L061B - Mon 30 Nov 1998 / Lun 30 Nov 1998 1
The House met at 1832.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES
Mr Young, on behalf of Mr Eves, moved second reading of the following bill:
Bill 81, An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures contained in the 1998 budget, to make amendments to other statutes and to enact a new statute / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des crédits d'impôt et des mesures de protection des recettes contenus dans le budget de 1998, à modifier d'autres lois et à en édicter une nouvelle.
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): I wish to share my time with the members for Durham East and Muskoka-Georgian Bay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you.
Mr Young: It's my pleasure at second reading to summarize for the House the measures contained in Bill 81, the Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act, 1998.
With this bill, as Minister Eves said at first reading, our government is exceeding the commitments we made in the budget last May. We've listened to the ideas and recommendations of Ontarians and made changes to improve many budget initiatives. With this bill, the total number of tax deductions brought to individuals and businesses in Ontario by the government thus far will be 67 - and that's thus far.
The tax credits introduced in this bill will benefit working families and Ontarians with disabilities. Tax credits will make more capital available to businesses, especially small businesses, in communities throughout Ontario, enabling them to grow and to create jobs. Special credits will help to create well-paying jobs in the new economy: industries like digital imaging, computer animation and special effects. Tax credits will help the sound recording industry, which is the single biggest promoter of new Canadian musical talent.
To further support job creation, the bill implements the acceleration of the $400,000 exemption from the employer health tax. For 1998, the exemption for employers and self-employed individuals is increased from $300,000 to $350,000. On the revenue protection side, the bill contains a number of provisions to improve compliance with tax legislation and to motivate individuals and corporations to meet their tax obligations. The bill also enacts a new act to replace the fees charged by the province on grants of probate or administration of estates and maintain revenue at current levels.
We're giving help to working families. Measures in this bill will help parents get, and keep, jobs while ensuring that their young children are well looked after, both by reimbursing parents for part of their costs and by encouraging construction and renovation of licensed child care spaces. Forty million dollars from the existing child care tax credit will be combined with an additional $100 million in 1998-99 to create a new program that supports 350,000 young children in working families.
Under this program, modest- and middle-income working families will receive a new Ontario child care supplement for working families of up $1,020 per year for each child under age seven. This legislation will provide benefits that accrued from July 1, 1998. It is expected that some 210,000 families will benefit. The supplement will be available to low- and middle-income Ontario families who are working, attending school or receiving job training and who receive the Canada child tax benefit for their children under the age of seven.
The supplement is calculated as the greater of a designated percentage of family-earned income in excess of $5,000 and 50% of eligible child care expenses, up to a maximum of $1,020 per year for each child under age seven. The supplement is reduced by 8% of family net income in excess of $20,000.
The supplement may also be reduced if the family receives a child care fee subsidy funded by Ontario. For example, eligibility for the program disappears at a net family income of $32,750 for families with one child under age seven, at $45,500 for families with two children under age seven and at $58,250 for families with three children under age seven.
The first payment will be made following royal assent. If royal assent is in December 1998, a lump sum payment will be made for the period July 1998 to December 1998. Starting January 1999, the supplement will be paid monthly. The monthly payments will be made directly by the province to the parent and not through the annual income tax return. Individuals will apply annually to the province to determine their eligibility.
This legislation will increase the access of working parents to affordable child care by providing a new tax incentive to businesses that create or improve licensed child care facilities or that make contributions to child care operators to construct or renovate facilities. This initiative was announced in the 1998 Ontario budget to support businesses that create additional licensed child care facilities in Ontario.
The workplace child care tax incentive would provide corporations with an additional 30% deduction from Ontario income for capital costs of construction or renovation of licensed child care facilities in Ontario incurred after May 5, 1998. This incentive would also be available for contributions of cash, property or services by corporations to child care operators if the contribution is used by the operator for this purpose. Capital costs for playground equipment would also qualify. A 5% refundable tax credit would be available to unincorporated businesses with qualifying expenses.
The child care initiatives introduced by this government are expected to triple the number of children who benefit from child care assistance, to an estimated 450,000 children.
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): How many?
Mr Young: An estimated 450,000 children.
This legislation is a companion piece to the government's historic Ontarians with Disabilities Act, which was introduced on Monday, November 23, the same day as this bill. Our bill provides positive fiscal measures to encourage and facilitate the participation of Ontarians with disabilities in the social and economic life of the province.
To support businesses that hire employees with disabilities, the workplace accessibility tax incentive would provide an additional 100% deduction for qualifying expenditures incurred to accommodate an eligible person with a disability in their job function. A 15% refundable tax credit would be provided to unincorporated businesses.
Qualifying expenditures are costs incurred after July 1, 1998, to accommodate qualifying employees in performing their job functions, and include expenditures incurred to install a passenger elevator, a platform lift or a stairway lift; modify workstations and install required equipment and devices; and provide the support services of a job coach, a note-taker, a sign language interpreter, an intervenor, a reader or an attendant required by a qualifying employee.
1840
A qualifying employee is an individual who is not related to the employer and was not employed by the employer in the preceding 12 months; works at least 60 hours a month for a period of not less than three months; and qualifies for an existing federal or Ontario program for people with disabilities or is certified by a qualified practitioner as having a disability that is expected to last for more than a year and creates a substantial barrier to competitive employment.
This bill also contains provisions to enhance the community small business investment funds program and the labour-sponsored investment funds program. These provisions will increase access to capital for small business in communities throughout Ontario, helping them to grow and create jobs.
In 1997, Ontario introduced the community small business investment funds program to promote greater access to investment capital for growing businesses with $1 million or less in assets. Incentives were provided to encourage labour-sponsored investment funds and financial institutions to participate in this initiative.
The bill implements the 1998 Ontario budget proposal to further increase the flow of investment capital to Ontario's small business sector and proposes enhancements resulting from consultations. Individuals will receive a cash incentive of up to 15% on investments in the community small business investment fund of between $150,000 and $500,000. To further expand the pool of available investment capital, corporations, trusts and pension funds will also be available to invest in a community small business investment fund but will not receive an incentive.
The deadline for registering in a fund and the investment period during which investors can contribute to a community small business investment fund is extended from December 31, 1998, to December 31, 1999. If a labour-sponsored investment fund set aside funds for investment in a community small business investment fund before May 5, the investment period is extended from June 18, 1998, to December 31, 1998.
Other technical amendments are made to improve the functioning of the community small business investment fund and to clarify the policy intent of the legislation. For example, amendments clarify that the minimum size of a community small business investment fund corporation is $5 million and the maximum size is $10 million; clarify that the amount set aside by a labour-sponsored investment fund for investment in a community small business investment fund applies against its overall investment requirements; clarify that a labour-sponsored investment fund will not be suspended from issuing tax credit certificates where it has set aside an amount for investment in a community small business investment fund that fully offsets its penalty tax for the year; clarify that the test for determining whether an investment by a community small business investment fund is an eligible investment is made at the time of the investment by the community small business investment fund; and relax the arm's-length rules for community small business investment funds sponsored by aboriginal and university/research sponsors.
The bill would implement changes announced on September 29, 1998, to support the important role of labour-sponsored investments funds in providing venture capital to small and medium-sized businesses.
