme for reform of the Workers' Compensation Board.

Can you imagine the shock this was to the labour movement, which has worked so closely with Mr Mackenzie for over 50 years? What a slap in the face it was for Bob Mackenzie, who had worked all his life to be in a position to bring about his vision for a new WCB. Now Bob Mackenzie is silenced, left sitting on the sidelines. The Premier has stolen his lifelong dream.

One cannot blame Bob Mackenzie for just packing it in and taking his two-week vacation during this important time at the Workers' Compensation Board. I say to the Premier, the new Minister of Labour, you have big shoes to fill. Your predecessor was a man of conviction, a man who always put the health and safety of injured workers at the top of his priority list. To the Premier, it's a shame you and Bill 165 will not do the same.

ROBERT SCHAD

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to honour an outstanding businessman in Dufferin-Peel. For many years Robert Schad, president of Husky Injection Molding Systems Ltd., has contributed to the prosperity of Bolton and the town of Caledon. To thank him for his contributions, the Caledon Chamber of Commerce has organized an appreciation banquet this evening in the town of Caledon.

Husky is a major employer in Caledon. Out of a total of 1,300 employees worldwide, 870 work at the facility in Bolton. Many of these jobs are valuable positions in such areas as engineering and design. In November 1993, Husky opened its Advanced Manufacturing Centre. In 1994, the company has opened a robotics division and is currently expanding its machine division.

Husky assists the people and businesses of Caledon through its support of charitable organizations like the Caledon Information Centre and the children's aid society. The contributions of Bob Schad and Husky Ltd have helped these and other groups to continue their important work in Dufferin-Peel.

Husky has also taken part in environmental initiatives. Mr Schad helped open a Wildcare facility that aids animals injured in car and other accidents.

These community and environmental initiatives have helped make Bob Schad and Husky Ltd highly respected members of the business community. I would like to commend the efforts of Robert Schad and the people at Husky and wish them well in all future endeavours.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Today I'd like to take the opportunity to point out the significant changes taking place through the transformation of that once powerful Ontario institution, the former Big Blue Machine, which used to call itself the Progressive Conservative Party.

Since the federal PCs nearly self-destructed last fall, Ontario's once-proud Tories have embarked upon what some in this chamber call the American Revolution. I believe it is more accurate to call the self-promoted Mike Harris plan the Non-Sense Revolution.

In Mr Harris's attempt to prevent the Reform Party from stealing his thunder and his votes, he has jettisoned whatever might have been progressive in his party's policies.

He has bypassed his own party's organization and gone to the Americans to help him craft a set of policy proposals that will see Ontario abandon the values that even many Tories used to think made this a great place to live, to work and to do business.

Our Premier has said that the Harris plan would take a chainsaw to Ontario's services that people need and want. Today I want to point out that the revolutionary Mr Harris has also taken a chainsaw to the Ontario PCs, cutting away the sense of social responsibility that once was a redeeming feature of Tory premiers past.

Voters of Ontario, take a hard look before you are taken in by the simplistic, hollow promises of the Harris plan. Harris's colleagues should think back to 1985 and 1987 --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member's time has expired.

Mr Mills: -- and 1990 when their party ignored the challenge to remain progressive and you got --

The Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr Mills: -- from voters exactly what the leader of the third party is headed for again.

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

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I rise today to illustrate yet another example of the NDP government's flair for mismanagement and incompetence. The latest fiasco involves a private member's bill put forward by the member for Simcoe Centre concerning land-lease communities.

While it has been estimated that this bill will directly affect over 20,000 residents of land-lease communities, this bill was given only two days of public hearings. Just days before the public hearings were scheduled to begin, the member for Simcoe Centre brought forward over 25 amendments to his legislation, which contained only 26 sections.

Then, under the pretext of consensus building, the member for Simcoe Centre selectively invites concerned individuals to participate in some meetings, completely removed from the committee process, to discuss the contentious aspects of the bill. These meetings were not inclusive, and I have received letters from those who had a stake in the issue and who wanted to attend but never received an invitation. To suggest that these meetings replaced or satisfied the need for full and comprehensive public hearings is a grave injustice to those residing in land-lease communities.

I have repeatedly called upon the Minister of Housing to do two things: bring forward government legislation for land-lease communities and ensure a comprehensive public hearings process. But the minister has not brought forward government legislation, nor has she indicated that she will do so. At the end of the day, those thousands of Ontarians living in land-lease communities will not have their say. Their input is not welcome by the NDP.

1340

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Health. A growing number of my constituents in Simcoe East are distraught about the panicky and shortsighted changes you have made to the Ontario health insurance plan. You have arbitrarily slashed health coverage by 75% for Ontario citizens who are hospitalized outside of Canada.

I suspect these changes were made by a cash-strapped government, desperate to wring every last penny out of the people of Ontario. Your restrictions on out-of-country payments are unfair and unacceptable to senior citizens and violate the language and principles of the Canada Health Act.

Your reduction coverage will affect all Ontarians and will have the greatest impact on seniors who must travel south during the winter months for important health care reasons. These people will be forced to absorb huge health insurance premium hikes.

The government justifies its policy on the basis of not wanting to pay excessive hospital costs, even though out-of-country hospital coverage is based solely on the rates charged by Ontario hospitals. Clearly, this reduction in out-of-country coverage below the rates charged by Ontario hospitals represents a violation of sections 7 and 11 of the Canada Health Act.

The people of Simcoe East, especially senior citizens, urge you to act in a fair and just manner by preserving the sacred principles of medicare and restore out-of-country hospitalization coverage.

CHILDREN'S GROUNDWATER FESTIVAL

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Last week I had the opportunity to visit the first annual children's groundwater festival at the Ontario Agricultural Museum in Milton.

An estimated 7,000 elementary school children from grades four to six participated in the five-day festival. More than 30 hands-on interactive discovery centres were available around the 80-acre festival site. Organizers ensured that the learning about groundwater was blended with fun. Activity centres like the Royal Flush, water-witching, well-drilling and the Amazing Aquifer were designed to teach about the importance of groundwater to Ontarians.

In Ontario alone, more than 400 million cubic metres of groundwater are consumed annually by households, businesses and farming operations. Providing an opportunity for children to become aware of this resource, its value and the need to protect it was the purpose of the organizers, because educating children about the need to protect this resource is an important part of ensuring a reliable water supply for the future.

Congratulations must be extended to festival organizers Gerry Rich, Terry Flynn and Nancy Pitman; the corporate sponsors; Tony Price, the general manager of the agricultural museum; museum staff; 300 volunteers, teachers and resource people; and of course 7,000 inquiring and responsive children, for the success of this first annual festival.

May there be many more festivals, because it's part of ensuring a protected environment and safe water resource.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I have received many letters and petitions from concerned retired constituents regarding the cost of residential care and lack of funding in long-term care facilities.

The riding of Essex South has the second-largest per capita of seniors to total population in Canada. Second only to Vancouver Island, BC, 18% of the population of Essex South is over the age of 65.

This is an issue that concerns every area of the province but is of particular concern to me and the Liberal caucus. In 1993, due to staff cutbacks caused by insufficient funding and social contract days, in homes for the aged they have lost 30,000 hours of care to residents, affecting over 460 staff positions.

Do the elderly rank in government priority? I do not understand why cutbacks and efficiency have to be at the expense of 56,000 frail senior residents in homes in the province.

Compare the following levels of per diem funding: young offenders, $300 a day; jails and detention centres, $118 a day; other correctional institutions, $137 a day; non-profit homes for the aged, $79.61 a day. Elderly residents pay an average of $33 of the $79.61.

Without questioning the value of any of the services offered to these different groups in our society, are the vast differences in funding justifiable?

KAWARTHA-HALIBURTON CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): The Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society is in a state of crisis. The ability of the society to fulfil its mandate to protect the most vulnerable citizens within our province, our children, has been severely hampered by a growing debt load. Their ability to meet the mandated requirements of the Child and Family Services Act is being jeopardized.

Because of recent cutbacks, the equivalent of 16 front-line positions have been lost. The most alarming of these losses was the total elimination of the sexual abuse treatment worker, but we have also lost social workers, foster care workers, shift leaders and youth workers.

As a result, there will be no direct service for victims of child sexual abuse, no parent aid at all in Victoria and Haliburton counties and reduced support in Peterborough county, no treatment or group home services for adolescent girls, no prevention counselling services.

Regrettably, the Kawartha-Haliburton Children's Aid Society can only provide the hard-core protection services. Only instances where there's a blatant need for protection will be responded to. Other community services in our area do not have the resources or the expertise to deal with an ever-growing case load and thus cannot be relied upon to pick up the shortfall in the children's aid society service delivery.

The Minister of Community and Social Services has promised to conduct an operational review but has not done so. I urge him to do so immediately so that the 168,000 people residing in these three counties have protection for our most valuable citizens, our children.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today as the third member of this esteemed bench here to share with the House my real concern about a labour relations situation in northern Ontario that should concern us all.

The pilots of norOntair who are members of the Canadian Air Line Pilots' Association organization have been attempting to get a first contract with their employer for over one and a half years now and have been on strike for about a month. It is important to note that they fall under the jurisdiction of the federal labour relations act. If they were under the newly reformed Ontario Labour Relations Act, this dispute would have been settled long ago, as there are provisions now in that act that cover speedy resolve of a first-contract negotiation.

This work stoppage affects very clearly and directly a number of smaller northern Ontario communities that rely on norOntair as their most convenient connection with the outside world, particularly in emergency situations. I don't think their request for parity with industry standards is unreasonable and my review of progress to date does not lead me to believe that resolution of this dispute is beyond reach. It is unfortunate that so many people are being negatively affected.

It is in the spirit of the newly reformed Ontario Labour Relations Act and the length of this dispute and its impact on northern Ontario that I am encouraging today both parties to apply for binding arbitration.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, seated in the Speaker's gallery, Mr Alex Andrianopoulos and Ms Virginia Orfanos, from the Parliament of Victoria, Australia. Welcome to our chamber.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question was for the Premier, but as he is perhaps delayed, I will stand down my first question and direct my second question to the Solicitor General.

Minister, my question once again concerns your government's continuing failure to control the sale of ammunition in Ontario. As you know only so well, it was last April 21 when MPPs from all parties voted in favour of a private member's bill that was sponsored by the member for Ottawa West which would deal with what we believe to be a very important issue.

The bill is before the justice committee and the justice committee has heard now from two constitutional experts who have clearly stated that it's within this provincial government's jurisdiction to deal with this issue.

Minister, we believe there is no need for delay. We have a problem right now on the streets of our cities and you indeed have the power to act. You have said that you support legislation to control the sale of ammunition. If you indeed support this, will you act to pass this legislation before the end of the sitting?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I stated yesterday very clearly -- although the honourable member was not herself present, I'm sure her caucus would have advised her what happened -- this government's continuing support for the issue of more responsible control of the sale and accessibility of ammunition, and that I thought it made eminent good sense for us to allow the committee to finish its work, since it is due to be finished within a few days, I believe; if not that, within a few weeks.

In fact, it was the honourable member who originally asked for such a committee to be struck, so I find it passing strange that you now want to give them the back of your hand and decide how you want us to move unilaterally.

1350

My third point is that if indeed we know that the federal government is going to move in a timely fashion, it wouldn't make sense for any provincial government to move, as we do know there's no question about the fact that the sale of ammunition is under the purview of the federal government with the Explosives Act, which is federal legislation.

Barring those, then yes indeed, if the recommendations of the committee were that we should move, this government would.

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: I fail to understand why the member feels she has a valid point in rising day after day.

Mrs McLeod: Minister, the members of my caucus did indeed advise me not only of your answer in the House yesterday in which you indicated that you do support legislation to control the sale of ammunition; they advised me also of the actions of the members of the government on the justice committee. I would remind the minister that you are indeed the government and you have a majority of members who sit on the justice committee, and that majority has recommended delaying action; as you've suggested today, perhaps delaying action until the federal government has taken the lead in acting on that issue.

We do not believe it is good enough to simply delay. You had said before that you didn't know whether you had the constitutional ability to act. The committee has been told you do have the constitutional ability to act.

Every day of delay means there is a likelihood of more crimes being committed with guns that are loaded with easily store-bought ammunition. The Legislature voted in principle in favour of controlling the sale and purchase of ammunition. Will you instruct your members, your majority members on the justice committee, to stop delaying and to act on this important bill?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Again the honourable member wants to have it both ways. I can remember not long ago when members of the Liberal caucus were up accusing this government of not giving our non-cabinet members on standing committees enough flexibility to do the job of an MPP. Now she's asking that we muzzle members of that committee and dictate to them what they should do. This government doesn't act that way. We don't treat our backbenchers that way.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Mississauga North is out of order.

Hon Mr Christopherson: I don't expect for a moment that anybody who's on the government side of that committee is going to march in lockstep with every word and comma that I might ask, or anyone else on this side of the House. That's not to say that we don't hope for some consistency in policy, but we don't give orders, we don't dictate to the members what has to happen. I don't believe it's a fair question at all to be saying that we're ordering some kind of delay. The members are doing what they believe is in the best interests of the public in dealing with this issue.

Two quick points: The member talks about us deliberately trying to delay this issue -- further from the truth. We're trying to make sure the most efficient way of dealing with this issue is handled, and if the federal government says it is going to move on this and it is going to do it in the same kind of timely fashion that we could --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- why would we duplicate public taxpayers' money by having public servants and efforts spent on something that another level of government has already said it is going to do? I would also point out, in terms of delay --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- I hope the public never loses sight of the fact that the Liberal Party of Ontario didn't even start asking questions about this issue until there were headlines. So don't start talking to us about delays and caring and timeliness. We were on this long before --

The Speaker: Would the minister please take his seat.

Mrs McLeod: I honestly don't understand why this minister has such a passionate need to defend delay; I just don't understand what the problem is for this government.

You wondered if you had the constitutional ability to act as a provincial jurisdiction. You've been told by two constitutional experts that you do have the ability to act. You have a majority on the justice committee, so you have the ability to move forward on this issue and to bring that bill out of committee. You have support indicated by all three parties of the Legislature for this bill. You don't need to wait for the federal government to act, and no action you would take would appear to be inconsistent with anything the federal government might do on the issue. Yet every single day you fail to take action is a day in which ammunition is easily available to people who are ready to commit crimes.

I believe you must act quickly and decisively on this issue. You support it, there is support for it, you have the ability to act. I just ask you again, why won't you act?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I sincerely believe the member does not have an issue. We've been around this a number of times and I believe I fully answered all the questions in an appropriate fashion.

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): The Premier has arrived. My second question, then, is for the Premier.

Premier, a large number of students are graduating from schools this month, from universities, colleges, high schools, and a great many of them do not have a job to look forward to this summer and indeed will not have long-term jobs to look forward to when the summer is over.

Last week, we saw the new statistics from Statscan. Statscan announced that the official unemployment rate for people aged 15 to 24 is 18.5%. Clearly, that's unacceptable, and I think you would agree that's unacceptable. But that's just the start of what those statistics told us, Premier, because they also told us that in the past year, the number of young people in the workforce has declined by 20,000. That's 20,000 young people who have simply given up looking for work, young people who have no hope of opportunity, and that means that the real rate of unemployment among young people is probably closer to 30%.

Premier, during the discussions I had with young people when we were preparing our Jobs for Youth plan, I met one young man who has a degree in chemical engineering from an Ontario university. He was not able over the past year to get any type of job in Ontario. He's now working in a florist shop in New York state. That's the kind of unemployment and underemployment that's the reality for young people in this province today.

My question is a simple one. Why is your economic plan failing Ontario's young people?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I will pass that question on to the Minister of Education and Training.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): I indicated in the House the other day when a similar question was asked that this government -- the facts speak for themselves -- is spending more money on job creation for young people than has ever been the case in the history of the province. The amount we're spending is nearly $185 million. It's also important for the Leader of the Opposition to remember that no matter how many times she wants to say it, the facts are clear: Jobs are being created in this province.