These changes parallel federal measures announced on August 31, 1998, to enhance the ability of labour-sponsored investment funds to provide venture capital: The maximum annual share purchase for which an individual can claim a tax credit is increased from $3,500 to $5,000 for the 1998 and subsequent tax years; the calculation of the amount a labour-sponsored investment fund must invest in eligible businesses is amended to exclude the value of shares eligible for redemption, but not redeemed, and the net amount of federal and provincial refundable taxes and penalties paid by the labour-sponsored investment fund; the waiting period before a labour-sponsored investment fund can apply for a refund of Ontario penalty tax after complying with its investment requirements is eliminated.
The bill would also enact the February 19, 1998, announcement stating that individuals affected by the ice storm in eastern Ontario during January 1998 would have a one-month extension to the end of March 1998 to invest in a labour-sponsored investment fund, and claim an RRSP deduction, for the 1997 tax year.
Labour-sponsored investment funds and community small business investment funds would be permitted to do a follow-on investment in a business that is no longer an eligible business, ie, the business has grown beyond the eligible-business-size test, if the follow-on investment is required to facilitate a financial restructuring of the business and is held for only a limited time.
This bill creates tax cuts to create jobs. In order to encourage job creation and growth in high-technology, knowledge-based industries, the bill proposes tax incentives to support the interactive digital media, sound recording and computer animation and special effects industries. These incentives will help businesses in these industries to grow and contribute to the development of long-term, internationally viable Ontario industries, with jobs for the future. The bill proposes a new 20% refundable tax credit to corporations for qualifying Ontario labour expenditures incurred to create interactive digital media products in Ontario.
The 1998 Ontario budget announced that qualifying corporations would be Canadian corporations with revenues no greater than $10 million and total assets no greater than $5 million. But as a result of consultations, the incentive will be expanded to include corporations with revenues of up to $20 million and total assets of up to $10 million.
The bill proposes enhancements to the Ontario computer animation and special effects, or OCASE, tax credit for labour expenditures incurred after May 5, 1998: elimination of the annual tax credit maximum of $500,000 per associated group of corporations, and extension of the credit to OCASE television productions under 30 minutes.
The bill proposes a new 20% refundable tax credit to Ontario-based sound recording companies for expenditures incurred after January 1, 1999, related to sound recordings by emerging Canadian artists, who are not just among the most talented in the world but are the most talented in the world.
This bill further supports job creation by reducing the payroll tax burden on small business. The phase-in of the $400,000 employer health tax exemption is being accelerated by increasing the exemption for 1998 from $300,000 to $350,000 for employers and self-employed individuals. In 1999, the tax on self-employed individuals will be eliminated. This measure was enacted in 1996, Bill 47.
We are also addressing the underground economy. Tax compliance incentives, such as new or increased penalties for failure to comply with corporations tax, retail sales tax and tobacco tax legislation, form a part of the revenue protection measures referred to in the title of this act.
Proposed amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act enhance existing sanctions by prohibiting possession of unmarked cigarettes by unauthorized persons and parallel the existing provisions relating to the possession of unmarked cigarettes for the purposes of sale.
The Tobacco Tax Act has specific provisions relating to the wholesale distribution of tobacco products: wholesale dealers selling tobacco for resale must be authorized by the minister and issued a permit; and persons purchasing tobacco for resale are only permitted to purchase it from wholesale dealers who are authorized. These requirements are critical to ensuring the correct tax has been collected and remitted and that tax-exempt product has not entered the taxable distribution system. New offences are created and fines and penalties are increased for unauthorized wholesaling of tobacco products, either through sales or purchases.
The Tobacco Tax Act also provides a general offence provision for persons contravening provisions of the act for which no penalty is provided. It is proposed that the minimum fine for general offences be increased from $200 to $1,000 and that the maximum be increased from $5,000 to $25,000. The existing jail term of three to six months would be removed in light of the enhanced amendments proposed for specific offences relating to the wholesaling of tobacco.
1850
The bill also proposes increases to fines under the Retail Sales Tax Act when a person is convicted of offences related to record maintenance, including making or participating in the making of false or deceptive statements, evasion of tax through record destruction or making or permitting false record entries.
The bill proposes increased fines and penalties to deter underground distribution of marked cigarettes by unlicensed wholesalers.
Under the Corporations Tax Act, the bill proposes an amendment to the 5% penalty for filing a late or incomplete return to adopt the federal provisions which increase the penalty by 1% per month to a maximum of 12 months while the return is outstanding and double the penalty for multiple occurrences.
The government remains committed to tax fairness through cutting taxes and ensuring that taxpayers receive efficient and effective public services.
This bill also includes non-taxation measures intended to fine-tune the realignment of local services.
Schedule A of the Services Improvement Act, 1997, amended the Ambulance Act to provide for the transfer to municipalities of full-funding responsibility for land ambulance services as of January 1, 1998, and full responsibility for ensuring the proper provision of such services as of January 1, 2000.
The amendments proposed in this bill broaden the definition of "designated area" to include upper-tier municipalities where designed by the minister as part of a consolidated municipal service management structure; make it possible to consolidate service delivery management, in a single service delivery agent, for land ambulance and other services in any area of the province; and create new regulation-making powers for, among other things, agreements and arbitration as a means of determining the apportionment of land ambulance service costs within or between upper tier municipalities and/or delivery agents. All this is to empower municipalities to do more with less.
This government has proven in the first three years of its mandate that tax cuts create jobs. This year, we were able to bring in the 30% cut in personal income taxes we promised a full six months ahead of schedule. By spring of this year, we had already announced 30 tax cuts. The deficit has declined steadily. Estimated growth in the real gross domestic product in 1998 will be at least 3.7%. The Ontario economy has generated 440,000 net new jobs since the speech from the throne in September 1995. With this bill, the government will bring the number of tax cuts it has made to 67.
The measures in this bill will continue to help foster a climate for businesses to create even more jobs and give many more Ontarians the opportunity to earn a good living and build their future.
Mr Bill Grimmett (Muskoka-Georgian Bay): I'm pleased to join in the debate on Bill 81. I will be supporting this bill, and I wanted to outline some reasons, including some reasons relating to local conditions in my riding. I also wanted to speak in some detail about some of the provisions of the bill that may be a little less well known, such as the parts that deal with the Land Transfer Tax Act.
First of all, I want to say that the bill, which is referred to under its short name as the Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act, 1998, is the next in a series of budget bills that we've seen this government bring forward. It's important to recognize that again this bill creates some tax reductions and some tax cuts. I understand that once this bill, if it is passed, goes through, we will have a record of producing tax cuts 67 different times so far in our mandate.
It's important to note that, from my memory, none of our budgets have been supported by either opposition party, despite the fact that each of the budgets has been consistent in reducing taxation, in trying to stimulate job creation and in reducing the provincial deficit as well. I think the public should remember that as they contemplate the provisions in Bill 81.
As my friend from Halton has said, the bill contains a number of measures designed to assist working families, particularly the provision that allows corporations a significant tax credit if they produce and agree to develop registered daycare centres in the workplace. This is certainly an incentive for working families and families with young children to continue to be active in the workplace. It's a key provision that some corporations pride themselves on.
I met recently in my riding with a corporation that was planning on developing a new factory in my riding. One of the things they pointed to that they were very proud of was that they were a leader in industry in having daycare centres right in the facility. Most of the work they do is related to the development and design of auto parts, a very high-tech type of operation. They want to encourage their female working people to stay on the job, stay in the workplace. They've done that. Hanging on to staff is a key component in keeping a successful business running. One of the ways they've done that is by developing right in the workplace, right in the factories, the very successful daycare operations they have. They've found that has made them a leader in keeping their working staff very consistent, keeping them on the job site, so they don't have to continue to replace these people. Replacing your staff is one of the critical costs that companies run into. You can avoid that if you're able to develop daycare centres at the site. That's something this bill would make much easier for corporations, because there is a very significant tax credit contained in the bill for companies that are able to develop daycare centres at work.
Another provision in the bill worth noting is the acceleration of the reduction of the employer health tax. I know, from talking to small business people in my riding, that when the discussion comes up about the employer health tax, in many cases they have been told by their bookkeepers that they no longer have to deal with it. It's almost a matter that they are relieved twofold: one, because they don't have the cost of the employer health tax any more, but even more significant for most of the people I've spoken to has been the fact that they no longer have the time taken up by their bookkeeping staff to keep track of the employer health tax. In some cases they found it was difficult to calculate. The acceleration of this provision, so we can get to the $400,000-and-under employers as quickly as possible, eliminating the employer health tax, is a significant elimination of red tape. It's a significant elimination of the cost to potential employers.
Earlier on today we passed Bill 25, which was a red tape reduction bill. It was the result of a process whereby our Red Tape Review Commission, headed up by MPP Frank Sheehan, carefully analyzing the legislation and the regulations in place, made recommendations on legislation to eliminate red tape. I was very surprised today to see that both opposition parties refused to support Bill 25, which is a step for all small business people in improving their relationship with government, making it easier for them to get through the daily grind of operating a business in Ontario.
Tax cuts create jobs. That's our general theory. It's one we've been consistent in applying from budget to budget. We have evidence, when we analyze job creation figures in Ontario, that our tax-cuts-to-create-jobs theory is working. We hear from the opposition members, particularly the member for St Catharines, that we have Bill Clinton to thank for the job creation and economic stimulus that has occurred in Ontario, but I would argue that there is a difference between Ontario and other Canadian jurisdictions.
1900
When you compare our job creation numbers with other jurisdictions, we're ahead of other jurisdictions in Canada. We're doing better than our neighbouring provinces. We're doing better on job creation than neighbouring US states. One of the things that makes us different from those other jurisdictions is that we've been the most aggressive at reducing income tax. We think it's more than a coincidence; we think there's a direct tie-in between a reduction in taxes and job creation. In October we saw the numbers for job creation. Again, Ontario is leading Canada. Certainly, over the recent term in 1998, we have been well ahead of the other jurisdictions in Canada on job creation. It doesn't hurt to repeat the numbers. By September of this year, the Ontario economy had created 195,000 net new private sector jobs in 1998. That was far and away the most impressive job creation record in Canada. We certainly had created over half of the employment growth in the country since December 1997.
Another issue is that our consistency in reducing taxes and creating public confidence by reducing the deficit has not only led to the creation of more jobs, but it has also led to a reduction in the welfare rolls in Ontario. In my own riding, in the county of Simcoe, since our throne speech in September 1995, we've seen the welfare case load in Simcoe county drop by about 40%. In the district of Muskoka, in the other part of my riding, including the October figures, the welfare case load has declined by over 60% since June 1995. I find, in talking to my constituents, that the reduction in the welfare case load is something people are prepared to attribute not only to our welfare policies, but also to the budget and the creation of jobs, which has been very significant in the Simcoe and Muskoka part of Ontario.
With regard to jobs, we've had a significant decrease in the unemployment rate, both in Simcoe county and in Muskoka. This goes hand in hand with the reduction in the welfare numbers and the increase in investment in job-creating projects in my riding. I'd like to talk a little more about that, the entrepreneurial spirit that's evident in my riding.
I have a number of auto-industry-related investments that have occurred. Algonquin Automotive is a thriving auto parts design and manufacturing company. It started up in Huntsville some years ago. Recently, they purchased a once-abandoned factory in Gravenhurst. They now have that building up and running. They have added over 150 employees in that abandoned factory in Gravenhurst. Many of the auto parts they're designing and creating in Gravenhurst now are actually being shipped to American factories, where they're assembled - evidence again that we are able in Ontario to design and produce manufactured products more efficiently and cheaply than in the US, where many of these products are purchased and consumed, and in some cases where they're assembled.
We have the recent announcement by Algonquin Automotive and the Crown Group that they are going to build a plastic finishing factory in Bracebridge. This is one more factory they'll have in Muskoka. They already have their largest facility in Huntsville, they have a smaller facility in Gravenhurst, and now they're going to have a plant where they will finish off the parts which they design and manufacture in the other two factories. They're going to paint them and put on the final finish in Bracebridge. They expect to be employing another 50 people in the first year of operations. It's very exciting news for the town of Bracebridge. I'm sure Algonquin Automotive is looking forward to expanding its operations in Muskoka.
In the same part of the community, we have Rockcrest Development Corp, which has announced plans and further details on the Royal Muskoka Resort project. This is a huge project. It has about 850 acres, some of it in the more built-up and serviced part of Bracebridge and some of it more on the periphery of Bracebridge, where you have rural features. They're planning on having a retail commercial complex right at the Highway 118 end of their property. They're planning on having a resort conference centre and an adult residential complex. They're looking at the aging population in Ontario and those people who are showing a trend of moving towards central Ontario. They feel that now is the time to invest, and certainly we're delighted to see them investing in Bracebridge.
Muskoka Outfitters has recently opened a store in Bracebridge's downtown area, where they're going to sell outdoor equipment such as skis and hiking boots. Again, I think this is a reflection not only of an improving economy but also of entrepreneurs who realize that the population is aging, and as the population ages you see a trend towards more outdoor activity. So Muskoka Outfitters is taking advantage of that and they're investing, showing a willingness to invest and create jobs right in Bracebridge.
I recently attended the opening of the Pro-Line Rentals and Sales store in Port Carling. They are not only renting construction equipment to the building trades but also renting recreational equipment to the many people who come to Muskoka to vacation and the many people who cottage in Muskoka. They certainly have found that there's a thriving market and they're investing significantly. They have built a very big new facility right on the edge of Port Carling.
Recently I was able to attend, at a site right on Highway 11, the Doe Lake Road interchange, when the transportation minister announced a new interchange. It's certainly overdue, because there has been a number of accidents at the Doe Lake Road interchange. It's a level crossing of Highway 11. We're looking forward to the improved safety, but also it will open up important economic development opportunities around the Muskoka Airport. There are two correctional facilities adjacent to that and industrial-zoned lands which are on the east side of Highway 11. Now they'll have better access to the town of Gravenhurst.
In the town of Gravenhurst, Sloan's Restaurant, which was closed for quite some time and really was a reminder of poor economic conditions in Gravenhurst and in the province, has reopened under new ownership. It's on Main Street, certainly an indication to the people of Gravenhurst that the economy has improved, because Sloan's Restaurant is no longer a symbol of a failing economy in the downtown area but an indication of investment back in the community.
We have the Eaton's building in Huntsville. For a long time the Eaton's building in Huntsville was a central mecca, something that drew people into the town of Huntsville. When it was announced that it was closing, of course there was a lot of sadness in the community of Huntsville. It was the only Eaton's outlet for miles around, and anyone in Muskoka who wanted to shop at Eaton's would go to Huntsville. So there was concern. But the property was immediately purchased by another investor in Huntsville, a person who runs a drugstore. They're going relocate their drugstore to that space because it was in such a good location. What was initially a bad story has turned into a very good story. The downtown community in Huntsville is grateful that the property has been purchased and that there is investment and enthusiasm going back into that property. We're all looking forward to the development of the new drugstore. I think it'll continue to attract people to that part of town.