If you listen to and talk to people in the communities across this province, private sector jobs as well are being created for young people in more numbers this summer than they were last summer, so things are getting better in this province than they were and the economy is taking shape and improving. You know that and I know that. In my own community, I know the auto sector for the first time in a long time is hiring students for summer work because the auto sector has picked up. Those are facts.

Be a doomsdayer, say all the negative things you want to say in this place, but things are getting better in this province in spite of what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.

Mrs McLeod: I'm more than a little surprised that the Premier would defer this question to the Minister of Education and Training, because this was not a question about training of our young people, this was a question about job opportunities for young people.

I noticed when I recognized the fact that 20,000 fewer young people are in the workforce now than there were a year ago, the Premier said, "Well, maybe they're all in school." If the Minister of Education in answering this question is saying that those 20,000 young people are now going to be accommodated in our colleges and universities, we'll be very interested in seeing just how you're going to do that, because I believe that the majority of those 20,000 young people are simply not able to find any opportunity in the province of Ontario.

1400

Minister, you, just like the Premier, have answered this question by saying, "Yes, there's an economic recovery and we should look on the good side and we should see where there is some job creation." We would all like to do that, except that the reality is that this province is still lagging behind the rest of the country in taking advantage of the recovery.

Your budget, the budget presented by your government, calls for job creation of 62,000 jobs in 1994. We are almost halfway through the year, and of those 62,000 jobs, there are only 15,000 new jobs in Ontario.

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

Mrs McLeod: During that same period, the rest of the country has seen jobs increase by 169,000. This is a made-in-Ontario recession, and your government is responsible for that. Why else do you think this province, that used to lead this country's economy, is now trailing the recovery so badly?

Hon Mr Cooke: If this is a made-in-Ontario recession, then one has to ask oneself, why did we go into recession only weeks after the Liberals were thrown out of office? It was obviously made by your policies, if that in fact is the case. Let's get real about this. The last time you got up --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Call an election. Let's go ask the kids who don't have jobs who they're going to vote for.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): He's got to wait for the Quebec election. Don't bother him.

The Speaker: Just slightly ahead of the election, perhaps we could hear the reply from the minister.

Hon Mr Cooke: The last time the Leader of the Opposition asked a question about jobs in the Legislature she was talking about negative job creation in the province, that there were negative jobs created.

The fact of the matter is that there have been tens of thousands of jobs created in this province this year. Statistics Canada bears that out. Every prediction in terms of growth shows that this province is going to lead the way and in fact is leading the way. Look at our manufacturing sector. Young people benefit from those jobs being created.

The Leader of the Opposition likes to get up and criticize every day when she's here, but the fact of the matter is, she never says what she wants to do. What would you do in terms of creating jobs? What do you think the Liberal government should be doing federally? Tell us what your suggestions are and maybe we can act on them -- unless you change your mind tomorrow.

Mrs McLeod: I would be more than happy to be in the position to be able to start to implement the job creation economic strategy that we have put in place, because we believe it would work and that it would start to create jobs for people in this province, and I welcome that opportunity at the earliest possible moment. In the meantime, we have to deal with this government and this government's record and this government's dismal failure to create jobs in this province.

It's 1994, Minister, and there are 15,000 new jobs in Ontario compared to 169,000 new jobs in the rest of this country. We did talk about negative job creation in the first quarter because Ontario lost 4,000 jobs in the first quarter of this year; last year, 1993, 17,000 fewer jobs in Ontario while every other province was gaining jobs. That is the record of this government, and this government alone, almost four years after this government came into office.

A young person who was under the age of 24 when this government first entered office is now moving into their late 20s. The unemployment rate for young people aged 25 to 34 has gone from 6.8% in 1990 to 9.7% in May 1994. These are the young people who've already had a difficult time starting in their careers. These are the young people who in many cases are heading families, and those families are facing severe economic difficulties. This generation of young people has been hit in a way which will have lasting impacts.

Minister, you're responsible for education and training. You're part of a government that surely has a responsibility to this generation of young people.

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

Mrs McLeod: What are you prepared to do for this generation of young people from 18 to 30 who are so desperately looking for job opportunity and for some support?

Hon Mr Cooke: The reality of the situation is that since February of this year 58,000 jobs have been created in this province. Those are the facts. There were 79,000 jobs created last year. The member knows this, yet she comes and spills out information that is totally incorrect.

Not that many months ago, the Leader of the Opposition said, in terms of budget expenditures, that the government should cut another $4 billion worth of expenses. Now, how can we cut $4 billion worth of expenditures and do more than $180 million in terms of direct job creation for young people? Get your act together. Or are you going to continue to follow what the editorials are saying? I follow the last paragraph here: "If they are serious about the goal" -- to get elected -- "the Liberals have to spell out precisely the policies needed to get on with the job."

When are you going to spell out what you believe in? Are you just going to get up and talk about doom and gloom and then leave the Legislature and change your mind the next day?

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, as you know, I've been very supportive of all efforts across Canada and of your personal efforts and of your Minister of Economic Development and Trade's efforts to reduce interprovincial trade barriers. I was the first to congratulate you and Premier Johnson last month, the first to shake both your hands at the signing ceremony.

Even though it was the same day I launched the Common Sense Revolution, I thought it was important to say to both of you, "Well done." That is why I am so concerned about recent reports on the lack of progress on an agreement to reduce barriers by Ottawa's June 30 deadline. More disturbing to me was a Globe and Mail article last week quoting a federal official as saying, "New Democratic governments in BC, Saskatchewan and Ontario [are among the] most resistant to change."

Premier, exactly what is Ontario's position on the draft agreement to reduce interprovincial trade barriers? Is this federal official quoted in the Globe and Mail accurate on the reluctance of the NDP governments in BC, Saskatchewan and Ontario to the changes that are required to implement free trade among the provinces?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): First of all, let me say that I remember well the honourable member's handshake, and I of course very much appreciated his support.

In answer specifically to your question, I'm going by recollection in terms of the Globe article and in terms of what some anonymous federal official may or may not have said. I can only tell you that from our perspective, if you look, for example, at the comments of Mr Van Houten of the Canadian Manufacturers' Association today in another newspaper, first of all, Mr Van Houten went out of his way at the end to stress that what he saw and the kinds of progress that he was hearing were being made were very positive and were constructive. I certainly share that view.

1410

Secondly, with respect to any comments by a federal official about Ontario, I can say to you categorically, that kind of comment is false. It has no foundation. It is not reflected at all in the positions that have been taken both privately and publicly by my colleague the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. She has been acting on the basis of clear cabinet instructions to push for a deal that will do as much as is humanly possible to lower interprovincial trade barriers. Ontario, as a province, has everything to gain from a more open Canada.

I would say there's been a remarkable consistency in the positions that have been taken by Ontario governments on this question over the last decade. I can well recall when Mr Grossman, who was the Minister of Industry in the 1980s, took a position on behalf of Ontario.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the Premier conclude his remarks, please.

Hon Mr Rae: I know my colleague from Wilson Heights took similar positions with respect to Ontario's historic position.

Ontario's historic position is, we don't like the barriers to trade. We are going in with as open a position as possible and we are very concerned to see that there are as few barriers as humanly possible. At the same time, I will say to the honourable member, we want to get an agreement and we do want there to be some human progress made. At the end of the day, we're all going to have to make a judgement call as to whether the progress that's being made is sufficient for us to justify signing.

The Speaker: Could the Premier please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Rae: My own view is, I remain optimistic that we will get there, but I want to repeat that any suggestion that Ontario is somehow --

The Speaker: The question's been answered. Would the Premier please take his seat.

Mr Harris: Premier, I think you know and you've articulated, as I have continued to push, that Ontario's role in negotiations is key. While a succession of governments over the last 10 years has articulated this, you would also know that I've been very critical that former Progressive Conservative and Liberal governments have not elevated the importance of this issue and that they have avoided many, many occasions when it could have been brought to the forefront of first ministers' conferences and discussions, which is why I've been so very supportive of your government's initiatives in this regard.

Our role is key. Provinces, in case people have doubt about how important it is, trade almost as much within Canada as they do with the entire rest of the world. The total interprovincial trade for us, two thirds, is within Ontario and Quebec. I am concerned about the conflicting reports as to your minister's role in reaching an agreement, so let me be a little more specific.

It has been reported, for example, that Ontario has been refusing to allow small PEI potatoes into the province. It has also been reported that Ontario's position is insisting on an exemption for crown corporations such as Ontario Hydro.

I would ask you, Premier, could you lay to rest that we have put no conditions, that we are prepared for free and open trade, including Ontario Hydro's purchases and the agricultural concerns that are there, that if we can get a deal --

The Speaker: Could the leader complete his question, please.

Mr Harris: -- we are prepared to have free and open trade on all of the goods and commodities and services? Could you belie definitively what has been reported there for us?

Hon Mr Rae: On both counts. I'm sorry the minister isn't here today, but she and I talked about that this morning in cabinet, on the assumption that someone might be asking a policy question with respect to something that's actually going on.

I would say directly to the honourable member that the statement about Hydro is categorically untrue. In fact, the position of our government has been that we want to have the procurement rules apply as broadly as possible.

I will say to the honourable member that the question of what happens when all the others put in their exemption as to what we do is a judgement call that we'll have to exercise. But the position that we're taking into the negotiations is that we want to have as broad an exemption as possible and it should include Ontario Hydro.

With respect to PEI potatoes, I've just turned to my colleague from the Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, because you'll appreciate that my expertise is not always spread quite as far as I would like. My understanding is that this has to do with policies and rules of the federal government and certainly not with ours. We certainly have not expressed any such objection that I'm aware of, but again, the Minister of Agriculture would probably be able to give you a fuller answer on that.

Mr Harris: It is an important issue and it is a policy issue before us and one that you know we're very concerned about. I think it's important that people understand that interprovincial trade barriers cost Ontario families, under the most conservative of estimates, about $1,000 per year. Those are after-tax dollars, $1,000 per year. That's every Ontario family. That's about the same impact as the social contract had on all public servants in the province, and we all know the consternation that caused. We're talking big bucks and we're talking a big deal to all Ontario consumers.

The Premier will know that in the Common Sense Revolution we have given our commitment in government to sign a bilateral trade deal with any province that is willing to do so, and that we ought to be tough with those who are not willing to do so.

Premier, I would ask you this: If, as it appears, an overall national agreement of a substantial nature cannot be reached by the June 30 deadline, or if some deal is reached that goes part way, will you commit the Ontario government to pursue bilateral deals with every other province in this country, as we have done with Quebec, and insist on those deals and fair trading practices on behalf of all consumers and of course on behalf of the businesses and the jobs it creates in Ontario? Will you agree to pursue that?

Hon Mr Rae: My experience in opposition is that it's a lot easier to negotiate in front of a mirror than it is to negotiate with a lot of other provinces. I would say to the honourable member that we are striving for an agreement and we are searching for one. We believe that an agreement is possible.

Let me say to the honourable member, in terms of the issue of bilateral agreements, I hope first of all he's not suggesting that we dismantle supply management, because I've heard some suggestion to that effect. But let me say, look at what we've done: We've signed a bilateral agreement with Quebec, we've signed a bilateral agreement with British Columbia on the subject of wines, spirits and ciders and we've moved ahead on a number of other areas where unilaterally we've reduced any restrictive practices.

I would say to the honourable member that we are going into these negotiations in the last two or three weeks with the full hope and expectation that they will be successful, but I don't see any agreement as precluding our ability on a bilateral basis to go further. We've already demonstrated that with respect to Quebec.

Let me underline one point you made. Interprovincial trade is worth $146 billion to this province. If we succeed in reducing trade barriers, which I believe the energetic work of the Minister of Economic Development and Trade is going to be a very positive contribution to, it will add substantially to jobs in Ontario.

The Speaker: Could the Premier conclude his reply, please.

Hon Mr Rae: It will add to our potential for growth in Ontario, and I'm delighted to have the support so far of the leader of the Conservative Party.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Harris: I just wonder, when you have those debates with the mirror, who wins them.

Hon Mr Rae: No, no, not me.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have another substantive policy question on a policy issue that is before Ontario right today, and it's to the Minister of Finance. Minister, yesterday outside of this House you indicated to reporters that if it was up to you, you might consider delaying your government's ill-conceived and illegal decision to reduce out-of-country health care for Ontario seniors.

I would ask you, Minister of Finance, since acting illegally will affect the finances of the province of Ontario, have you spoken with the Minister of Health about this? Are you today willing to stand up in this Legislature and tell Ontario seniors that the government of Ontario will not illegally reduce their health care coverage on June 30?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the question because it allows me to clarify some of the observations that have been made on my comments.

The message I was attempting to convey yesterday was that in my view the whole question of out-of-province coverage was something that the Health ministers were working on, and that the Minister of Health was actively engaged in this matter with her other provincial colleagues and the federal Minister of Health. That's my understanding of how the process is working.

Any question about how appropriate it was was completely in the context of the Canada Health Act. So at no point did I indicate that I was prepared to alter the existing policy.

1420

Mr Harris: You're the person who holds the province's purse-strings, and I would feel they're not drawn very tight. They're pretty leaky purse-strings.

Treasurer, you should be concerned about what I believe is not only a very real possibility but the fact that the federal government should, and in fact it is their duty to and they must, withhold money equivalent to the amount of extra billing on those seeking out-of-country medical attention, because your policy is contrary to the Canada Health Act. I understand the federal Health minister has already put you on alert.

I have written to the federal Minister of Health expressing concerns that we've not had a public statement from her and her lawyers -- it seems to us to be pretty straightforward -- and asking her to take a position on your plan.

Given that you have a fiscal stake and the taxpayers of Ontario have a fiscal stake in very real financial penalties from the federal government for violating the Canada Health Act, I would ask you: Have you personally, or has the Minister of Health, contacted the federal government to seek a definitive ruling from them on whether your actions are illegal or not?

Hon Mr Laughren: The leader of the third party would understand, I'm sure, that Ontario is not the only province that's attempting to rein in the growth in health care costs. Alberta has a differential rate. British Columbia has a differential rate. As a matter of fact, the Conservative Party in this province, if it was to achieve power, would indeed impose a health care levy, a tax on health care.

What we're saying is we want to rein in the growing cost of health care in this province on money spent outside the province so we can put that money to good use serving the citizens of this province in Ontario.

Mr Harris: I'm pleased with the Minister of Finance's reference to the Common Sense Revolution, where we checked with the Canada Health Act and with lawyers to make sure that the fair share care health levy based upon income of $50,000 a year or more is not counter to and against the law of the Canada Health Act. Yes, that is what we want to do. We want to legally raise the funds to support the health care system.

Let me tell you that I am very disappointed to hear the Minister of Finance say that because other provinces are breaking the law, it's okay for you to break the law too.

Hon Mr Laughren: No.

Mr Harris: That's what I clearly heard you say.

Treasurer, the Canada Health Act is very straightforward and very clear. I would like to quote for you section 11(1)(b)(ii), and here's the quote: "Where the insured health services are provided out of Canada, payment is made on the basis of the amount that would have been paid by the province for similar services rendered" in that province.

I'm not a lawyer, but when I read that, what you're doing is illegal and it is against the Canada Health Act. Clearly I think that's the interpretation.

Can you explain to me why you are putting senior citizens through all this turmoil --

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Did you learn this at golf school?

Mr Harris: I'm sorry the Liberals don't care about senior citizens and that they don't care about this issue.

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

Mr Harris: I'm sorry about that, and if it offends the Liberals -- they have to scream and yell -- that I'm fighting for seniors, I think that's most unfortunate.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The leader of the third party just said that the Liberals don't care about seniors, and of course the Liberal critic asked this question about five or six weeks ago, so it's very unfair.

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. I would ask the leader if he would please place a question.

Mr Harris: Given that the Liberal Minister of Health in Ottawa has been strangely silent on this issue over the last five weeks, can you explain to me this: Why is it you're causing all this turmoil with seniors and you are forcing them with their own money to seek legal counsel to get a legal opinion on what should be pretty straightforward? Will you do what you should have done in the first place: get your own legal opinion; ask the federal Minister of Health for their legal opinion, instead of forcing seniors to go to the courts to stop you from doing something that's illegal?

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, the leader of the third party would understand that this is not a policy that affects only seniors. It affects out-of-province costs for anyone. I wanted to make that clear. I don't expect that to make you happy, but simply to clarify that issue.

Secondly, it seems to me that whatever way in which the health care act is interpreted --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. The member for Parry Sound.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- and I agree with you that the federal minister has been somewhat silent on this issue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Minister?

Hon Mr Laughren: I was trying to clarify the question of the other provinces. It seems to me that because it's a Canada Health Act, we should all be playing by the same rules, and if I recall correctly, the Minister of Health did indicate that if there is a problem with that, certainly the province of Ontario will comply. But all of the provinces --

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): Why did you take a leaf from Alberta and not from --

The Speaker: The member for Halton Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- should be playing according to the same rules on the whole issue of health care. We have no problem with accepting whatever interpretation is appropriate in terms of keeping with the conditions of the Canada Health Act.

But I wish the leader of the third party would build into his questions -- it would make it a lot easier for me to respond -- his assertion once again from the Common Sense Revolution that he would raise taxes in order to pay for the health care system he envisions in the province of Ontario.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr Hugh O'Neil (Quinte): My question today is for the Minister of Health. Minister, as you are aware, close to 500 people have travelled to Queen's Park today from the Trenton area to voice their concerns about the future of the Trenton Memorial Hospital. I am sending over to you letters and petitions signed by approximately 17,000 people expressing those concerns.

Minister, will you today give us your commitment that you will ensure a sufficient critical mass at the Trenton Memorial Hospital to guarantee that the hospital will remain viable and provide high-quality, appropriate and needed health services to the people of the Trenton area and that the capital funds committed to the restructuring and renovation of the hospital are still available?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to be able to respond on the floor of the House to the member's questions. Let me say to the people who are here from his constituency, he has certainly expressed to me even before today his concerns about the work that was going on in that particular region.

I certainly understand the concern people have about changes in health care, but changes are happening, and let me say to him that the concern that is now being felt in his community we know is generated by the work the district health council is doing and the analysis it has undertaken of health care.

I want to say to him and to his constituents very clearly that no final decisions have been taken about health care and the system and the institutions and the hospitals in that region, and it is entirely appropriate that no final decisions have been taken, because the responsibility for doing that planning lies with the district health council. Obviously the ministry works closely with the district health council, and I hope people who are concerned by the report that is now in the public will study it carefully and participate in the discussions, and that will enable the district health council to make appropriate recommendations to me dealing with the specific issues and the specific points that the member has raised.

Mr O'Neil: Thank you very much, Minister, and I appreciate you setting up a meeting this afternoon at 3 o'clock with the people from the Trenton area.

I guess one of the main concerns has been that this thing has been hanging around for the last two or three years: consultants looking at it, going back and forth, all sorts of hearings. We are hoping that after our meeting of this afternoon you can give the people from the Trenton area some assurance that the Trenton Memorial Hospital will remain a viable hospital. Those discussions are ongoing with the district health council, and hopefully we can arrive at something that will make everyone happy.

1430

I guess what I'm asking you is that this thing has to be brought to a head so that a decision is finally made, so that the people in that area know what's going on. Our problem is like one of the headlines in the Trentonian newspaper which reads, "Four Doctors Leaving Area Hospital," the hospital in the area.

What we're finding is that the doctors, knowing of the uncertainty in this area, are picking up and going to the States. The sooner we get this thing settled, as to a decision being made by the district health council and yourself, it will put some of these fears aside so that we can get on with the building and the repair of this particular hospital. I'd ask you for your comments on that particular side of it.

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly can understand the effect that uncertainty and the length of time the planning process takes has on communities, and I share that worry. At the same time, let me remind the member that the kind of direction that was initiated by his government, the member for Oriole when she was Minister of Health, in giving district health councils the responsibility to do local planning is something that serves us well in this province.

I was delighted to hear Dennis Timbrell, the president of the Ontario Hospital Association, commend Ontario for being one of the few provinces that has the confidence in a local planning process and doesn't have a cookie cutter at Queen's Park that says what's right for Trenton hospital is necessarily the same as what's right for downtown Toronto or northwestern Ontario.

That kind of local planning process is very important, leads us to better decisions in the long run, and I am certainly supportive of that. At the same time, I look forward to the meeting with his constituents and with talking to them about how we can together make sure that we get to the wisest decisions in the shortest possible time.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): My question is to the Minister of Finance and Deputy Premier.

It's okay, Gilles. You can settle down now with your briefing book.

Last fall you granted a loan to Ontario Bus Industries of $19 million, and as you know, you own the company now. It turned over the keys to you earlier this year.

We learn from the press today that Nova Bus, which is a subsidized Quebec company, is negotiating to buy this Ontario bus builder. Can you assure us, first of all, Minister, that the taxpayers of Ontario will get back all of the $19 million and that the jobs will be retained in Ontario?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): I'm aware of the issue surrounding Ontario Bus Industries and the fact that we own it. You and I own it. The people of Ontario own Ontario Bus Industries.

As a matter of fact, your question is almost timely, because I'm going to be talking to some folks this afternoon about issues swirling about Ontario Bus Industries. But I can assure you that we will do whatever we can, while keeping our options open, to protect the interests of the Ontario taxpayer.

Mr Turnbull: That was quite a waffle. My question was, are we going to get our money back? At the time this $19-million loan was granted, it was to retain jobs in Ontario. You will recall that in fact the reason that Ontario Bus Industries couldn't sell into Quebec was because Nova was being supported by the Quebec government and it wasn't allowing any buses to be sold into Quebec. Now we have the spectre of them looking at buying our business, when your government put out taxpayers' money to ensure that those jobs remained.

I'm asking you very simply, will the jobs be retained and will the money be retained? Will we get the $19 million back? In addition, will there be no guarantees given that Ontario municipalities will have to buy buses from Quebec?

Hon Mr Laughren: The latter part of your question makes me very nervous, and I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. Are you saying that Ontario should not --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Free trade.

Hon Mr Laughren: Wait a minute. Are you saying that Ontario, under a regime of no trade barriers among provinces, should not be buying buses from the province of Quebec?

Mr Turnbull: That is not what I said. I said, "No guarantees" against what you said.

Hon Mr Laughren: If that's what you're saying, stand on your feet and say so. Don't disguise --

Mr Turnbull: I'm not disguising anything, and you can hear me, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- setting up trade barriers with some kind of nonsense surrounding Ontario bus industries.

Mr Turnbull: I said, "No guarantees."

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

Hon Mr Laughren: That's exactly what you're doing. I would caution the member opposite, at a time when we're all working very hard to reduce trade barriers among provinces, that he not stand in his place in this assembly and set up new barriers because it might happen to be with the province of Quebec.

Mr Turnbull: No, that is not what I am saying.

Hon Mr Laughren: That's exactly what the member opposite is doing.

The Speaker: New question. The honourable member for York East.

Mr Stockwell: It's called free trade.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: We're free traders.

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

Mr Turnbull: When he says --

The Speaker: I caution the member. If he refuses to come to order, he will be named.

New question. The member for York East.

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): Shame on the Conservatives and the MPPs behaving like that, costing taxpayers money as the clock ticks away.

The Speaker: Would the member please place a question.

ELEVATORS

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I recently attended a tenants' forum --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Will the member take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for York East, please place a question.

Mr Malkowski: I'll try this again. Once again, we see the taxpayers' money being wasted.

To the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, I recently attended a tenants' forum in East York. One of the concerns raised was about the high number of elevator breakdowns in some of the older buildings. In particular, tenants from 225 and 227 Cosburn Avenue informed me that one of their elevators would be out of service for several weeks.

This seems awfully long to me, and I am therefore concerned about my constituents, especially those who are elderly and disabled, who will be inconvenienced by this. Is there anything, Madam Minister, that your ministry might be able to do to ensure this elevator would be repaired and made safe for my constituents as soon as possible?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): To the member for York East --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Parkdale, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: I think that any mention of the word "elevator" tends to make people go up and down a lot. I was afraid of that. However, this is a serious question, and I would like to try to answer it.

I am aware of the situation that the member talked about, and it is unfortunate. This elevator is over 30 years old. It is the responsibility of my ministry to inspect and, if there is a safety problem, to shut the elevator down and make sure that the building owner then does the maintenance and the repairs, which is what is happening. But because this elevator is so old, they have to get some new design and even manufacture some parts.

We've been informed that it will be up and running again by mid- to late July. We will keep monitoring the situation. But it is up to the building owner at this point to make sure that the maintenance is done on time. Safety is our concern and, although I regret the inconvenience caused to people, it is really important that elevators are safe for his constituents.

1440

Mr Malkowski: The minister knows that elevator safety is truly of concern to all the members of this House, especially the member for Etobicoke West. Therefore I would also like to ask the minister, what is being done to address elevator safety in all of the province of Ontario?

Interjection.

Hon Ms Churley: Somebody over there said, "Nothing." Not true. They did nothing. This government, my ministry in fact --

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: I know that was provocative, Mr Speaker, but they are provocative today, you have to admit.

In fact, because we're concerned about the safety of elevators not only in the member's riding but in all members' ridings, we have recently hired 11 new inspectors.

We also have implemented an automated inspection system, which means that for the first time, the resources can be wisely used so that the ministry can focus on the kind of old elevator that the member asked me about and make sure that the elevators that perhaps most need to be inspected -- and therefore this kind of thing shouldn't be happening. Elevators, after 30 years, should not have to be shut down. The maintenance should be continued over a period of time. We will now make sure that happens.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This question is to the Minister of Health. On Monday of this week the medical and non-medical staff, the volunteers, the members of the union, patients, families of patients and the general public were shocked to learn of a report which called on the following for Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines: the elimination of 300 jobs from Hotel Dieu; the closing of the Dieu's emergency department; a cut of another $10 million from Hotel Dieu's $50-million annual budget; the closing of 60 Hotel Dieu inpatient beds; slashing the Dieu's 11-bed intensive care unit in half, cutting in half the 40 to 50 nurses and other staff in that area; and cutting $100,000 from the St Catharines General's budget.

You can imagine that the people of St Catharines and all of us who represent St Catharines were quite perturbed to see this particular report come out. Would the minister assure the House that she will not be accepting the recommendations of this particular report, which would in effect substantially affect the ability of Hotel Dieu Hospital to provide appropriate medical services to the people of St Catharines?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have the opportunity to comment on the report that the member for St Catharines raises. Certainly my colleagues the members for Niagara Falls and for St Catharines-Brock have also discussed it with me.

I happened to be in Niagara-on-the-Lake the day that the report was, as I understand it, leaked, not released, to the press, and so had an opportunity to hear directly from representatives of Hotel Dieu about their concern. I have to say to the member that it is a report that was data collection and the examination of options dealing with the provision of emergency services to the people of St Catharines with a view to making sure that we have the best possible service.

As I said in response to the earlier question from the member for Quinte, in this province the district health councils have assumed the very difficult responsibility of doing health care planning, because what may be right for Quinte may not be right for St Catharines and for the Niagara region. So it is very important to have that local input.

At the same time I must say to the member that it is very difficult for the district health councils to make the most appropriate recommendations to me if every time there is a baseline report on data or a consultant's recommendation, it provokes a storm of opposition to the recommendations before those recommendations have been considered --

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

Hon Mrs Grier: -- or before there has been adequate consultation on them. I know the honourable member would not want to feed into that kind of concern, so I appreciate the opportunity to respond on the floor of the House.

Mr Bradley: The minister may not be aware that the Hotel Dieu Hospital and the St Catharines General Hospital, the Shaver Hospital and other medical institutions in the St Catharines area have already participated of their own volition in a rationalization program which has ensured that duplication of service has been eliminated.

It has done this without pressure from the ministry, it has done it without direction from any consultants, and the results have generally been positive though difficult, because there have been some jobs eliminated and there has been some streamlining that has taken place, some reductions in potential funding.

What I'm asking the minister is that in view of the fact that this rationalization has already taken place in St Catharines, would the minister assure us that now St Catharines won't be used, as it was described to me, as a guinea pig for the rest of the province in terms of slashing services at a major hospital in our community?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me assure him that the ministry is not singling out any area or any hospital to be used as a guinea pig. As I keep saying, district health councils are doing planning unique to their particular districts. But I'm well aware of the work that the hospitals in St Catharines have done and very impressed by their voluntary cooperation in a rationalization of services.

I have to say to the member that when services are rationalized on a functional basis and when, for example, one hospital perhaps has all of the trauma unit care, has the cardiac care, has the neonatal care, then it behooves those institutions to also look at emergency service because it may well be that if, for example, one hospital has now got the primary responsibility and therefore the expertise and the staff on one particular kind of care, then it is very important that in emergencies people be directed to the appropriate hospital that can deliver the kind of care depending on the accident, the trauma or the emergency that exists.

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

Hon Mrs Grier: It is essential that as we rationalize functions between hospitals, we then look at not only the emergency services within hospitals but the network of support systems that exists and the community-based services that support all of those functions. You can't look at just one piece of the system without looking at the whole spectrum.

I'm very pleased to have the opportunity, and as I said in response to the first --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a question for the Minister of Education and Training. This will give the minister a wonderful opportunity to speak to Bill 160; that's what the question's about. This legislation will amend the Education Act and five other statutes to change the method of apportionment over a three-year, phase-in period beginning in 1996.

In 1989, Bill 64 was passed into law; Bill 64 was handled by the Minister of Education. Now we have Bill 160, which is handled by the Minister of Finance, and yet we're talking about education issues. We were told all of the education finance policies would come in the form of the Fair Tax Commission's report and the white paper that you promised last September. We still don't have it.

Secondly, there are a lot of issues in this bill, the issues being that there's insufficient information for public school boards to assess the impact, that the definition of a "pupil" for funding is unclear, and the list goes on and on. I have a question with an "and" in the middle of it.

We would like you, if you would, Mr Minister, so that we can have public input, because we haven't had an opportunity, to take the section -- and it's actually section 3 -- of Bill 160 that affects the education community out of the bill and introduce it as a separate piece of legislation. That would be our first choice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member complete her question, please.

Mrs Cunningham: Our second choice would be this: Will you take the education section out of the bill and have it sent to a committee where the public, the education community, deserves to have input? Two parts: take your pick.

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): There's no particular conspiracy to put this in another ministry. The fact is that this was announced in the budget, so it's part of a budget bill. It will remain part of a budget bill. This issue has been debated for many, many years. This is a very measured step towards equity in funding of our education system. It builds on the initiative of the previous government, which built on the initiative of the previous government before that. There has been lots of public discussion and I think that public discussion is reflected in the legislation.

1450

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon and seated in the Speaker's gallery, the Honourable Horace Clarke, Minister of Water and Transportation, from the Parliament of Jamaica. Welcome.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: There have been a couple of occasions in the last couple of weeks when the lead questions when it comes to question period have been quite lengthy, and some of the answers, I would say, to be fair to both sides of the House. Unfortunately, it means a number of members don't have the opportunity to pose questions that are important to our constituents in this question period.

I would ask that you urge the leaders of the opposition and other members as well as people on this side of the House to make the answers to their question a little bit more succinct in order to allow other members to ask questions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I could not agree more with the honourable member for Cochrane South. When the questions are unduly long and the replies are unduly long, then of course the 60 minutes goes by with very few members, particularly backbench members, having an opportunity to ask questions. All I can do is to continue to urge all members to keep the questions as short as possible and the replies as short as possible.