In Midland, in my riding, NEBS Business Forms is really an international business. They manage to market their business through the mail primarily, to businesses all over North America. They do business forms and will create letterhead or other types of standard forms that businesses use right in the Midland facility and send them out, primarily by mail or by courier. They have a flourishing business. They recently announced that 30 more jobs would result from a major investment in the operation of NEBS.
We have Day Specialties. It's a factory in Midland that I had the opportunity to visit recently. They make specialty glass products, including the kind of glass that some automobile manufacturers require in their products. Also, they make the special glass used in fireplaces that's able to withstand high heat, and in some cases it's specially tinted for those kinds of demands. They have found that the demand for their product has greatly increased recently and they are having the opportunity to expand their facility by about 20% or 25% in size. They think that will create another 15 or 20 new jobs in the town of Midland, which is a very significant increase in the number of employees in that factory in Midland. It's good to see Midland seeing a return to more employment, because they've gone through some tough times in past years.
1910
Now I want to speak about part VII of the act, which deals with the Land Transfer Tax Act, and relate this back to my riding as well. In my past life, I had the opportunity to deal with the land transfer tax people in Oshawa because I did a lot of real estate transactions as a lawyer. I can tell you that what the legal profession came to expect from government on land transfer tax was steady increases. We would just go through budget after budget after budget. Most of the public wouldn't know much about the land transfer tax provisions in the budgets because it wasn't an item that the media seized on. I think by and large the media maybe didn't understand what the land transfer tax did or how it was applied. It is to some extent a hidden tax, a tax that hits people when they buy their homes. People who are commercial purchasers or vendors would be familiar with it, but most people don't know anything about the Land Transfer Tax Act except those few times in their lives when they buy a new home.
So it's refreshing to see in a budget - and we've had this in each budget - alterations to the Land Transfer Tax Act, not to make it more widespread or at a higher rate, but in most cases to exempt property transactions from the effect of the act. In this particular case, it's to clarify when people would be eligible for a refund. In this case, it's transactions where people have made a filing at the registry office on a technical issue on a transaction, not the kind of provision where government should be collecting tax, and that is clarified.
It is also refreshing that we won't have to see people lining up their cars at gas stations before budgets in this province, as people used to do. It used to be that when budget time was coming around, you'd go and buy gas because you knew those taxes were going to go up, or you'd go and buy consumer goods because you knew they were going to be taxed at a higher rate. Now the opposite is true, and that's one of the reasons our economy is going so well, because people know that after a budget in this province it's probably going to be less costly to buy consumer goods.
Those are the comments I have on the bill. I'd like to pass it to my colleague from Durham East to continue the debate.
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's my privilege and pleasure to follow the members for Halton Centre and Muskoka-Georgian Bay to make a few comments on Bill 81.
Bill 81 comes out of the May 1998 budget by Finance Minister Ernie Eves. Some of it is administrative in nature, but when I had a look through the bill, it's not just administrative issues. It's fairly substantive, actually. Both the prior speakers covered some of the technical aspects. There are 13 parts to the bill, some of which are in themselves quietly controversial. I won't touch on them, because I know that some of the members who have been here longer than I have - part IX, changes to the Pension Benefits Act, might be of some interest to some members of the House, those who, since we no longer have a pension here, question that that may come into effect.
There are other sections, but I'm going to, in a broad way, look at what I consider to be the most important parts of this legislation.
The first thing that affects people in my riding of Durham East is the child care expense for working families. It's probably the most important. I live in a generally hard-working, middle-class area of this province in Durham. It includes Oshawa and Scugog and Clarington, to name but three. I see these people day in, day out, commuting primarily to larger centres. Of course there's another very important sector in my riding, the agricultural sector.
The child care supplement is a $40-million investment in hard-working, middle-class families. I have a bit of information on that. I'm going to spend a bit of time talking about that particular section of the bill. It's a $140-million program to help 350,000 young children in working families in Ontario, one part of this multi-faceted bill. With that particular option, modest and middle-income working families would receive a new Ontario child care supplement for working families of up to $1,020 per year for each child under the age of seven. It is expected that some 210,000 families will benefit from this provision in Bill 81, which was announced in the May budget.
I believe there are other parts of that if you expand on that, and we're trying to encourage people to be self-sustaining and to work. It's unfortunate, but today it takes two income earners to keep up with the tax load, if you will. I hear my constituents and I hear the people from General Motors say they work the first six or seven months to pay their taxes.
I heard earlier today in some of the debate that people are working harder and getting less. It's true. I have some statistical information, to make a little segue here, on the performance of the economy. I think it's important to put this in context. The gross wage has probably gone up, I suspect, but the take-home pay has gone down. I want to look at 1985. The consumer price index at that time was 95.8%, based on 100 basis points value. By 1994, approximately 10 years, the consumer price index had risen to 131.3%. That's an increase of 37.6%. Most importantly, the income per capita had risen from $16,000 in 1985 to some $23,000 in 1994, an increase of 40%, but here's the problem: Between 1985 and 1994, on that same disposable income level of $23,170, the tax burden went from $1,800 to $3,020, an increase of 67.7%.
Governments for the last decade - and we may repeat this mantra over and over again, but people have to understand why we are, arguably, taxed to death. That's clearly the case. We are. This child care supplement for hard-working, middle-class families is going to help that situation considerably.
It's important to put in context why this government is fighting a relentless battle to reduce taxes, reduce the burden of taxes. It's fundamentally one of the main pillars of our whole platform. I looked at the history from 1985 through to about 1994, prior to our taking over government. It's important to put on the record that in 1985-86, when the Liberal government was in power, they had six tax increases, which I could outline in some detail with the information I have. In 1986-87, there were a further four increases in tax by the then Liberal government. Again in 1988-89 there were six increases in taxes. In 1989 and 1990, there were 16 Liberal tax increases to the hard-working taxpayers of Ontario. In 1990-91, they were going into an election so there was only one tax increase. So their plan very clearly is to tax.
Every time I stand and every time I speak to people in my constituency, I say, "When you think of the word `Liberal,' you think tax." The solution they've come up with to every problem is to spend more money. I want to spend more money as well, but I can't spend at the risk of putting other hard-working people further and further into debt. You can only spend the money the economy is generating.
I go on from 1991-92. When the NDP came in, the first thing they realized was that their programs had to be sustained by intensive tax increases. In that year, the NDP government had 10 tax increases. In 1992-93, there were 12 NDP tax increases. In 1993-94, there were 10 NDP tax increases.
There you have it: There were 32 separate NDP tax increases and there were 33 separate Liberal tax increases in that decade.
1920
It's important to go back to the numbers I was trying to share with the members earlier, where we saw that taxes went up 74% in a period where the income hadn't kept pace. Who is paying for it? It's a shell game. You promise and promise and promise. What you really are promising is to spend more money you haven't got, which the taxpayer is going to pay for eventually. I could go into some detail, but that's the background I want to leave here, that tax on a per capita level went up 67%, and that's clearly not acceptable.
It was repeated here earlier that with this particular bill we will have completed 67 tax reductions, including a 30% personal income tax reduction, and we've been in government just over three years. It's not simply doing as we promised; it's doing what had to be done.
Some people argue that this government has acted quickly and hastily, and others have said we've had to redo some of the municipal tax bills a number of times. I said on the record the other day that there may be other partners out there in the public sector for whom maybe it was in their best interests not to have some of this work too smoothly anyway, because in the last 10 or 15 years the private sector has been flattening out and declining because of the burden of red tape and tax, while the public sector has been increasing exponentially. They produce good services - I don't question that - but somehow they're not affected by inflation or recession. In 10 years, in municipal and school board budgets, every budget was a positive growth line. Every one was more spending, every single one. That clearly is not sustainable. We're no longer in the 1980s. Now the general, hard-working person realizes that we have to flatten the tax, just say: "That's it. We've got to reprioritize our spending."
I went back to the principles, right back to the fundamentals in the very popular document that was our election platform. I'm going to make some comparisons with this document here, which was then the Liberal platform. I think we've got to continually remind ourselves of motive. This particular bill, Bill 81, is finishing off commitments in the May 1998 budget and additional administrative measures. But to go back to the fundamental principles, they're not that complicated, not that sophisticated. Certainly any person in government would admit that there will be some challenges in change and there will also be the need to revisit the change, and of course we're in the midst of doing that on some fronts.
There were five characteristics in this particular platform: lowering your taxes, less government spending, removing barriers to growth and opportunity, doing more for less, and the promised balanced budget. I ask members in the House tonight to review that report card, keeping in mind whether you individually and those watching tonight are better off generally in this province than you were just three and a half years ago. Overwhelmingly, people realize that we were on a spending binge and that change had to occur, and this plan, which was put down very clearly to the people, has worked. I thank every hard-working taxpayer, because they're the people who voted for this. They're the people who are sharing the burden. It's foolhardy and reckless for any government to promise that they're going to solve the problems with more spending.
It's important to cast some reference to this now obsolete document here. This document was a very poor imitation of the Common Sense Revolution, a very weak, absolutely ambiguous document, but it did make some commitments. I'm not sure if they were as serious as ours. We committed and promised to do what we're doing, and we're doing what we promised.
I'm looking at page 8 in this document here. If anybody wants one, I would ask you to call my constituency office, 697-1501, area code 905. I expect to keep this in front of the taxpayer and in front of the electorate from now until the budget is balanced. There's only one government that could possibly resist the temptation to spend money to solve every problem. If you leave it to any kind of Liberal government, whether it's federal, provincial or municipal, their solution to every problem is more spending. I don't need to repeat the 34 tax increases they had during their very short term of government. Not only was it a short term, but history is even more revealing. It was the highest period of revenue for the province of Ontario, absolutely. The growth was exponential at that period. Expenditures doubled. I'll repeat those later.
The Liberal government promised, however, that they not only were going to balance the budget but were going to cut taxes by 5% during their first term, so they realized that tax cuts were in order. But if I look at the detail, it doesn't wash, it certainly doesn't follow through. That's where it gets typically ambiguous. It's the Liberal shell game again. The Liberal solution - always keep it in mind - is to spend more money.
I have no problem with a socialist government. The previous government was a socialist government, and when they hit the wall - I talked to Floyd Laughren when I was on the select committee looking at nuclear. He said when they opened the books and saw the deficit was closing in on $20 billion, they had an expenditure reduction plan and half the union membership left. Then they had the social contract, which was a temporary solution to try to get re-elected and not alienate the huge public sector union membership, and they got their medicine. I think they're still suffering from it. I respect them; I respect that they recognize that you have to either reduce the level of service or increase taxes. It's that simple. Of course, we can get into all kinds of diversionary discussions, but I'm going to cover a few of their commitments.
The Provincial Auditor, Erik Peters, has clearly stated that this government is going to be spending almost $20 billion in health care. The promise in this book, on page 38, was $17 billion. In fact, at that time we were spending $17.5 billion, so they were going to cut health care at the provincial level by $0.5 billion. On top of that, their Liberal cousins in Ottawa passed down almost $2.5 billion in transfer payment reductions. How were they going to make up the expenditure when the revenues were cut? This government's plan was far more thoroughly developed than some of the Liberal economists have given credit for.
There was an economist who had the courage to say, "A 30% tax cut and a 20% spending reduction will balance the Ontario budget in their first mandate, 2000-01" - Mark Mullins, who has a PhD in economics. There may be members here who want to challenge that. I think they should, but I want them to at least have the credentials or the academic background outside of pure, old-fashioned politics, of saying, "We can solve the problem."
When the NDP were in, they were losing about 1,000 jobs a week. The government, working with the private sector, has created over 450,000 net new jobs in this province - they're not public sector jobs; these are small business people - by reducing the tax burden. One of the sections of the bill deals with expanding the employer health tax provision. The Liberal employer health tax, another sort of shell game tax, among many - there were a number of those taxes; the business occupancy tax was another one. In this bill, we're expanding the provision for the employer health tax to $350,000. It's currently capped at a payroll of $300,000, and we're expanding that to $350,000 for small business. That's clearly a small business payroll decision.
1930
There are a number of other sections in here that might be worth touching on. At this time I'm just going to flip through a couple of them, because they did interest me. One of them was the changes to the tobacco tax.
Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): What about the estate tax, a billion and a half dollars?
Mr O'Toole: The member for Scarborough-Agincourt wants to talk about the estate tax. I'll save the best for last. The Estate Administration Tax Act, 1998, is enacted in response to a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada from October 22. It was a case called Re Eurig Estate. The effect of the act is to impose a tax from May 15, 1950. The tax is the same amount as the fees paid presently in probate matters under the Surrogate Courts Act and the Administration of Justice Act. The tax liability created will be offset by the fees that have been paid during the same period, so there's no additional revenue; not one nickel.
Mr Phillips: Get that. Wow.
Mr O'Toole: Again, this is a typical response from the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. His government collected it. The court decision was made, and as usual, this government is just obeying the law. It's legitimizing the collecting of a tax which was deemed by the court to be inappropriate. No additional revenue will be raised retroactively as a result of the new tax imposed by the act.
The Supreme Court of Canada, in its decision in the Eurig estate, stayed the effect of the order for six months to allow time for provinces to consider the impact of the court's judgment. We had no choice. It's the naming of a tax. But the argument in the opposition will likely go like this: They're trying to find some way to say that this government instilled a new tax. For anyone listening tonight, recognize that there is a court decision and this government is obeying the law in a way that doesn't create one cent of new revenue.
Our Minister of Finance introduced this on November 23. The appropriate time has gone into this. There's the Community Small Business Investment Funds Act. That's a very important aspect of this bill for small business. There are provisions in here as well for the employer health tax, as I said, moving from $300,000 to $350,000. And there are provisions for the child care supplement.
The most important one I want to mention last but not least. It certainly is a good-news story. This is the access for Ontarians with disabilities. This is a tax deduction for corporations that equals up to 100% of qualified expenditures incurred after July 1, 1998, for supportive services for the physically disabled, enabling employees with disabilities to work. The maximum expenditure qualified will be $50,000 per employee with a disability. The government is taking measures like this, very sensitive measures, to encourage the work ethic in our society, something that has been sadly neglected, and taking the actions to make accessibility an issue and a responsibility of the employers themselves, who really recognize that everyone wants to play an active role.
My time has come to a conclusion, but I'm satisfied with the details in Bill 81. I'll be supporting this bill.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Phillips: I appreciate the chance for Mr O'Toole to respond to some comments I have on his comments. I happen to notice in the budget that you and the Harris government have taken the debt of the province up by $22 billion. You came in and you've taken the debt of the province up by $22 billion. I see now that the average family in the province owes $6,000 more than when Mike Harris became Premier. They now owe $6,000 more in debt. These are not my numbers; these are the numbers from the budget. If every family now owes $6,000 more in debt, what do you think they're paying in interest to cover that debt? Probably about $500 a year in extra interest costs.