MEMBER FOR KITCHENER

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): Mr Speaker, I have a serious point of privilege that I would like to raise with you: As you know, one of the members of this Legislature one or two days ago was acquitted before a criminal court in another part of this province.

I've been very, very much concerned about the trial of a member of this Legislature and I was more concerned as I read reports of the trial and the lack of evidence against this particular member. It struck me and it struck a number of other members of this Legislature whom I have privately conversed with over this particular matter that we are concerned that perhaps this member has been unfairly treated by our justice system; at least, that is my concern.

Under section 46 of the Legislative Assembly Act, this Legislative Assembly has all the powers of the court to inquire into matters where a member may have been intimidated by either the public or by some institution or the media or by anyone. This member and his family have gone through a tremendous amount of pain and suffering and no doubt he has suffered as a result of the notoriety associated with the charges etc.

Mr Speaker, I would ask you to do two things for me, or perhaps for all members of this Legislature, as a point of privilege as properly raised under that guise. Number one, I would ask you to confer with that member whether or not he would like you to undertake a private inquiry of some sort, first. If in fact he would desire an inquiry, I would fully support that kind of activity under some guise and form as per your directions.

I do not believe that this is a matter to be treated lightly. I believe that Will Ferguson has been badly treated by our system and that his reputation as a politician and as an individual has been for ever slandered in terms of the public and that he has been treated unfairly.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the honourable member for Carleton, I take the matter which he raises most seriously. I'm not exactly sure what help I can be to him or to the House or to the member for Kitchener, but I will indeed endeavour to meet with the member for Kitchener and to discuss the matters which the member for Carleton has brought to my attention. I will deal with the matter as quickly as possible and we'll do whatever is appropriate under the circumstances.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition addressed to the Parliament of Ontario that has been sent to me by my constituents from Manor Park in the region of Ottawa. It reads as follows:

"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.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my name to this petition.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have two identical petitions before me today. One was sent to myself, the other to the Honourable Elmer Buchanan, and they're both from the Council for a Tobacco-Free Hastings and Prince Edward. This petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario says:

"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 the 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 plain packaging strategy the most efficient 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."

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Tony Ruprecht (Parkdale): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which reads:

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

"Whereas the NDP" -- that is, the New Democratic Party -- "government is hell-bent on establishing a 20-bed forensic facility for the criminally insane at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre; and

"Whereas the nearby community is already home to the highest number of ex-psychiatric patients and social service organizations in hundreds of licensed and unlicensed rooming-houses, groups homes and crisis care facilities in all of Canada; and

"Whereas there are other neighbourhoods where the criminally insane could be assessed and treated; and

"Whereas no one was consulted -- not the local residents; not the business community; not leaders of community organizations; not education and child care providers; not even the NDP member of provincial Parliament for Fort York;

"We, the undersigned residents and business owners of our community, urge the NDP government of Ontario to immediately stop all plans to accommodate the criminally insane in an expanded Queen Street Mental Health Centre until a public consultation process is completed."

I affix my signature on the bottom of this petition.

1500

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads 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 would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

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

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

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

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

I support this petition and I've signed it as well.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition obtained as a result of a public meeting in January in Newbury, which I attended, addressed to the Legislative Assembly, from Middlesex constituents who utilize the emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury.

About 16,000 people are dependent upon the services of Four Counties General Hospital. They petition the Legislative Assembly to call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of 24-hour emergency medical coverage in the rural emergency departments across the province of Ontario to ensure that our rural residents have the adequate emergency care to which they are entitled.

I have signed my name to this petition.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from hundreds of people from the Hawkesbury-Vankleek Hill area, from the Durham area, from the Halton area, from Oshawa and from Pickering. The petition reads 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 made 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 follows the provisions of the Canada Health Act and prevent further erosion of our health care system in Ontario."

I heartily concur with this petition and affix my signature to it.

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): I have a petition signed by hundreds of constituents to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas we are convinced that a 30% cut in personal income taxes, a 20% cut in non-priority government spending and a balanced budget in four years will help create thousands of jobs in Ontario; and

"Whereas the government isn't working and we need a major change in Ontario;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislature of Ontario to support Mike Harris in his plan for a return to commonsense government."

I have affixed my signature to that as well.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. These are supporters of Bill 119.

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

I affix my signature to it. I'm presenting it on behalf of Brad Ward of Brantford.

MINING INDUSTRY

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition:

"Companies in Elliot Lake depend on Canada's ability to sustain a strong and vibrant mining industry. Our people provide products and services to the mining sector across Canada.

"We are concerned about the alarming departure of mining investment to other countries and we support the 'Keep Mining in Canada' campaign sponsored by the Mining Association of Canada.

"We join with other industry members in supporting federal action on the mine reclamation taxation issue, because this is the most immediate way the government can demonstrate that Canada is a welcoming place for mining investment."

This petition is signed by many residents of the city of Elliot Lake.

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I have a petition to the Ontario Ministry of Education:

"We demand that the Ministry of Education immediately prohibit any instruction in a school system that offends against the Criminal Code or conflicts with the personal values and beliefs of most of the people, including teaching of homosexuality, any homosexual counselling, any homosexual telephone hotline service in the schools, and the distribution by any person of so-called age education flyers which promote buggery, anal intercourse; because

"The Criminal Code of Canada, section 159.154, states that: 'Engaging in buggery under the age of 18 years is punishable by up to 10 years imprisonment'; and

"The Education Act guarantees the right to withdraw from instruction that which is in conflict with a religious belief held by a student, guardian or parent, and the ministry has affirmed by amendments to regulation 262 -- now 298 -- of the Education Act that those students who withdraw from such instruction are embarrassed, isolated and stigmatized. This is happening to our children now; and

"The school system is aiding and abetting illegal sexual activities among children. Homosexuality is being taught and condoned in schools by way of lesbian and gay liaison groups and sexual orientation instruction. So-called AIDS education instruction flyers, produced by boards of health and AIDS education agencies, which promote buggery, oral sex, sex between men and boys, sado-masochism, are being distributed to the students in Ontario."

This petition is signed by over 100 individuals from London, from Middlesex county and other parts of Ontario, and I will sign it and enter it into the public record.

Also, Mr Speaker, I just wanted to tell you that on June 13, I introduced a petition on Bill 119, which was in support of plain packaging of tobacco products and I forgot to say that it was the Middlesex-London Health Unit. I just wanted to add it to the record.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition sent to me by Robert Goodfellow, health promoter with the Kingston, Frontenac and Lennox and Addington Health Unit, and it is a petition signed by many of my constituents. The petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products. He asked that I read the petition in its entirety into the Hansard, so therefore I will:

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

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

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

I, too, am going to sign this petition.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have another petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the city of Elliot Lake is a service centre for a number of North Shore communities and the Ministry of Health has decided to cut hospital funding in that city; and

"Whereas the city of Elliot Lake has been forced to diversify its economy following the cancelling of uranium contracts by Ontario Hydro; and

"Whereas those diversification efforts include the successful marketing of a residential retirement program and the subsequent influx of several thousand retirees, all of whom will require inpatient and outpatient care at one time or another; and

"Whereas St Joseph's General Hospital, which has already made every conceivable effort to restructure in the face of social contract cuts, is now forced to close 31 inpatient beds;

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

"To seriously re-examine the ministry's funding cut formula for flaws and reconsider Elliot Lake's position, bearing in mind the changing demographics in the community and the reliance of North Shore communities on health care services offered by the Elliot Lake hospital."

This petition is signed by numerous of my constituents in Spanish, Massey, the Sagamok First Nation and the Serpent River First Nation.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time allotted for the presentation of petitions has expired.

VISITORS

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Before continuing with our routine proceedings, I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber this afternoon, and seated in the Speaker's gallery, a visiting delegation headed by the Honourable Ron Knowles, Minister of Housing and Minister for the Aged of the Parliament of Victoria, Australia. Welcome to our chamber.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I beg leave to present a report from the standing committee on general government and move its adoption.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given the lack of comprehensive hearings on this matter and in the interests of preserving the viability of the unique community --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): No. The member does not have a point of order, and the member will know that he doesn't have a point of order.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): Mr Brown from the standing committee on general government presented the committee's report and moved its adoption.

The committee begs to report the following bill, as amended:

Bill 21, An Act to amend certain Acts with respect to Land Leases / Loi modifiant certaines lois en ce qui concerne les terrains à bail.

The Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed?

Interjections: No.

The Speaker: All those in favour will please say "aye."

All opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members; a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1512 to 1517.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, at the commencement of this proceeding, there appeared to have been a misunderstanding. There has been an agreement that we should just go with a voice vote and refer this matter to committee of the whole House and that this would be satisfactory.

The Speaker: We require unanimous consent. Agreed? Agreed. Bill 21 is referred to the committee of the whole House.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr43, An Act respecting the City of Toronto

Bill Pr119, An Act respecting the Town of Orangeville.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr28, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa.

TOWN OF DRESDEN ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr127, An Act respecting the Town of Dresden.

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Hope, on behalf of Mr Dadamo, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr122, An Act respecting the City of Windsor.

TOWNSHIP OF SIDNEY ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Grandmaître, on behalf of Mr Hugh O'Neil, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr123, An Act respecting the Township of Sidney.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 165, An Act to amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act / Projet de loi 165, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les accidents du travail et la Loi sur la santé et la sécurité au travail.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The first order of business is a deferred vote on second reading of Bill 165; a five-minute bell. Call in the members.

The division bells rang from 1522 to 1527.

The Speaker: In the absence of Mr Mackenzie, Ms Murdock has moved second reading of Bill 165, An Act to Amend the Workers' Compensation Act and the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

All those in favour of Ms Murdock's motion will please rise one by one.

Ayes

Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren;

Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wood, Ziemba.

The Speaker: All those opposed to Ms Murdock's motion will please rise one by one.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Conway, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Elston, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Morin, Murphy, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Runciman, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Speaker: The ayes being 60 and the nays 44, I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Committee of the whole?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): No, Mr Speaker, the resources development committee.

The Speaker: Agreed? Agreed.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Just before I call the first order, the government House leader had some discussions with the opposition House leaders and we would like to set out an agreement we reached about how to handle the first part of today's business so that members would have some understanding of what was going to happen.

The first order I will be calling is the sixth order. When that bill has been debated, there will just be a voice vote on the bill. Then I will be calling the fifth order, the ninth order and the 10th order, in that order.

We've agreed that the votes on each of those bills will be stacked and the votes will be taken all together after debate on the last of those three is completed.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Agreed? Agreed.

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALCOOLS

The following bill was given third reading on motion:

Bill 113, An Act to amend the Liquor Control Act / Projet de loi 113, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les alcools.

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

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

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

Resolved that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I gather that some wish to make a few remarks on third reading, so we will revert back to the member for Oxford.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I don't really have any additional remarks. I think we had a good, thorough debate at second reading regarding what the bill is all about in terms of ensuring that self-employed individuals who earn net self-employment income of more than $40,000 a year will have to pay some employer health tax. We look at this as an issue of fairness in the tax system.

The Speaker: Any comments and/or questions?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): Just to be clear, because it has been a little confused, we are on Bill 110 and we're doing comments at this point?

The Speaker: You have up to two minutes for comments and/or questions.

Mr David Johnson: Oh, on his debate; I'm sorry. There's been a lot of discussion. I'll hold my comments until our part in the rotation.

The Speaker: Any other questions or comments?

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I will be equally brief. I think that in terms of any of the tax policy of the government, we have determined that their remarks around why they believe their new institutions are so fair, are so novel, are probably misguided. In fact, we've had considerable concern expressed to us about the ability of this government to enforce this new rule of fairness.

It is also of interest to me that when we spoke to the employer health tax issue on previous occasions, we have pointed out that perhaps the employer health tax in its entirety should be re-examined, bearing in mind the fact that it is based on a payroll and is not based on whether or not there is any ability of the employer to pay at all. As we go to smaller and smaller operations, partnerships or undertakings of any sort, you end up taking off the top the employer payroll tax, and that doesn't have any sense of fairness when it comes to those employees who are employed by an operation that may very well have to start laying people off to afford to pay their employer health tax, the new levies that are going to be felt under this circumstance.

We obviously are going to be voting against this on third reading. We've had enough debate, I guess, around the entire issue, but I just wanted to remind people that it's time to re-examine the concept of the employer health tax in the province.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): A revelation, no less, from the member for Bruce.

Mr Elston: This is the fourth time I've said that.

Mr Stockwell: Well, it's still a revelation, for the fourth time.

I will say the government seems to have a definition of tax fairness that is not shared in the public at large. They assume that by expanding a tax, enlarging a base, there's some kind of fairness involved. You see, when I go out and talk to the people in the province of Ontario, when they define tax fairness, those people define it by withdrawing or reducing taxes, because they think taxes --

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): It's a new concept.

Mr Stockwell: It's a new concept, but the only people who are catching on to this concept are the NDP and a few hangers-on who are generally employed by the NDP.

1540

What the tax fairness people are looking for -- and you're using the word but you're not really getting the definition right -- is a withdrawal of taxes, a shrinking of taxes, a reduction of taxes. You're calling this "tax fairness" by expanding the base of a very unpopular tax to begin with, that was introduced, as I said, by the Liberals, and what I think you need to be is a little more upfront and honest with the people. You're calling this "tax fairness," but the definition isn't that. You're using those words in order to disguise this bill so as not to raise public hackles when you're discussing it out in the public sector.

You know they don't agree with any broader interpretation of taxes. You know they don't want to pay any more taxes. You know that the employer health tax is a job-killing tax because it's a payroll tax. You know that kind of tax is the worst one because it discourages investment and it discourages hiring. You are sitting in your place today, saying, "We've discovered tax fairness and it means expanding the employer health tax so it encompasses and covers more people so they will have the joy and luxury of paying taxes in the province of Ontario." That is a loose interpretation, to say the least, and probably not what I would consider to be a fair labelling of this piece of legislation.

The Speaker: Further questions or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Oxford has up to two minutes for his response.

Mr Sutherland: To respond to the member for Etobicoke West, I presume he is suggesting by his comments that it is fair that if one small company that may be incorporated, versus an individual who's not, who is only self-employed and may be in the same type of business, but the one may have some employees --

Mr Stockwell: No. That's not fair either.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Sutherland: The point is, the one who may have some employees has to pay the health tax; the other one, self-employed, doesn't. When you're doing tenders for projects, for different types of things, whether that be trades etc, if over $40,000, is that fair? Does that make a level playing field?

Mr Stockwell: Use your head, Kimble. You're not that dumb.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Sutherland: The member from the third party who thinks they always talk about how well they represent small business is again showing that when it comes down to trying to be consistent on this issue, the party really isn't consistent.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West come to order.

Mr Sutherland: Let me say to the member for Bruce, I appreciate his participation in the debate.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West had two minutes to make his comments. Perhaps he would be polite enough to listen to the member for Oxford, who now has his two minutes.

Interjection.

The Speaker: I caution the member for Etobicoke West that if he refuses to come to order, he will be named.

Mr Sutherland: I appreciated the intervention by the member for Bruce, and I will agree with the member for Etobicoke West on this, that it was quite a revelation. What the member for Bruce has told us is that the Liberals may be thinking about trying to get rid of the employer health tax. Of course, whether that will be the same policy tomorrow or the same thinking no one knows, because they keep changing their policies, what few they have, from day to day. So no one's really sure where they're going to be, but it's interesting to note that the member is indicating the Liberals may move in that direction to get rid of the employer health tax.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Further debate?

Mr Elston: No, I get to reply.

The Acting Speaker: We are looking at further debate.

Mr Elston: No. You're looking at giving me a chance to reply to the questions and comments, I think, aren't you?

The Acting Speaker: We were in questions or comments. The member for Oxford has just responded. We are looking for further debate.

Mr David Johnson: I sympathize with my colleague the member for Bruce because it has been a little bit convoluted and confusing here this afternoon. People have been coming and going and it's been difficult to tell if it's a two-minute rebuttal or an actual speech or what's going on. However, I think I've got it sorted out now and this is my opportunity to speak to Bill 110.