I also notice here in the document, the government's own budget, that there has been one surplus since 1968: 1989-90, $90 million.
The tax cut: Every penny of the tax cut is borrowed. This is voodoo stuff. You go out and borrow $10 billion to give a tax cut.
Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): Look at the federal budget.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Lambton.
Mr Phillips: The average family in Ontario now owes $6,000 more in debt. You've run up the average family debt by $6,000. So the average hard-working family now has to pay $500 more a year in interest costs. It's all voodoo. You've run up $22 billion more in debt. You have borrowed every penny to pay for the tax cut. The average hard-working family in my constituency owes - and these are not my numbers, these are your numbers - $6,000 more in debt because of Mike Harris. So, yes, people love the tax cut, but we've borrowed every penny to pay for the tax cut, every single penny. The member says, "What a fine way of managing the economy." Sure, go and borrow all the money to pay for the tax cut.
The Acting Speaker: I just want to remind members that when you debate, you get it and you've got to take it.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): We didn't give anything.
The Acting Speaker: That's right. You charge, they charge. They attack. Member for Hamilton Centre.
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): Now it's our turn to do just that. I would first of all remind my Liberal friend in the caucus beside me that in terms of deficits, it was their government in 1990 that bragged during a campaign that there was going to be a $25-million surplus, and when the books were looked at and we opened up the cupboards, we were talking a $3-billion deficit. So his criticisms are correct but there's some criticism that goes their way also in terms of how well they can manage the store.
Applause.
Mr Christopherson: Don't. It always worries me when Tories applaud anything I say. Please, don't do that.
I want to comment specifically on the comments of the member for Durham East who always makes interesting comments in this place. He talked about the fact that - and I'm paraphrasing - "Don't anyone dare to suggest that Tories have raised taxes; don't dare to suggest that in any way, shape or form." Yet the reality is that every tax that's being increased in municipal budgets right now is a result of your downloading on to municipalities. Property tax increases that are going through the roof are a result of your legislation in terms of reassessment and your downloading. You've left my community of Hamilton-Wentworth over $36 million in debt every year because of your downloading. You raised those property taxes just as much, if not more, than the individual aldermen and councillors who had to vote. The same thing applies to copayments, which Mike Harris said are taxes, that are now applied to the seniors drug plan; library costs that have gone up; recreation costs that have gone up. That's because of your downloading on to municipalities. It's your tax increases.
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): I'd like to congratulate the members who spoke tonight for us. I'd like to talk about the member from Halton, who gave us what I thought was a comprehensive outline of what was in the bill and explained to each of us the things that were necessary for us to know about the bill.
I'd also like to talk about the member from Muskoka who talked about the economic situation in Muskoka. I think many of us travel there and do some vacationing there. It was interesting to see the growth that is happening in the Muskoka area and the jobs that are coming to the area. I think we all worry about the tourist industry and how well it does in the province and it's good to see that along with the tourist industry growing in the province, we also have jobs and investments and manufacturing businesses going into the tourist areas. We're pleased by that and pleased that that's happening.
I think it's interesting to hear the member from Muskoka talk about how the tax cuts and the increases that people had to spend in their own communities have allowed those jobs to grow and the opportunities to grow in Muskoka. He talked about the spend, spend, spend attitude that had happened in the province previous to that and how that had really made people in the province have less to spend and governments have more to spend, and we needed to change that.
The member for Durham East always does a fine job. He seems to know things about every bill. I'd like to congratulate him on his discussion today, on his talk about how we can better utilize tax dollars, how these kind of opportunities make our province a stronger province, where we have hope and opportunity for our children.
I think all three of these gentlemen tonight did an excellent job and I'd like to congratulate them.
1940
Mr Bruce Crozier (Essex South): I hope to have an opportunity to debate this bill more fully a little later on, but I'm pleased to make some comments with regard to the previous speakers. When I debate this bill later this evening, I'd like to speak about land ambulances, workplace accessibility and estate administration, but the member for Durham East never ceases to remind me of things that I should also speak about and I will speak about them at some length later.
I have some information here if anybody wants to talk about tax increases and Mike Harris the Taxfighter. I'll probably speak at some length about the 16 tax increases that amounted to $1.823 billion annually that the Taxfighter is supposed to have supported. I'll also probably quote from the auditor's report in 1991 where he said Ontario had only one surplus in the last 20 years and that was the year ending March 31, 1990.
My colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt has referred to that, where your own budget papers referred to that $90-billion surplus. It's been asked in some of the questions and comments, "What happened then in the 1990 budget to the surplus of some $30 million that was budgeted for the year 1991?" I will be quoting again from the auditor's report, 1991, pages 14 and 15, and I will help you answer that question as to what happened to that surplus.
The member for Durham East always gives me an opportunity for these things. I only wish I had waited until after I had eaten before I heard him speak.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East, you have two minutes to respond.
Mr O'Toole: I thank the members for Hamilton Centre, Essex South and Scarborough-Agincourt, but most importantly, the member for Huron for her very kind remarks.
In the limited time I have, I want to make sure we go over the fact that between the McLeod Liberal years from 1985 to the end of the Bob Rae reign, the actual debt interest - that's the interest on the debt - went from $2.8 billion to almost $8 billion. That's the interest. We were spending more on interest. It was crowding out the payment for program spending. What happened? The actual debt doubled. So they were spending borrowed money, and that's their plan.
If you stick to the debt interest issue, there is a very new theory. It may be difficult for some to grasp - I wouldn't want to comment in any personal way - but the suggestion is that somehow our tax cuts haven't increased revenue. I refer the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to the outlook statement just made recently. Overall revenue is up almost $7 billion; a 30% tax cut and revenue is up.
Let's look at why this went up. Personal income tax revenue in 1994-95 was $14.7 billion. In 1998, guess what? It was up almost $2 billion. It was up to almost $16.1 billion. So there's an increase. Let's look down here on this list. Where did the revenue come from? Corporate tax - that means lots of people working, lots of new companies - almost doubled: $4.5 billion up to $7.6 billion and climbing. Taxes are down, revenue is up. It's called the Laffer curve. Look it up. Just read about it. It actually works.
Your plan is tax and spend. That's the Liberal plan. All the people watching tonight should always remember they have one plan: Spend money.
The Acting Speaker: I would like to bring to your attention the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a former Speaker of the assembly of Ontario and also the former member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.
The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.
Mr Phillips: And also a constituent of mine, so I'd better watch myself tonight. He's a local resident.
I want to begin debate on the bill. First, I'm always interested in Mr O'Toole. He thinks that if he yells loud enough it makes it a fact. But I just say to the public, get a budget book and take a look at the numbers. For example, here's a 10-year summary of the spending. This may come as a shock to Mr O'Toole, because I don't think he's looked at it, but there are numbers in here: total expense as a per cent of gross domestic product. I'm not one who goes back and looks at the past, but the last year of the Liberal government happens to be in the government's books here. The total expense as a per cent of GDP in 1989-90, the last year of the Liberal government, was 14.8%. Under Mike Harris it's 15.5%. Public debt interest as a per cent of revenue in 1989-90 was 9.3%. In other words, that's what the government of the day was spending. Today, what's Mike Harris spending? It's 17.3%. The total debt as a per cent of the gross domestic product actually has gone up since Mike Harris became Premier.