I think the comments from the member for Oxford point out the difference between the government party, the NDP, and the Progressive Conservative Party. The member for Oxford had said that perhaps there's an unfairness here, an unfairness there, and his attitude in terms of addressing unfairness in the tax system is to ferret out each particular individual, every individual, every little company, every nook and cranny in the province of Ontario and tax it. Put a tax on everything. If it moves, tax it. That's what the member for Oxford is saying. That's his idea of fairness. That's the government's idea of fairness, to tax, tax, tax, and if you find somebody who hasn't been taxed to the same degree as everybody else, then you tax them. That's how you implement fairness in the province of Ontario.

I think the member for Etobicoke West was very frustrated because that is not the way the Progressive Conservative Party looks at Ontario. That's not the way we look at fairness in the province of Ontario.

To illustrate that, using Bill 110, our position is not maybe opposed to Bill 110, not we will probably be opposed to 110; we are definitely opposed to Bill 110. The reason is because Bill 110 taxes more people. It expands the taxation system in the province of Ontario. It taxes self-employed people with regard to the employer heath tax, people who, by a stroke of good fortune, I suppose, today, are not paying premiums for the employer health tax system, people who, I might say, many of them, are surviving, struggling, doing their best to keep a very small business going against all odds in this economy, against the heavy tax burden that they have to bear already at this point in time, people who do not need another tax imposed on the taxes that they already bear. The Progressive Conservative Party is saying that we should not put more taxes on the taxes that these people have already.

The government may say we're talking about self-employed people, we're talking about perhaps lawyers, consultants, accountants, maybe architects or dentists, perhaps people who may have a high income, but not necessarily. I see the member for Mississauga South looking at me and she's saying, "Not necessarily." I can tell you from conversations I've had with people in the dentistry field, for example, that they're feeling the pinch of this economy, as well as many other people. So the incomes are not necessarily high and many of these people are struggling and trying to make do, trying to survive. But we may also be talking about very small entrepreneurs, real estate agents, people involved in snow clearing or maybe driving sandwich trucks from site to site, or handymen or maintenance people, perhaps even ice cream vendors. We for sure are talking about many, many thousands of people on the low end of the scale who may be just getting by. Yes, there is a $40,000 bottom-line limit on this, but with the taxes that people are paying, that's not a great deal in this day and age.

So what the Progressive Conservative Party is saying is that rather than add more taxes on the people of Ontario, we should actually be removing taxes, in particular the employer health tax. Our attitude is that small businesses in general should not have to bear the burden of an employer health tax. The Common Sense Revolution, which has been referred to this afternoon, advocates that the employer health tax be removed from all small businesses with payrolls of under $400,000. To be consistent in that regard, we feel that this employer health tax on self-employed people should not be imposed.

I realize that the debating time this afternoon is very brief and I have a suspicion that's about all the time that I'm allocated to speak, but I'll just reiterate once again that when we're looking at over 10% of the population of Ontario unemployed, people looking for jobs, when we're looking at the fact there are fewer people in Ontario employed today than there were when this government took office, we should ask ourselves, what is the problem here?

There are a number of problems, but the number one problem is the high level of taxation in the province of Ontario. This bill will add more taxes on to more people and it's going the wrong way and we will not be supporting it.

1550

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate? The honourable member for Oxford had a summary of the activities in the debate.

Mr Sutherland: Let me just say that we heard the member for Don Mills talk about the employer health tax. Look, no one's trying to deny the fact that, yes, some people are going to have to pay some extra dollars in tax. But let's remember too that with this tax, those people are receiving the benefits of the health care system.

The employer health tax was designed by the previous government to help pay for the cost of the health care system. All those self-employed people who weren't paying any were still receiving the benefits of the health care system. By what we're doing, it is saying, yes, those with a self-employed net income over $40,000 should be paying some of the taxes to help cover the costs of the health care system.

I understand. All of us would like to have lower taxes. All of us wish we were in that position. But once again, in terms of how they've put forward in the document, the so-called revolutionary document, they put a lot of emphasis on tax cuts, they put a lot of emphasis on spending cuts, yet time and time again in this House they talk about how the deficit is a problem. Yet their proposal and alternative for dealing with that is very likely to let the deficit skyrocket.

I would just ask that we keep that in mind with regard to those comments, and I thank the member for Don Mills and others for their participation in the debate.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved third reading of Bill 110. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General and Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): Mr Speaker, the votes were to be stacked on these three orders of the day.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the Attorney General. This bill has passed third reading. Agreed? Agreed.

Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? No.

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The votes will now be stacked following the next two orders of the House.

Orders of the day, the honourable Attorney General.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The ninth order.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): Ninth order, troisième lecture, projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail, Mr Laughren.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oxford and parliamentary assistant.

Mr Sutherland: Sorry, can I just get clarification? We're dealing with Bill 138 now? Is that correct?

The Acting Speaker: That we are. I would ask the honourable member to please move third reading.

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

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading 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 Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have some opening remarks?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Yes, I do. First of all, my apologies for my poor French in terms of not catching exactly which bill we were dealing with.

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it's pretty ridiculous that there are 11 people in this House at this time. We're dealing with serious legislation, serious matters, and I request that a quorum be present.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk check to see if indeed a quorum is present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Oxford has some opening remarks on third reading of Bill 138.

Mr Sutherland: This bill was introduced in 1993 as part of the budget items from the 1993 budget. I'd just like to take a minute to refresh members' memories of some of the key points of the bill.

This bill removes the $5 tire tax on new tires and brings to an end the "Ontario -- Incredible!" rebate program. The bill applies retail sales tax to premiums paid under insurance contracts, group insurance and funded or unfunded benefit plans.

Retail sales tax was extended to commercial parking and to replacement parts used in the repair of taxable goods under warranty and maintenance contracts. I should say that the RST being extended to commercial parking was to try to offset some of the revenue from removing the corporate commercial concentration tax as well.

Originally this bill applied a tax on beer and wine produced at a brew-your-own establishment. After consultation with the industry, it was decided in April of this year to lower the tax from 26 cents a litre to 13 cents a litre and to cancel increases scheduled for this month and June 1995. We had a fairly lengthy discussion in committee of the whole on that issue yesterday.

There are also a number of other administrative changes included in this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mrs Marland: I think one of the biggest farces that has been laid on the people of this province has been the tire tax. Admittedly this was not the government that imposed it originally, but when I was the Environment critic and this tax was brought in, I asked the Liberal government that brought it in to show its commitment and to demonstrate its honesty of intent by dedicating the money that was raised by the tire tax to the purpose that it described that tax bill for.

The purpose was to develop environmental programs, do environmental research into the safe disposal or reuse of tires in this province. It was on that basis that the Liberals brought it in and it was on the basis of collecting money in the millions -- we're talking about something like $100 million a year -- that the tire tax was collected.

The allocation of funds from the collection of that tax to the safe disposal of used tires has been something less than $20 million out of all those years that it has been in effect. Frankly, for all the work and the cost of collecting it and the fact that the government that brought it in would not support my motion to dedicate those funds -- it just went into the black hole, the general revenue fund -- it was just one big scam.

It was a lot of work for people who sell tires. It was a lot of cost for people who were buying tires. We still today, after four years of this government, do not have a safe disposal of used tires in this province.

1600

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I agree wholeheartedly with the member for Mississauga South. I want to comment also on the fact -- we in this caucus, as I will say, consistently have espoused that position, something that maybe the other parties have not necessarily done.

With respect to the tax measures in this bill, this is a good example of tax policy done on the back of an envelope, with respect to this government and its attitudes to taxes. Taxes became the revenue source for this government. They scurried about, hurriedly trying to manufacture areas where they could generate revenue through taxes in previous budgets. They did this, and it was clear they did this, when you saw the you-brew tax and the tax on sand and gravel delivery and so on and so forth.

They had to come back just a year later and withdraw, retract and say, "Oh, we've consulted with those industries that we taxed," because they didn't consult with them before they introduced the tax and they found it to be oppressive, onerous, unfair, unregulable and in fact truly unfair in the sand and gravel delivery. They did this because they were doing tax policy on the back of an envelope because they wanted to generate revenue because they were so short of money because their spending far outweighed their revenue portion.

We have this member come up and sit here and say, "Oh, well, with full discussion with the you-brew industry, we've taken a long and hard thought on this and we're going to reduce this tax that we were going to implement from nothing to 26 and now back to 13." What he forgets to say is that all those people who lost life savings, businesses that went out of business because this tax and the tax policy of this government were absolutely simple-minded, were not consulted. It was not researched. It was just a grotesque display of a government grabbing for money at taxpayers' expense, costing people their livelihood, their life savings and their business.

Don't ask for applause because you're reducing this tax. This was a shameful tax to begin with.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I am very pleased to comment on the removal of this particular tax because I think it's most definitely a step in the right direction. I'm particularly pleased because it takes the responsibility for recycling and reusing material from tires away from the consumer and places it back on the industry, where it more properly belongs.

I think it's safe to say that manufacturers got off rather lightly. They were generating a product that was creating problems for us in Ontario in the environment and for the consumers who used it and they weren't required to find a use, a reuse or a way of disposing of that product. So this is a very good move in the right direction.

I'd like to add that at the present time we are now recycling, reusing, about 42% of all the tires in the province. We're doing things like using them in paving, MTO has a sewer collar that will use about 50 tires and we're using crumbed rubber for products like footwear and mats. All kinds of innovative things are coming along and it gives us an opportunity in Ontario for green industry investment. I think that's a very important part of the exciting things that are going on in Ontario.

Within the next few years we will be reusing 60% of the tires produced in this province. I think that is a successful example of the kinds of innovative solutions this government has been supporting and promoting, because if we work very hard and we are truly concerned about this province, we can find those solutions.

I'm very pleased to support the removal of this tax because it's a good step.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. Seeing none, the honourable member for Oxford has two minutes in response.

Mr Sutherland: I'd like to thank the members for Middlesex, Etobicoke West and the member for Mississauga South, I believe.

I just want to pick up on the comments of the member from Middlesex. I think her point is well taken. When this tax was implemented, the policy support of how you're going to use the money and how you're going to deal with all the used tires was not in place. This government has come into power, has shown a great deal of leadership through the former Minister of the Environment, Ruth Grier, and now through the current Minister of Environment and Energy, the Honourable Bud Wildman, has shown the leadership, has got the recycling programs in place, as the member for Middlesex says, using 42% of the used tires in recycling now, soon to be 60%. That is a record to be extremely proud of.

But we didn't leave that tax on because, as we know, it was supposed to deal with recycling, and the policy and the processes weren't in place to do that. We've solved the problem but we're getting rid of the tax, and I think that's a sign of good leadership and management on the part of this government to really deal with a serious problem and, as you know, a serious problem in rural Ontario.

Just to comment on some of the comments from the member for Etobicoke West, that member does know the budget process, he does know that there are extensive pre-budget consultations, but he also knows that the Minister of Finance can't go to every group that may be impacted by a tax and say, "I'm thinking about putting this tax on." He knows full well about budget confidentiality regarding tax proposals.

This government has done more than any other government to open up the budget consultation process and the budget-making process, but the member knows full well that you can't just go and say: "I think I'm going to introduce this tax. What do you think?" Obviously you cannot establish your tax policy in your budget that way, and he knows that full well.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the third reading of Bill 138.

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I want to make a few comments with respect to the provisions in the bill relating to the new tax on the you-brew industry. I've made reference to this bill a number of times in the past, introduced petitions and met with people in my riding and in eastern Ontario and been in touch with representatives of the industry in the Toronto area. I think it's important to put some final comments on the record before I vote against this bill.

I want to take a moment as well to paint the picture as to what we had here in this province just prior to the implementation of this tax. We had a relatively novel concept in this province which had been here for some five or six years and which had grown to 235 outlets. In fact, 235 outlets grew subsequent to 1990. In effect, we had a small business anomaly. We had a small business growing in this province during a recession. It was owned entirely by small business entrepreneurs who sank about $50 million in total into the businesses. It's my understanding the average startup cost was about $200,000.

The other interesting aspect of this small business industry was that it was very labour intensive. Even though the you-brew premises account for only 2% of the market of the beer production in this province, they employ a full 40% of all the people who are involved in the production of beer in Ontario. So we had a good-news story.

Let's find out what this government did. In June of this year, I met with the representatives of the Brew on Premises Association of eastern Ontario and they told me of their concerns about the pending tax which had been announced in the budget. I raised that issue in this House with the minister and asked him specifically whether he had ever conducted any kind of an impact study to find out what the tax would do to the industry. He told me that no such study had been done.

On August 1, 1993, the new tax of 26 cents a litre kicked in. On September 30 we had our first results as to the impact of the tax. That I received, again, from the Brew on Premises Association of eastern Ontario, which told me that their average number of daily batches, which is an important measurement for them, had dropped from 16 to four. They had experienced a 75% decline in the business. Each of eastern Ontario's 23 stores had laid off employees. In short, the tax was having a devastating effect on the business.

At that time, September 30, I asked the minister to consider rescinding the tax. He said no. In October 1993 I began to introduce petitions, as did a number of other members. I personally introduced petitions signed by over 10,000 customers at Ontario you-brew premises.

In November 1993 the Brew on Premises Association of Ontario released their results of a more comprehensive survey assessing the full impact of this new 26-cents-a-litre tax. The results were these: 186 full-time jobs had been lost, 225 people who worked on a part-time basis were put out of work, sales volumes were down by approximately, or averaging, 50%. In short, total industry job losses were 400. Out of 235 business operations, there were 10 bankruptcies, 33 businesses were placed in receivership and 45 of those operations lost their credit status and were unable to borrow any further moneys.

In April of this year the minister announced that he was going to reduce the tax from 26 cents per litre to 13 cents. That had the effect -- as would the effect that you and I would have, Mr Speaker -- where we'd bang our heads up against the wall and then be told we'd be allowed to stop. Somehow that would make us feel better. The government is trying to spin this as somehow a good-news story in that they have reduced the tax, which never existed before, from 26 cents per litre to 13 cents a litre, and we are somehow to find solace in that fact.

1610

The other thing that I think is important to understand about this tax is that although we call it a sales tax, no sale is taking place. This is how it works, and it's important for the members of this House to understand that. When I go into a you-brew operation, I buy ingredients from them, first of all, and I pay a provincial sales tax on those ingredients. There's also a service component, and I pay GST on that service component. I then use their facilities, I mix the goods together, I produce beer or wine, and then on the way out, they say there's an additional tax. It's a sales tax and it's based on the number of litres you've produced, but there's no additional sale taking place. The only sale that takes place at a you-brew operation is when you buy the raw goods. So there's no sale taking place here. That is purely a matter of fiction. All the government is really after is tax dollars, and that's the long and the short of it. There's nothing more complicated to it than that.

Just to sum up, what we had here was a small business tragedy. The government turned a silk purse into a sow's ear. We had had a small business success story in this province. It was a fledgling industry, in its infancy. It was a small business anomaly: It was growing, during a recession, to 235 operations. And then the government came along and imposed a new tax without proper consultation, without a proper impact study, and the net effect has been to put people out of work, to cause pain not only to those workers but to their families and their surrounding communities. It all could have been avoided, and that's a shame.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Stockwell: The comments that were made yesterday when we were in committee of the whole by the member for Ottawa South were rather interesting and certainly thought-provoking with respect to a sale that potentially does not take place, and the retail sales tax being applied to a sale that doesn't take place.

The answers forthcoming from the member for Oxford, although diligent in offering them, did not offer a complete and thorough explanation. I still believe there's some debate that needs to be taking place with respect to the you-brew industry and the fact that while going in and brewing your own beer, what are you paying tax on? Are you paying tax on the beer that you're making yourself, whereas if you make it at home you don't pay tax, or are you paying tax on the equipment that you're potentially renting to make the beer that if you made it at home you wouldn't have to pay tax on? Again the answers were not forthcoming from the member for Oxford.