Hon Jim Flaherty (Minister of Labour): He's got to stop spending so much. What are you saying, Gerry?
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Phillips: This is the way Mike Harris operates: Go and borrow $22 billion.
Interjection.
The Acting Speaker: Member for York-Mackenzie.
Mr Phillips: The average family in the province now owes $6,000 more. Remember this: When you're listening to Mike Harris saying he gave you a tax cut, you also owe $6,000 more in debt. From the day Mike Harris became Premier to today, everybody in this province, every family owes $6,000 more in debt. What are we doing on that? We're all paying interest on that debt, roughly $500 a family in interest. So I get out the tax cut and I find, when everything's said and done, that the average family gets a tax cut of about $500 and we are paying $500 a year more in interest costs to service the debt of Mike Harris.
The fact is that other provinces and the federal government have handled this issue differently. When Mike Harris became Premier of the province the deficit was about $10 billion. The deficit for the rest of the country, the federal government and the provinces, all the other provinces, was about $43 billion. It's $10 billion in Ontario, $43 billion in the rest of the country. What did the rest of the country do? They got their fiscal house in order; they didn't borrow money for a tax cut. Now, when you take into account the federal government and all the other provinces, they are running surpluses of about $4 billion. We're still running a deficit of about $4 billion.
The Harris magic is, "I'm going to go and borrow money to give you a tax cut." I just say to every family in the province - and don't take my word for it, get out the budget book - you now owe $6,000 more per family. The Harris policy? Borrow and give somebody a tax cut. People may say, "I like the tax cut," but you're going to be paying interest today, tomorrow and for the foreseeable future. Just look at the numbers. That's the Harris policy: Borrow to give a tax cut. The rest of the country took a slightly different approach. They got their fiscal house in order, they now are running surpluses and that's how they're funding it.
I want to begin to talk about some of the aspects of the bill. The very first part of Bill 81 is called the Ambulance Act. That's the very first part of the bill, the Ambulance Act. What's it designed to do? It's designed to download, to dump on to property tax $200 million a year in ambulance costs.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): In exchange for -
Mr Phillips: The member for Scarborough East is here and he always comes in to barrack, and as you say, Mr Speaker, he'll get his chance, if he can get on the agenda. But $200 million a year in ambulance costs on to property tax. In total, the province dumped $660 million of added costs on to property tax. So around the province, when people are looking at property tax increases, it should come as no surprise - $660 million.
This particular one, dumping ambulance costs, you may remember that Mike Harris went out and personally selected 14 people to look at things that should be put on to the municipal level and things that should be handled by the province. This was the Crombie Who Does What panel. One of the things that Crombie said was: "Don't do this. Don't put ambulances on to property taxes. It should never be there." This is the language they used: "The panel strongly opposes such a move," the Who Does What panel. "We are unanimous in the view that it shouldn't be done."
1950
When you think about it, when we are trying to manage our entire health system, when we're trying to find, to use the jargon, a seamless system for our health care, to fragment it and to put ambulances on to municipal taxpayers is a fragmentation of the worst order. But Mike Harris, anxious to implement his income tax cut, loaded this on to the property tax. That's the very first part of this bill, ambulances, and what it essentially does is to give the minister unfettered rights to not only dictate how the ambulance services will be structured but dictate how they will be funded by municipalities. That's the first part of the bill.
The second part of the bill has to do with the Community Small Business Investment Funds Act. This is an interesting idea. First announced in the 1997 budget, it's now approaching two years old, this idea, and we're still waiting to see it come to fruition.
This is a government that says: "We're desperately interested in making sure that we develop community-oriented businesses. We've got to get moving on this. This is a huge priority for us." Guess what? We're now almost two years after it was announced in the 1997 budget and there is still not one of these up and operational - not one. Almost two years after this huge, high priority was announced in the budget with great fanfare, we now have, we understand, one in some area of incubation. It may happen soon; no one can tell us where, but it may happen soon.
I appreciate the rhetoric. The title is extremely good: Community Small Business Investment Funds Act. As a matter of fact, this was the 1997 budget, the one of a year and a half ago. It took up several pages. It was going to be a high priority for the government. Nothing's happened. Asleep at the switch again. Here we are today looking at the next - actually, the thing is being amended before it's even off the ground. It reminds me of the property tax bills.
The third part of the bill I'd like to talk about is the one that they don't talk about, and that is the new Estate Administration Tax Act, a brand-new tax. I smiled to myself the day it was introduced, because, for anybody who follows the proceedings around here, normally when a minister is introducing a bill that the government's at all proud of, there will be what's called a ministerial statement and the government will pat itself on the back and we in the opposition get a few moments to respond to it. But there was no ministerial statement. As a matter of fact, if you were to read the material that was put out after this bill was tabled, with no ministerial statement, you couldn't find a reference to this brand-new tax called the estate tax. It's going to raise $1.5 billion. It's retroactive to 1950.
The interesting part of it is, I remember Mike Harris when he was in opposition and Bob Rae brought in this estate fee. Mike Harris was apoplectic: "This is a succession tax by any other name." But now, very quietly, the minister frankly hid it. It was not in the explanatory notes; he tried to slide it through. It was only as you got into the fine print that it was found. Here's the issue: It's $1.5 billion, it's retroactive to 1950, but it implements a level of fees or taxation that, when Mike Harris was in opposition, he found objectionable. I thought, well, if he found it objectionable because Bob Rae brought it in, perhaps he's going to say, "I'm going to change the tax." No, no, it's a $1.5-billion brand-new tax.
Mr Wettlaufer: What did you say it was, Gerry?
Mr Phillips: Well, I don't think the government can give up the money. It's $1.5 billion. But you should have the decency to treat the public to what it's entitled to, and that is, come out and tell everybody you're doing it. Don't try and sneak it through. The public's too smart for that. I guarantee if you go and look at the background material, even with a microscope, you can't find a mention of it. If you've got any political courage, you say: "Listen, we're going to bring in a tax. It will be $1.5 billion. Furthermore, we're going to do what Bob Rae did; we're going to put that tax on the estate." You don't try and hide it from the public. That's what I find objectionable.
We're on the budget bills, we're dealing with the seventh property tax bill, this is a huge mess, and the government does not have the courage to allow even one day where the public can come and express their views on the property tax.
I will say on this probate fee issue, the reason you have to deal with it is because the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the land, said, "You're trying to raise taxes not through a democratically elected body but through regulation." What does that mean in real language? What was attempted on this estate tax thing was that through regulation, which can be dealt with in secrecy by the cabinet - no one knows it's even being dealt with - with the stroke of a pen, the government was essentially raising taxes. What's more fundamental than that?
No public, no democratic society allows their governments to tax them without representation, to levy taxes on them without doing it in public with a democratic vote. That's what that ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada was all about. They said: "You are using your regulatory power to essentially impose a tax by simply calling it a fee. That's illegal." I use the word "illegal" advisedly. That's what the court said, "You cannot do that." So the government was forced to bring in a piece of legislation so that instead of it being a fee, it's a tax.
The reason I raise this is because exactly the same thing is happening with property taxes. My business friends don't all understand this, but when you look at your business property tax bill, about 60% of all business property taxes go to education. That tax is set not by a school board, not by a municipality, not by the Legislature; it's set by the cabinet. For residences, about a quarter of your property tax goes to education, and that's set by regulation.