And I don't blame him. I don't think this is well-thought-out as a tax policy, about exactly what you're paying tax on and what is actually being sold. Are you selling the equipment rental? Are you selling the labour the person puts into it? If you're selling the labour the person puts into it, it's his own labour, so you're taxing his own sweat.

If all this were done at home in your basement or in your garage, which many people in my riding do -- in Toronto specifically there are neighbourhoods where all kinds of you-brew or wine-making facilities are in garages, and they're not taxed. It's rather interesting that if you make your beer at a facility in a commercial district, you pay tax on it; if you do exactly the same thing in your garage, you don't. What about that for tax fairness?

Mr Sutherland: I appreciate the member for Ottawa South participating in the debate. Let me just say, though, to pick up on the comments he's made and the comments the member for Etobicoke West has just made, if you take what they're saying, the implication is that somehow the brew-your-owns are in this business out of the goodness of their hearts. "We're just providing a service here. We're just providing all these facilities" -- if you took what was being presented here -- "almost free." They're not providing it free. They are obviously into it to make a profit. That's a good thing.

But as we said during the committee of the whole debate, there are different types of breweries that are all taxed. There are the large breweries that have to pay tax on their consumption. There are the brew pubs that have to pay tax on theirs, certain types of establishments that brew their own draft. I can think of that fine establishment in London called the Ceeps that does that. They have to pay tax on it too.

You don't have to pay tax if you do it all in your own home, that is quite correct, but let's make sure that we're trying to do the comparisons that are equivalent here in terms of regular breweries, brew pubs and then in terms of what brew-your-owns are. They are deriving a benefit out of this. They're not just doing it out of the goodness of their heart to provide all these facilities to make it easier. I think that is part of what we need to keep in mind with this debate.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Ottawa South has two minutes in response.

Mr McGuinty: You know, it can be very frustrating, because sometimes you develop a distinct impression that members of the government have not had the opportunity or the benefit of gaining a full understanding of all the costs associated with running a small business.

Just to sum up, basically, these people are already paying all kinds of moneys out in taxes. They pay rent. They pay their property taxes. They pay their business taxes. They pay insurance. They pay heat. They pay hydro. They pay water. They pay interest on the moneys they've borrowed. They pay their employment taxes. They're paying UIC, WCB, CPP, the employer health tax, they're paying out the salaries, and God knows what else.

This is a new tax which is a fiction, I maintain, because there is no sale of any real sort taking place.

The member for Etobicoke West raised the points that I raised in this Legislature yesterday, and there's a real question as to the distinction. We would have to, I think, twist our minds into pretzels in order to establish why it is that if I buy the ingredients at a store and take them home and mix them together, I'm not paying this 26-cents-a-litre tax, but if I make them at this particular operation, I am paying that tax. There's no justification for that distinction.

The important thing to keep in mind as well is that over 2,000 jobs were created through the small business industry. It's extremely labour-intensive. When you establish this kind of tax, like many of the other taxes that have been established over the years, you are taxing those jobs. At the end of the day, if nothing else matters in this province, it's surely that if there's something we have to be doing, it's focusing on job creation, and this is job-killing.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): What we're talking about today through Bill 138 is a number of tax increases from the 1993 budget. We're talking about tax increases that were announced over a year ago today. We're talking about tax increases, as my colleague from Etobicoke West has indicated, that the government is backtracking on today. Some they implemented in 1993, some we're approving here today, some are being revised as we speak -- implemented one year, revised the next year. It points out the lack of thought, the lack of analysis, that went into the --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): You're the expert at that when it comes to the Revolution.

Mr David Johnson: My colleague the Minister of Agriculture has mentioned the Common Sense Revolution, and I thank him for bringing that to our attention again. Certainly a great deal more thought has gone into the Common Sense Revolution. I thank you for recognizing that.

The tire tax has been referred to today. The tire tax, of course, goes back to 1989. Now, 1989, as the member for Simcoe East has indicated, was one of the worst years in the history of taxation in the province of Ontario: some 16 tax increases in that year.

The member for Oxford has referred to the commercial concentration tax, which was introduced that year as well, a tax that was reviled in the greater Toronto area, where there was a tremendous amount of opposition to it. Finally, last year it was revoked, thank heavens. It took a great deal out of the business community within Metropolitan Toronto and region, and it cost a considerable amount of jobs.

1620

The tire tax was also introduced in 1989 with the apparent intent of the Liberal government at that point to raise funds for research and for recycling of tires. However, the net result, as the member for Mississauga South has indicated, is that in all likelihood some $200 million was raised through this tax from the people of Ontario -- some 10 million tires are discarded, I might say, every year; a phenomenal number of tires -- but probably about $20 million was actually put into research for the purpose the tax was intended for. What the tax turned out to be was simply another tax grab, another way of building up the general revenues of the province of Ontario.

I do compliment the government today for revoking that tax, one of 16 taxes introduced through the Liberal government in 1989. However, I can't be quite as kind when I look at the other taxes out of the 1993 budget that are introduced today. We're not only talking about the tire tax, we're not only talking about the tax on the you-brew industry, but we're also talking about the broadening of the retail sales tax in the province of Ontario to include, for example, insurance premiums: auto insurance premiums, home insurance premiums and other insurance premiums. Also, the retail sales tax was applied to parking revenues.

This has been a burden not only for the insurance industry, which employs a great number of people in the province of Ontario, but it's been a burden for the average citizen, the average citizen, of course, who must get automobile insurance. Those who own homes must have home insurance.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think this debate warrants a quorum in this House.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk check to see if indeed a quorum is present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Don Mills may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr David Johnson: I was just talking before the quorum call about the provincial sales tax being extended to insurance programs. Just as one example, it was estimated that through various employee benefit insurance programs some $715 million in revenue would be brought in.

Another aspect, on the parking: Wherever a fee is paid for parking the sales tax has now been extended to that. The estimate there is that will bring in about $40 million a year.

The government is desperate to bring in more money because the expenditures in the province of Ontario have outstripped revenues coming in such that today the expenditures in Ontario are about $55 billion and revenues about $45 billion. Consequently, the government will have to borrow somewhat more than $10 billion, perhaps up to $11 billion, simply to balance the books. But that will add $10 billion to $11 billion to the debt of the province and bring it, by the end of this fiscal year, to slightly in excess of $90 billion.

The attitude of the government has been, rather than to cut expenditures, to attempt to bring a closer balance by increasing revenues. The measures from last year's budget that we're seeing today are certainly an attempt to do that.

We've also talked about the you-brew industry. The point has been made, and I think it's been made well, that this was a tax that was put on without understanding the business, without understanding the small business community, without understanding this business in particular. The member for Ottawa South has raised the aspect of double taxation.

I will simply say, from my experience in talking with a small you-brew operator in my community, that when the tax was imposed the volume of business he was able to perform in our community dropped by about 40%. The cost of doing business, the perception of his customers that it was becoming too expensive to brew your own beer, make your own wine, caused his clientele to drop by about 40%. He barely hung on by his fingernails. Many didn't. It was estimated that 40% of the 200-odd you-brew operators went under and were forced into bankruptcy.

The member for Oxford has indicated that the government went through a consultation period with these operators. I think a more apt description was that there was no consultation in the first place. There was no understanding of the impact on the you-brew operators. The tax was imposed. Many went bankrupt. They pleaded with the government to give them some relief from the onerous tax and two subsequent taxes that were still to be imposed on those operators, and those pleadings were partially recognized. That is not what I call a consultation process. That's nothing but a gross mismanagement of the application of this tax.

What's happened is that instead of having no retail sales tax applied on the end product -- in terms of the ingredients that go into it, they are taxed, as they always have been -- instead of having zero sales tax applied, there will be 13 cents per litre applied rather than the 26 cents that was originally proposed. That's an improvement, but it's nothing to be proud of, in my estimation.

The other aspect that has been alluded to today concerns sand, gravel, dirt: products that go into making roads, sidewalks, that sort of thing. This tax was a problem not only for the operators of dirt sites, gravel sites, sites that mine sand, not only for those who deliver the product, but it was a problem for municipalities.

In consulting with the municipalities that I represent directly, the borough of East York and the city of North York, I was astonished to determine that there was a huge cost to the municipalities because of the provisions of Bill 138, the bill we are debating right now, some quarter of a million dollars to the borough of East York, representing about a percentage point on the mill rate, and the better part of a million dollars to the city of North York.

1630

These costs came about because of the provisions I've already mentioned, because of the tax on sand, gravel, products they use constructing their streets, their sidewalks. It came about because of the tax on their auto insurance, the insurance they need for their vehicles. It came about because of the tax on employee benefits that would have to be paid. About a percentage point on the property taxes for the municipalities: I wonder if that was realized when this was brought in.

This is a problem not only for businesses, this is a problem not only for individuals, but it's a problem for the municipality and other employers. That's what we're talking about in Bill 138.

As I've indicated before, it's the position of the Progressive Conservative Party, through the Common Sense Revolution, that this is not the time to be putting more taxes on any aspects of our community: on our people, on our citizens, on our businesses or on our municipalities. We should not be imposing these taxes and we will not be supporting Bill 138.

It's perhaps indicative that the government already is backtracking on two aspects of this bill. The you-brew industry: One year ago they took one position, today they take another position. Thank heavens they're taking an altered position, but it shows the lack of thought. On the sand and gravel, they recognize that the program that was instituted one year ago is not manageable, cannot be administered, involves double taxation in some cases.

Significantly, we have another bill before us that was to be debated this afternoon. Bill 160, which was to be debated this afternoon, would have reversed the tax on delivery of sand and gravel, but it's all mucked up too. There's an aspect in that bill -- many aspects in that bill, I suspect, that have not been properly handled, so it's been yanked from the agenda this afternoon. It's not going to be debated today. Hopefully, we won't see that bill again until the fall and hopefully we'll see a number of different bills.

Interjection: It's coming tomorrow.

Mr David Johnson: Tomorrow? Is it coming back in tomorrow? I think you'll have a problem if it does, Mr Minister.

In that bill, if it ever does come back -- and it's my strong suspicion it won't come back in the form that we've seen it in in the past because there are just too many problems -- it will announce that the sales tax on delivery charges has been deleted. It just can't be managed. It points out, in another way, the problems we have with Bill 138.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? Further debate? The member for Oxford has some summary remarks?

Mr Sutherland: Briefly, I appreciate the members having participated in the debate.

The good points about this bill have certainly been mentioned, about removing the tire tax and how this government has dealt with that issue.

Regarding the points the member for Don Mills made about delivery charges, when we get into the debate about Bill 160 that issue will be addressed a little more thoroughly, so I'll leave comments on that until that time.

The Acting Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved third reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The vote will be stacked, pursuant to the following order.

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

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved third reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Does the honourable member have some opening remarks?

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Bill 146 deals with a number of changes to the Corporations Tax Act, including the implementation of the corporate minimum tax, or CMT. This government worked with a number of stakeholders prior to finalizing the CMT. There was a working group from the Fair Tax Commission. We provided a discussion paper in the 1993 budget strictly on the CMT and met with over a dozen groups representing taxpayers and received over 50 letters and submissions. All of this information became part of the draft legislation and clearly the CMT is now a more workable program as a result of that input.

It is very important to note that small businesses will not pay the corporate minimum tax, nor will the CMT have a negative impact on small business. The CMT is levied at a very low rate on profits and only in cases where the corporation is paying little or no regular income tax. The vast majority of businesses with less than $5 million of assets will not have to pay any CMT.

The CMT will not make Ontario less competitive. Ontario has the third-lowest general corporate income tax rate in Canada. Only large corporations will pay the tax, and only if they are profitable but pay little or no regular income tax. This represents 2% to 2.5% of Ontario corporations. The CMT will also allow the government to maintain the delivery of important incentives through the tax system. There is now a balance between fairness and maintaining tax incentives that promote economic growth and job creation.

Among other changes, the bill reduces the rate of corporations tax paid by small businesses to 9.5% from 10%, another tax decrease. It also reduces the rate of corporations tax on income from manufacturing, processing, mining, farming and fishing from 14.5% to 13.5%.

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

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I think I'll take advantage of this period, Mr Speaker. The member for Oxford didn't indicate this, but this bill also reduces the amount that's deductible for meals and entertainment from 80% to 50%.

Interjection: Hear, hear.

Mr David Johnson: This was a measure earlier of the federal Liberal government, and the NDP is falling into line in that regard. I suppose many people would say, "Hear, hear," because the perception is that this has value to big business people and expensive restaurants and that people are being ripped off.

But the Ontario Restaurant Association did an analysis of this and found that a significant proportion of this deduction was being allocated to blue-collar workers and very much family restaurants, smaller restaurants, and it wasn't just those at the high end of the salary scale. There was a high percentage of people at the lower end: firefighters and police officers and many other working people who were taking advantage of this.

It also will have a dire impact on the restaurant business, and the restaurant business hires many people at the very low end of the scale. I don't have the figures in front of me today, but the restaurant association has forecast, as a result of this, a loss of jobs. We may applaud that this deduction is being reduced, but let's recognize that this is going to cost people in restaurants: waitresses, waiters, people on the low end of the income scales. It's going to cost jobs to at least hundreds, if not thousands, of people across the province of Ontario, and I think that aspect is a bit sad.

Mr Sutherland: I'm glad the member for Don Mills rose for a two-minute response. Let's be very clear about something. Yes, there is a reduction in this, but if we go back to that wonderful document, the Common Sense Revolution, what does it say about tax breaks to businesses? It seems to me, if I read it correctly, that what it said is that there shouldn't be any. Some would argue that, yes, this does help and encourage the restaurant industry, but if you take what you say in that document to its fullest degree, I don't see how you can be standing up here and saying, "This is a bad thing to do." You're the party that says there shouldn't be any tax breaks and the types of things there for business: "Just reduce it overall." If you're saying that, you need to keep that in mind and try to be consistent in this area.

1640

I just want to clarify too that this action does parallel a similar budget measure by the federal government and, may I say, the Quebec government and US governments. Clearly, others feel that not everything was being defined appropriately on how this was being used. I think that's where the concern is.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Explain it.

Mr Sutherland: Well, let's talk about examples: the SkyBoxes down at the Dome; part of the exemption on the cost of the SkyBox was here. We need to keep that in mind. Yes, there are certainly some small business people who take advantage of it, fair enough, but we can't say that it's only small business people. There are large corporation people. I guess the question is how much of it is directly business-related or whether it's just in terms of other types of socializing activities.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As critic for the Ministry of Revenue, and this is a revenue bill, I had some extensive debate on Bill 146 during second reading. I have not seen any amendments proposed by the parliamentary assistant or by the government, so I would assume that all the comments I made during the second reading debate would be as valid today.

I would just like to point out a couple of things. First of all, what Bill 146 does, and it is An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act, is introduce a corporate minimum tax. Whenever the government asked advice from the Fair Tax Commission or anyone else, the advice was, "Do not introduce a corporate minimum tax." Government has seen fit to introduce this despite all the advice that said, "Don't do it."

What this does is create an environment in Ontario which does not lead to economic prosperity; it creates more red tape. We know that particularly foreign investors who are looking at Ontario as a potential place to invest look at this new initiative and it gives them pause and cause to reconsider. We know that Ontario has lost much foreign investment and business, both in its ability to create jobs as well as to attract new jobs to the province, because of the policies of this government.

Bill 146 is really about higher taxes, notwithstanding the fact that contained in the bill there is a small tax reduction to some sectors. While I support the tax reduction, overall, on balance, this bill is about more taxes. We know that more and higher taxes are not going to lead to the economic prosperity and job creation that is so vital and necessary in Ontario today.

I want to point out the changes that have been made in terms of the reduction in the tax break for businesses on their entertainment. We know that particularly when attempting to attract business to Ontario, often business entertainment is extremely important. The restaurant industry is very upset and distressed that, particularly in this economic environment, where so many people have lost their jobs and are not able to go out to restaurants any more, the one sector that still has an incentive to go out and is able to go out is the businessmen and women of this province, and now this creates a disincentive for them to use their dollars in a way which would support the restaurant industry, which has been suffering in this province.

To all of those people who work in the hospitality industry -- restaurants, waiters, bartenders and so forth -- the NDP government is creating a disincentive for business people to go to restaurants. It's important to know that this is a feature of Bill 146.

I'm not going to prolong the debate. I would like to point out that we talk about incompetence and mismanagement, and people say, "Oh, that's just rhetoric." This bill is an example of incompetence and mismanagement. Contained in this bill is a provision which is a temporary capital tax surcharge on banks that was announced in the 1992 budget. That provision has already expired, but this is the legislation that gives effect to something retroactively whose effect and impact has already expired.

It's my view that retroactive legislation is not the way to go. Omnibus legislation is confusing to people who watch these debates, and the incompetence of bringing in legislation to give legal status to a tax that you already collected and have now stopped collecting is the height of both incompetence and mismanagement. I think that would stand the test that it is not just rhetoric.

I'm not going to say anything further about Bill 146. I will not be supporting it.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr David Johnson: I won't be supporting it either, and I share the concern of the member for Oriole with regard to the entertainment tax. I mentioned that already. I guess it goes without saying that if people have less access to the deduction, as will happen after this bill, then certainly fewer people will go out, fewer people will buy meals. These are business people, yes, and they're declaring it as an expense, but they're not all rich people.

The member for Oxford loves to use the example of SkyDome, but he could well use an example of a small business person who doesn't have an office, perhaps just has a location to run his or her business but no office and has to take a client out to try to drum up some business. And where do they take a person out to? These are people who are hanging on by their fingernails. Quite often, they may take a person out to the corner restaurant, and this may not be some fancy restaurant. This, in many cases, is a local family restaurant. That will be lost. They will go out on fewer occasions and there'll be less business for the restaurants across Ontario.

Maybe people think that's a good thing, but there is a bad side to it. The bad side is that the restaurants will suffer, and some of the people employed in the restaurants will lose their jobs.

The member for Etobicoke West is going to be speaking on a corporate minimum tax in a few minutes; he's getting wound up. I can say that this is just another signal to the business community in Ontario that, "You're not welcome." Another tax: Anybody that's looking at investing in Ontario, here's something else for you to encounter. At a time when we have so much unemployment, we don't need this tax.

Mr Sutherland: It's very interesting to hear the comments of the member for Oriole regarding the deduction in business and entertainment tax and how you can contrast that to the message from the member for Don Mills.

In both cases there's a great deal of inconsistency, particularly coming from a Liberal perspective, because this is a 1993 budget measure, and of course the federal Liberals in 1994 did something very similar. If the member wants to say she disagrees with the federal Minister of Finance, I think she should get up and be very clear with the people, to say she disagrees with Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin on what they've done federally, and then we take that into account.

I've got the comments here from the so-called Revolution, and very clearly it says: "We will cut business subsidies and reduce government grants, for total savings of $200 million. With increased economic activity, fewer subsidies to business will be necessary."

Doesn't that say a lot about where the Tories are coming from? And again the inconsistency: Many would make an argument that no matter at what level, whether you're talking large business or small business, some would say this is a subsidy, a subsidy for small business.

We're doing a lot of things in the tourism area to promote and attract people to Ontario. Very clearly, one of the main beneficiaries of tourism is the restaurant industry, and Ontario's tourism sector is obviously growing and developing, and we're doing all we can to ensure the strength of the restaurant industry in Ontario.

1650

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

Mrs Caplan: The parliamentary assistant carries on the tradition we've seen here in this House from the NDP, and that is: Don't take responsibility for any of your policies. Find somebody else. Try to blame them.

It reminds me of the story of the three envelopes that a new government minister found on the desk, and I told this joke back in 1985. In the first envelope, when you opened it up and asked for advice, it said, "Blame your predecessor," in the second envelope it said, "Reshuffle the ministry," and in the third envelope it said, "Prepare your picture for the wall."

Let me tell you, sir, you're opening the three envelopes. People are tired of hearing you find somebody to blame for your policies, your mismanagement, your incompetence. Bill 146 does nothing to give confidence to the business communities here in the province. You've created a climate where you've done nothing but raise taxes, increase red tape and create disincentives for job creation.

You talk about all the things you're doing in tourism. We met with Tourism Ontario and the tourist industry in Ontario, and what they say is that they have had less support and less encouragement from this government than any government in the history of Ontario. Everybody in this province knows that you just don't get it.

You've got to stop looking and blaming somebody else. You've got to stop pointing the finger and start taking responsibility for your own policy decisions.

Bill 146 is not deserving of support, because it contains policy initiatives which are not consistent with a prosperous, healthy, job-creating economy. You've introduced taxes that you've been told not to introduce by your own Fair Tax Commission. You've introduced business disincentives that small business people are telling you are going to hurt not only the small business person but also the restaurant and tourism industry and the hospitality industry.

Bill 146 is not deserving of support.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Stockwell: The minimum corporate tax issue is a fairly decent and interesting issue to examine what's happened in this place with respect to the governing party. It probably would do well for a political science course to see what happens with a government and its philosophy. Not just this government -- I think all are to blame on some issues -- but particularly this government with respect to the minimum corporate tax.

In my hand I have a copy of the Agenda for People. The members opposite often like to comment on the Revolution, and that's our revolution. That's a document that talks about the things that we would do, if elected.

Their revolutionary document was Agenda for People. The Agenda for People, as I have read in books written by those who claim to be close to the decision-making process, was a document that was basically developed the day before the leaders' debate in 1990. It was developed because there was some concern that Bob Rae was going about the province making a lot of speeches and saying a lot of things but didn't really have a piece of paper with it written down what the policies of his party would be should it enter government. I think one of the researchers and another member got together and developed this Agenda for People, and it was released, I believe, the day of the debate.

The Agenda for People deals very specifically with the minimum corporate tax. I know the member for Oxford finds this an interesting debate, because he himself ran on this agenda during the election. I think it's very important that we remind not only the watchers out there and ourselves but those members across the floor about what the real issue in the 1990 campaign was and what you people were saying about the minimum corporate tax. You didn't take long to get into it. On the very first page, the fourth paragraph, it says -- which I thought was slightly humorous today -- Bob Rae speaking:

"I started this campaign by saying our party would not be presenting an endless catalogue of promises to the people of Ontario. And today I'm putting before the electorate An Agenda for People."

Seventh paragraph:

"Instead, our platform for this election represents a new beginning for Ontario, an agenda for people that begins the work of making our tax system fair, restoring our environment, protecting people in their jobs, alleviating poverty, making homes more affordable, and building a stronger north."

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): We're proud of it. We've delivered on all those things.

Mr Stockwell: These are very noble statements, and I believe the Minister of Agriculture honestly believes he has delivered on all these things. There are those who would disagree with you, as there always will be.

But you also had comments in this document about the minimum corporate tax, and I'll read them to you. They say:

"Ontario should lead a tax revolt -- a revolt against the Mulroney GST" -- I'm asking the honourable member for Oxford to listen to this -- "a revolt against corporate tax giveaways, a revolt against the continuing accumulation of vast amounts of wealth in fewer and fewer hands while low- and middle-income families are taxed at every move," I say to the member for Oxford, who is not listening.

"It's time to stop the free ride for those who can pay more. And that's what I've outlined today -- a program of tax fairness that makes profitable corporations and wealthy individuals pay their fair share."

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): This is boring.

Mr Stockwell: I'm sorry, this is your document. If it's boring it's not my intent to be. It's a document that you drafted. I didn't think at the time when you drafted it that you probably thought it was boring.

What you said in this document and what is contained in this piece of legislation before us are very different. You talked about a minimum corporate tax, I say to the member for Oxford, that would generate $1 billion a year in revenue. You talked about the corporate tax giveaways and the rich people who are ripping off the system.

May I suggest to you, through you, Mr Speaker, to the member for Oxford and to the governing members, this Bill 146 is a pale imitation of what you promised the people. Why is this a pale imitation of what you promised the people? Because what you wrote about in An Agenda for People doesn't really exist. It doesn't exist.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Is that why they elected us, Chris, because of that?

Mr Stockwell: That's one of the reasons. It doesn't exist because what you've discovered upon gaining power is that those corporations that pay little amounts of taxes do so because they have tax considerations built into the system that allow them to drop the amount of income earning.

Now, what is that? It's very popular to walk around and talk about the three-martini lunch and the corporate welfare bums, all slogans that were very popular among the socialists in the 1960s and 1970s. But what it comes down to, as far as the major tax concessions are concerned, I say to the member for Oxford, is that when a company, a corporation that makes a lot of money, is allowed to reduce its profitability, it's because it invests in things.

What are they investing in, I ask the member for Oxford. They're investing in something like research and development, R&D. I've heard your Premier and you yourself and the Minister of Economic Development and Trade talk about the fact that we've got to increase research and development in this province. So any time a business in this province invests some of its profits in research and development, it's allowed to reduce the amount of taxes it pays. You say on the one hand it's a good thing to have research and development, and on the other hand you get mad at them when they have a reduced amount of tax to pay. It's very inconsistent, to the member for Oxford, who still won't listen.

I say also to the member for Oxford, who doesn't listen, what else are these companies investing in? Not just research and development. They're investing in new equipment, new buildings, new machinery, all kinds of things that allow them to write down the profits of their business because they're reinvesting it back into the province of Ontario, creating jobs, creating a climate and creating, most importantly, taxes that we can then use to fund the programs that the member for Oxford, who won't listen, thinks are very, very important.

The minimum corporate tax is put in place -- it's a bit of a shell game, in my opinion.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It's a minimum, not a maximum.

Mr Stockwell: It's a bit of a shell game, I say to the Minister of Agriculture. If you don't fundamentally believe that these companies are not paying their fair taxes, then I say, examine your tax policy, find out why they're not paying fair taxes.

What you will find out, Mr Minister, and to the member for Oxford, who still won't listen, is that these companies are reinvesting in this province, reinvesting in workers, reinvesting in training, reinvesting in equipment, reinvesting in buildings, reinvesting in research and development, and you have the nerve to say, at the end of the day, when these companies are doing the things that any jurisdiction would ask them to do, beg them to do and in some instances pay them to do, like Ford and Chrysler, you have the nerve to say to them, "By the way, ladies and gentlemen, the taxes you paid weren't high enough, so give us more."

1700

What kind of tax policy does that leave with the impressionable business person in this province who's looking to start a business and begin making money so at the end of the day they may pay their fair taxes to run our province's social services and health care system? I say it leaves them with the message that what you say in public and what you legislate in this place are two very distinctly different things.

I will say this too. The member for Oxford, who still won't listen, said in one of his comments, "This tax will not make us less competitive." That comment alone is a tell-tale sign of the misunderstanding this government has with respect to the private sector, because every tax that you implement, regardless of its size, of its breadth and the amount of money that it raises in any jurisdiction, be it provincial, federal or a state, makes the businesses within that jurisdiction less competitive.

There's a balancing act. There's a balancing act that says we must have a reasonable tax rate to provide reasonable services to the people in the province of Ontario. But be forewarned. Any tax you introduce, to the member for Oxford, who won't listen, makes any business less competitive.

For the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance to stand in his place and say a minimum corporate tax will not make the businesses less competitive in this province is a grotesque misunderstanding of what taxes can do and should do and will do to business sectors in this province. Mark my words. Any tax, as any private sector person will tell you, makes people, businesses, communities, everybody less competitive.

Finally, the member also suggested that we in this province are something like the third-lowest jurisdiction with respect to corporate tax. If he were listening, I'd find out whether or not that was the correct statement, but he won't listen. I'll assume this is the right figure: the third-lowest in this country.

What the member refuses to do -- and I saw the Premier do this during the CMA debate a week or so ago. This is just absolute selective amnesia. If you want to take one small section of your tax policy out and begin to quote that as the be-all and end-all as to why businesses will or will not locate in your jurisdiction, you're being, I will say, at least shortsighted, but you're also trying to kid the troops, the troops being the taxpayers.

A business will not simply look at what your corporate tax structure is; a business will also look at what the personal tax structure is, what kinds of payroll taxes are in place, what kind of debt, what kind of debt servicing, and the solvency of those jurisdictions. When you fold those kinds of comparisons in, we no longer are the third-best, and when compared on a North American-wide basis, we are fundamentally, frankly, one of the worst.

For the Premier to stand up and mouth that statistic as if it meant or could mean anything to any business person in this province as to swaying them where or when to invest money is only kidding the troops. Those people in the manufacturing sector and those investors in businesses and in buildings and in hardware and in equipment will only laugh at that comment because they know full well that's just one of many equations that go into decision-making as to where risk capital will go.

The other decisions I listed, and when we fold in all the other tax implications in this province, we are not the third-best. When you compare it on a North American-wide standard, which is the minimum standard compared to where people can relocate to, we are significantly lower than third-best, if not near the bottom.

We then have Bill 146, which speaks to the minimum corporate tax. I will speak about the other portion in this, which the member for Oxford, who still won't listen, talked about with respect to the Revolution. The Revolution says, and I will quote from memory --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He comes in here and he says this stuff but he never quotes any numbers. He never --

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please take your seat.

Mr Perruzza: He can stand up and say anything?

The Deputy Speaker: Would you like to leave the House?

Mr Perruzza: He can stand up and say anything?

The Deputy Speaker: There is a period after his debate where you can make all the comments you wish to, and I would ask you to refrain from interjecting.

Mr David Johnson: Mr Speaker, I don't believe we have a quorum in the House and I think we should have a quorum to listen to the member.

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

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: As I said to the member for Downsview during that brief hiatus, that was probably one of the most insightful things he's brought to this Legislature, and I'd like to thank him for it. Because it was one of the most insightful things he said, I think it speaks volumes to what he's said in this place.

What I was speaking about just a minute ago was the Revolution document and how it stresses the fact that what we don't need is government handouts.

Let's examine what we've done in the past with respect to government handouts. One of the first issues we dealt with in this Legislature was the troubling difficulty we had with Varity, if you remember Varity Corp. Varity Corp was an example of a government handout gone sour, and it went sour because basically what happened was that it flew south in the night and $50 million in hard-earned tax dollars flew south with it. It was embarrassing. It was embarrassing for the present government, it was embarrassing for the previous government, and probably it was embarrassing for all the people of the province of Ontario.

What we speak to in terms of the incentives and programs -- it's not that the restaurant industry specifically is requesting that we maintain unreasonable positions with respect to taxing the restaurant industry. It's like the first home ownership plan, the OHOSP. The fact is that if you had a competitive economy and a reasonable tax rate, our document is saying that you should not need to offer these kinds of incentives for people to do business in your jurisdiction. You offer these incentives because they can't compete, and they can't compete, generally speaking, not because they're not smart enough, not because the equipment isn't good enough, but simply because the economy is not in good enough shape to offer them the best opportunity to succeed. We don't believe in handouts.

The member across the floor today mentioned Windsor going back to work. Windsor's going back to work for a couple of reasons, I'll say to the members opposite. Free trade's got a lot to do with why Windsor's going back to work and rehiring. They don't want to accept that.

I admit that free trade has been difficult in some sectors and difficult in some areas and communities. But to suggest that the recalls in the automotive industry have nothing to do with free trade shows how shortsighted and narrow-minded your position is on that issue. It's absolutely closed-minded to suggest categorically that nothing at all good can come of free trade and that the only thing that can happen with any sort of free trade is bad. Why is that always the case? Free trade, in my opinion, is good, and the reason you're negotiating free trade with the other provinces is because it allows us not just to compete, but it allows us to excel.

1710

But not by way of Bill 146, which regulates and increases taxes. Within jurisdictions, if you're going to compete, what the private sector tells me is: "Just give me a chance to succeed. Get out of my face. Withdraw all this red tape, the paperwork and the taxes that are killing us." They're not saying to me, "I need special incentives to survive." They're not saying to me, "You've got to give me a tax break to sell my goods or I'm going to go out of business." They're saying, "Leave me alone, and if I win, I win, and if I lose, I lose," and that's the free market system.

So I say to the member for Oxford, who's still not listening, that if you introduced legislation that withdrew the incentive programs but at the same time reduced taxes on these corporations and businesses, by withdrawing the incentives and reducing taxes you'd allow opportunities out there for businesses to succeed or not succeed on their own free will. Today, we have artificially inflated industries because they're based on government handouts, and that simply won't work.

The restaurant industry petitions you because its taxes are too high, and the only way they think they can get around to making a buck is if they're allowed to write off on a business luncheon 80 cents out of every buck rather than 50 cents. That's how deprived our system has become in this province. The restaurant industry claims the only way people can stay in business is through tax breaks.

We've got to get back to a system where people stay in business because they're good in business, are providing a service that's wanted and needed and they're not taxed to death when they happen to make a few dollars.

At the end of the day, what does Bill 146 do? If these people survive in business, you say there's a minimum corporate tax. Truly, that's insulting. That's insulting to anybody who runs or operates a business in this province.

If at the end of this recession, if at the end of this day, we have fought our way through this recession and have made some kind of profit, we've continued to employ people, we've continued to pay the taxes you're asking us to pay, which we think are onerous, we've continued to reinvest in this country, in this province, we've continued to provide research and development, and if at the end of that day we happen to make a few dollars, you don't like how much money we've paid in taxes, although we've lived within the letter of the law. "We want you to pay more."

What kind of tax policy is that? The argument you get is, "Well, they do it in the United States." So what? Practically nothing they do in the United States do you agree with, until it happens that a tax policy correlates to them. It's absolutely hypocritical.

Hon Richard Allen (Minister without Portfolio in Economic Development and Trade): Your imagination is out of control, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I don't think so. You know why? Because the people I speak to are telling me these kinds of things. The people I'm speaking to are telling me that they're not looking for tax incentives, they're looking for tax relief. Tax relief means drop the --

Mr Mammoliti: Who were you talking to?

Mr Stockwell: The member for Yorkview asks who I talk to. If your business community isn't telling you that they're overtaxed, overregulated, overburdened by government, then your community is the only community in all of Ontario that thinks that way. Your community is the only one that's saying: "Taxes are fair. In fact, I enjoy paying them. I think we should have a party for the government." Your community's the only one saying that if they're not telling you taxes are too high. I think that's the only community, unless there are a few others over there dumb enough to believe they actually are happy to pay the amount of taxes they're paying.

When we introduce these tax bills, you're just driving --

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: To the member for Downsview, 20 is a high number, and it's tough to get that high when you're counting quorum. Next time you're going to call quorum, maybe you should talk to somebody and maybe you can add them up together.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): He only has 10 fingers.

Mr Stockwell: Well, if he talks to the member for Guelph, he sometimes has his shoes off. Maybe they can count together. They'll get to 20.

The point I was making to the member for Yorkview was simply that I don't know of too many businesses out there that are saying the tax policy in this province and this country is fair. Furthermore, the deficits we're running up, in fact overspending what we're collecting, make it worse.

The points I want to make are on the record; I want to make a couple of points in terms of the history of this party and where it stood with respect to the minimum corporate tax. I want to make the point that they said they were going to raise $1 billion, and now they're only going to raise $100 million. The corporate élite, they found out, doesn't exist.

Minimum corporate taxes are wrong, because the only thing that companies are doing is living within the tax laws that are in place. If you don't think those tax laws are fair, change them. But what you're going to have to do to change them to generate more revenue is withdraw your tax deductions for R&D, for expansion, for building equipment and so on. Those are the kinds of things that would generate more revenue, but I don't think that would be a good idea at this time.

As far as the restaurant association is concerned, they're still holding on by their fingers. Taking this away from them will not help unless you're going to drop taxes at the same time. You've not done that. You've simply taken away one of the programs that allowed them to stay in business but you're going to maintain those onerous, high taxes on that industry. You're not going to assist them in any way, shape or form.

Finally, our party's position, as proposed in the document the Minister of Agriculture is so fond of, is very clear: You've got to withdraw those incentives that are specific sector-driven incentives, that only provide incentives in certain sectors and not in others. They must be withdrawn. Taxes must be dropped and made more competitive, and we've got to go about doing that in a fair manner.

Fair tax policy, in my opinion, treats every Ontarian the same way. Whether you're buying your first house or your fourth house, it matters not. You should be treated fairly, the same, and that's fair tax policy. We have a hodgepodge of unfair, restrictive tax policies that are doing nothing to enhance business and doing everything to close it down.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I'm happy to take a moment to respond to the member. I really appreciated his reading out of the Agenda for People. I wish he'd continued on.

In the first number of items he talked about when he read out our program in 1990, he mentioned employment equity, pay equity, the Environmental Bill of Rights, the minimum corporate tax, and if he'd turned the page, he would have seen on the other page the financial support for farmers. We've implemented all those things and we're very proud of that, so he should look further into the Agenda for People. We still have another year to go and we intend to implement more of that.

Then he talks about taxation policy. I think he needs to dig a little deeper into this subject. He talked about other jurisdictions. I'd be happy to sit down with the member and go through the facts on Michigan and New York, which are our major competitors for investment from big business. We are very competitive. We're one of the most competitive in the area. I'd be very pleased to sit down and show him those figures.

The other point we need to take into account is that his party, his new party, has put out a document which talks about a revolution and talks a lot about taxes. We have tried to implement a minimum corporate tax which we think is fair, that every corporation pays some tax. They've put forward a provincial tax cut of 30%, which everybody would love, but then it goes on to say that they're going to cut spending by $6 billion and eliminate the deficit. It makes absolutely no sense. It doesn't add up. It doesn't matter how you add it up, it doesn't work.

There's no way this party has any credibility when it comes to taxation. They shouldn't be talking about our policies, which are intended to be fair to all people and to business.

1720

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I always find the member's statements and questions and his speeches so interesting. I really wondered why he hadn't proposed an amendment that would designate any of the funds that would be generated from this for such worthy projects as the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines.

You would know this very well, Mr Speaker. In your area, there are hospitals that are of some significance. A tax of this kind, if the member had been prepared to suggest that the money from this tax would save the Hotel Dieu Hospital so they wouldn't have to cut all that staff, so they would have the appropriate equipment, so this proposal that some consulting firm had proposed would not be implemented, I think that would be a much more supportable tax than it is now. I know you would probably agree with that because you have similar circumstances.

Or if the tax, because it is a corporate minimum tax, could be seen to assist in the cleanup of Martindale Pond, which is a rowing course in St Catharines, that as well would be significant. But it does not get tied to this. This is simply a tax that if you took the money in, all the government would do is use it for general purposes, and not see, necessarily, the virtue of cleaning up the Henley course so we could have world championship rowing there and, at the same time, have a situation where the environment would be protected.

I'm sure you would agree, as I know all members of the House would agree, that if this could be tied to those kinds of specific projects, which are so important to some communities, it would be a tax which -- well, we wouldn't cheer about it, but certainly we would find it much more acceptable. I know it was simply time limitations that prevented the member for Etobicoke West from referring to Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines and the cleanup of the Henley rowing course.

Mr Stockwell: You're right.

Mr David Johnson: I'm a bit surprised that the member for St Catharines didn't refer to the dedication of the tire tax to recycling research on tires, or the dedication of the commercial concentration tax to transportation matters in the province of Ontario.

The Minister of Agriculture has indicated that Michigan and New York, specifically, have a lower tax structure than the province of Ontario. I think that's what he said, although I see him shaking his head. Oh, he said a higher tax structure. Yet I have a report from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which just by good luck I happen to have with me.

They have analysed not just a selective tax, as the member for Etobicoke West has said, but they've analysed the payroll taxes, local taxes, income and capital taxes, commodity taxes. They've analysed all the taxes and what they have found is that Ontario is the highest-taxed jurisdiction, including the following jurisdictions: the province of Quebec, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania -- our nearby competitors.

They have found that when you consider all the taxes, Ontario is higher. If Ontario is considered as 100%, New York, for example, would be about 90%, so about 10% less total taxation in the state of New York.

The Minister of Agriculture says no. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business -- and I know the member for Downsview doesn't like the private sector, so he'd pooh-pooh that -- has done a study and they say yes, that Ontario is higher taxed when you look at all the taxes.

That's what the member for Etobicoke West was saying. Look at all the taxes: the corporate minimum tax, every other tax. Ontario is a highly taxed area and we're more highly taxed than our nearby competitors.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It's interesting. It seems the Minister of Agriculture must have given these remarks and not the member we were commenting on.

Very clearly, this has been a shell game. The member selectively said what the taxes are, and then his colleague tried to back it up with what Elmer talked about. Clearly, in the states he just talked about, the payroll taxes are not in that graph he shows.

Mr Stockwell: Yes, they are.

Mr Klopp: No, they're not, from what I understand. Also, I'd like to talk about real people. Let's talk about the people in my riding, because that's what it really comes down to. All these big numbers, most of us don't really care.

A friend of mine, a teacher, talks about people in New York. You know, we complain about our tax structure. He says, "My father-in-law is a retired teacher in New York state, and he makes $15,000 a year on his pension." His son-in-law is a teacher in Canada here, and when he retires he'll have considerably more. But the point is that in New York state to have an insurance policy equivalent to our OHIP, he pays $5,000 a year out of a pension of $15,000. What do we pay here? Well, we pay it through our tax system, and people need to be reminded of that.

He talks about the minimum corporate tax. There's a balance here. By having a minimum corporate tax, we're able to drop things like the tire tax so people can have money in their pocket.

As to the GST that they talk about federally, I remember when we first got here they said, "You should tie the provincial tax with the GST," and we said no. Many people said, "Oh, it's just because you don't like the Tories." Well, that's a good enough reason, I must admit, but there was another reason. It was going to take another half a billion dollars out of the people of Ontario. That's half a billion that allows them to buy things in the free enterprise system, which we surely want to work together with.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West, you have two minutes.

Mr Stockwell: To the member for Huron, your analysis is probably statistically correct one out of a million times. I'll take that for what it's worth, because nobody wants to deal with big numbers. You're probably right: They're too big and you can twist numbers when they're really big. We'll have a little debate after, I suppose, and talk about big and anecdotal information and maybe your uncle or cousin and how they're doing in New York.

Further, I'm sorry the member for Downsview didn't get up. He's an insightful guy. He probably could have helped out Mr Huron there.

The Minister of Agriculture cited exactly what I expected him to cite. He tries to mix the equation up and talk about this tax exclusively or this other tax exclusively. You can't do it. Businesses, when they look to locate, look at all the taxes. This is about the 30th in a long line of studies. When they compare jurisdiction taxes, all the taxes, I say to the Minister of Agriculture, we are at the bottom. Although your friend from Huron doesn't like big numbers, they get big in this. We are last out of those competing jurisdictions.

If you want to sit down and have a cup of coffee and go over this, maybe I can help you out. You can go back to cabinet and explain it to them. Because somebody's got to explain it to you: We're last. When the Premier stands in his place at a public meeting and a debate and just fabricates that kind of stuff, like we're the third-best, he does no service to the people of the province; he only kids them along.

When the people who want to make investments measure our tax situation, they decide not to invest here. The Premier doesn't tell the truth on why they don't want to invest here. He leaves them with a very distinctly different impression than the accurate impression. Again, the member for Oxford did the very same thing not seconds ago.

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to thank the member for York East who brought forward this information. The member for St Catharines I forgot; I didn't have enough time. Next time, of course, I will mention those things to the member opposite and the minister, who isn't here. Thank you for the time. It's not going to work, the minimum corporate tax is not going to work, because it's just simply people following the rules and you're not letting them.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Sutherland: Just in concluding the debate, I want to thank those members who participated. I do think the rebuttal by the Minister of Agriculture and Food was quite appropriate. The member for Etobicoke West highlighted the Agenda for People. Yes, he's quite right that some of the things we've done haven't been implemented exactly as they were put out in the Agenda for People.

But when you look at the track record on the Environmental Bill of Rights, on employment equity, on pay equity, on non-profit housing, on expanding child care, on assistance for farmers, and the list goes on and on, given the very difficult economic times that we've been in, I think the public of Ontario would say that we've done a fairly good job of working towards our commitments as outlined in 1990.

The corporate minimum tax is about fairness in taxation. One member said that he thought it was inconsistent for tax incentives to promote certain types of research and development and to have a corporate minimum tax. The tax incentives are there to provide a specific purpose and to encourage activity in a specific area. But the point of it is not so you can, on an ongoing basis, avoid paying any corporate tax. That's what the corporate minimum tax is all about: a question of fairness. I think that's a good thing.

I don't have the CFIB study right handy with me, but he talked about comparing all taxes. Of course, we know in the United States health care is not considered a tax. Health care is a separate cost. When we did our consultations on the underground economy, I remember the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Ontario, I believe it was, came forward and basically said, "If you include health care in there, which is a tax here but not in the States, if you compare the cost, though, associated with that, the tax levels are very similar in terms of the cost to the business." People need to keep that in mind, that when we're talking about tax comparisons with US jurisdictions, health care is not a tax. It's still in many cases a cost to business, and a very expensive cost to those businesses.

Even with the implementation of the corporate minimum tax, our corporate tax structure in Ontario is not going to be out of line with our many comparative jurisdictions and neighbouring jurisdictions that we have to compete with for investment, even though we have had a substantial amount of investment in this province during this government: $4 billion in the auto sector alone since 1990.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Laughren has moved third reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Take your seats. I would call the members, and I'd like to remind you that by prior agreement, we'll be voting on Bills 110, 138 and 146. Call in the members. It will be a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1731 to 1801.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. We will be voting on three bills separately, Bill 110, Bill 138 and Bill 146. Between the votes the doors will be open for approximately a minute or two, to give a chance to any members who wish to leave to do so at that time.

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We are now voting on third reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

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

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Cousens, Crozier, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Elston, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Harris, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Marland, McGuinty, McLean, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, Offer, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 58; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We are now voting on third reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Grier, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed to the motion will please rise one at a time.

Nays

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 57; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.

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

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): We are now voting on the third reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act. Same vote?

The ayes are 57; the nays are 37. I declare the motion carried.

Report continues in volume B.

June 15, 1994

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

MINISTER OF LABOUR

ROBERT SCHAD

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

HEALTH INSURANCE

CHILDREN'S GROUNDWATER FESTIVAL

LONG-TERM CARE

KAWARTHA-HALIBURTON CHILDREN'S AID SOCIETY

LABOUR DISPUTE

VISITORS

ORAL QUESTIONS

SALE OF AMMUNITION

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

HEALTH INSURANCE

HOSPITAL FINANCING

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

ELEVATORS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

EDUCATION FINANCING

VISITOR

QUESTION PERIOD

MEMBER FOR KITCHENER

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

HAEMODIALYSIS

TOBACCO PACKAGING

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

EMERGENCY SERVICES

HEALTH INSURANCE

PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY PLAN

TOBACCO PACKAGING

MINING INDUSTRY

SCHOOL CURRICULUM

TOBACCO PACKAGING

HOSPITAL SERVICES

VISITORS

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1994

TOWN OF DRESDEN ACT, 1994

CITY OF WINDSOR ACT, 1994

TOWNSHIP OF SIDNEY ACT, 1994

WORKERS' COMPENSATION AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ACCIDENTS DU TRAVAIL ET LA LOI SUR LA SANTÉ ET LA SÉCURITÉ AU TRAVAIL

ORDERS OF THE DAY

LIQUOR CONTROL AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES ALCOOLS

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

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

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

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

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

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