In my opinion, this is extremely important. Here is the government of Ontario, by regulation, in privacy, in secrecy, setting $5.5 billion of revenue without the public having any input into it. There is no opportunity to debate it. We, the elected officials, have no chance to see it. It is done secretly in the cabinet by regulation and then simply becomes a decree. It is, frankly, wrong. For the life of me, I don't understand why the Conservative backbench allow this.
If you were in opposition and any government tried to say, "We are going to set taxes to raise $5.5 billion, we're going to do it by regulation, we're going to do it in privacy and we're not going to allow you to vote on it," in my opinion, you'd be in revolt. But because, for whatever reason, you're in government and the cabinet has told you you're going to have to just keep quiet on it, you're prepared to allow the cabinet to set $5.5 billion worth of revenue by regulation.
To me it is fundamentally wrong. For the life of me, I don't understand why the Conservative backbench has not revolted on it. In my opinion, it is only a matter of time before the courts will say: "This is obscene. You can't be setting taxes like that." We all know about the Boston Tea Party, we all know -
Mr Gilchrist: Why didn't you guys do it, then?
2000
Mr Phillips: Mr Gilchrist is barracking away again, but I'll tell you, if you were in opposition, you would never set $5.5 billion of taxes by decree. You may like it now because you've got the hammer and you've got the power. You can do it, but it's wrong. Someday you'll be in opposition, that's just the way the system works, and you'll find out that in your grab for power - Harris wants complete control of education, all aspects of it. He wants to tell every school board exactly how many pennies they can spend, and he controls 100% their budgets. He tells the councils: "You go raise me $5.5 billion of property taxes and I'll tell you exactly how much I want. I won't let you see how I arrive at that. I won't let you see a vote here, but that's what's going to happen."
Maybe we'll be saved by the courts. It was called Bill 160. We said it was obscene. There isn't anything more fundamental than the public having a right to see in full public view a decision on how they're going to be taxed. Nothing is more fundamental than a public debate and a public vote on taxes. But on the $5.5 billion - it's the fourth-largest source of revenue in the province - we never get a chance to even discuss it here. If you want to talk about taxes, about having a say in taxes and about hard-working people having the right to understand how their taxes are set, nothing could be more fundamental than this.
We are dealing tonight with this probate issue, with the estate fees, because the courts stepped in and said, "We're going to stop governments from abusing their powers." That's essentially what they said: "We are not going to let you raise taxes by calling something a fee and get away with not dealing with this in public." The probate fee issue is a major part of this bill and it raises significant questions elsewhere.
I want to talk a little bit about the child care supplement. This area is designed in its crassest terms. All of us are anxious for working families to have better access to child care. I'm a grandfather. Our daughter has a four-year-old son for whom they need child care, and it's a struggle. It's always a struggle with any young family, getting them to the child care and then to school and all those sorts of things. It's a significant challenge and I'm anxious to support measures that help to improve it.
I will say this particular one is interesting. Just so the public understand, the government essentially decided to throw out a plan that they introduced a year ago and bring this plan in. In its final analysis it's designed to get a cheque ready with Mike Harris's picture on it to be sent out to all of the people who qualify, probably a few weeks before the election. It is retroactive to July 1, 1998, it's at about $85 a month, and they say, "We'll send it out after royal assent." It's a neat gimmick, although the public see through these things of trying to buy them with their own money. The public see through the borrowing of money for tax cuts. The public will see through Mike Harris sending out a cheque that he has held back since July. We could have dealt with this thing last session, but no, Mike held it back. I think it will probably go out in March or April. But the public will see it for exactly what it is: "Why didn't he pass this bill and begin getting me my help on July 1, 1998?" The House could have dealt with it. It's no accident that we are dealing with this at the last moment, something announced in the budget months ago that could have been dealt with months ago.
I just say to the public, beware of - what's that saying? - bearing gifts and just recognize that about four or five weeks before the election some of your tax money will arrive, money that could have been paid to you earlier. It will come to you. Mike is accumulating every month about $85 per child, and as I say, there will be a neat envelope sent out with Mike Harris's picture on it. Then, by the way, it will be sent out every month. There are 200,000 of these to go out every month.
Mrs Marion Boyd (London Centre): How much does that cost?
Mr Phillips: My colleague asks how much it costs. It will probably cost $1 a cheque, so we're talking about $200,000 every month. But why is it? It's sort of like Mike Harris's baby bonus.
Having said all that, we're looking at ways to improve child care. I just wish they hadn't done it in this way that creates a very transparent pre-election gimmick.
Interjection.
Mr Phillips: Well, that's what it will be. I don't think there's much doubt about that.
I go back to the teachers' pension. I ran in 1975. I didn't win, but I ran in 1975. One of the reasons I didn't win was that Bill Davis promised a fully indexed pension for all the teachers, and that was a winner. Well, from 1975 until the defeat of the government, there wasn't a penny from the provincial government. By the way, it was a promise made of a fully indexed pension, fully funded by the taxpayers, and the teachers would not have to pay anything into it. But Bill Davis - and I might say, Mike Harris was in the cabinet - never put a penny into it.
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): That's not right, Gerry.
Mr Gilchrist: He wasn't in cabinet that year.
The Acting Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): Member for Scarborough East, come to order.
Mr Phillips: Mike Harris was in one of the cabinets that never put a penny into it.
Mr Arnott: It was Frank Miller's cabinet.
Mr Phillips: Frank Miller never put a penny into it. Mike Harris was there and so was Ernie. It was a neat thing, because they never put a penny in. It was like the perfect promise: You win an election and then you spend nothing on it. But it kept building up and building up until finally something had to be done about it.
The reason I raise this is because the auditor has warned us of similar games being played. Luckily the auditor caught the government and forced the government to change the way it reports its finances. This is the 1998 budget, and the auditor forced substantial changes in the way the finances were reported.
The auditor has gone on to say he is extremely worried about Ontario Hydro. They're reporting over the next three years a profit of $2 billion and the auditor says they're going to lose $3 billion. That's a $5-billion swing. That's what the auditor said to us.
I have a personal concern about school capital. All the school capital now is 100% the responsibility of the province, but none of the debt of school capital is on the province's books. It's all on the municipal books. I'll just say to my municipal friends, someday this is going to hurt your credit rating when the credit rating agencies find that the province has decided they're not going to put the school debt on their books and it's going to be on municipal books.
The reason I raise that is because I've been through it. In 1975 the great money managers of the Conservative government gave a fully indexed pension and never put a penny into it for 10 years. It was the new government that had to finally deal with it, and we're still dealing with it. The bill we're dealing with tonight is still dealing with that unfunded liability that started back in 1975. I always smile to myself. The taxpayers can get very upset about pensions, and I just say to them, it was Bill Davis who made that promise to the teachers during the election campaign. He didn't have a gun to his head. That was the promise that was made. That deals somewhat with the pension issue.
2010
On the part of the bill that deals with helping people with disabilities - and again I'm very supportive of matters that help persons with disabilities. I might add a very quick personal story, if you don't mind, only to demonstrate to the public how, with a little bit of assistance, persons with disabilities can make an enormous contribution. I coached hockey for 25 years, as you may or may not know, for 15 years with a city of Toronto police officer. About 10 years ago he got in a car accident and went from a fully able-bodied person to a quadriplegic, and he was off work, obviously, for some period of time. About five years ago he was able to go back to work on the police force, as a quadriplegic, primarily because of technology and some assistance. He became, in my opinion, Toronto's expert on youth gangs. Then he competed for promotion and became a detective, with 14 people reporting to him, dealing with intelligence matters.
The reason I raise that is to make the point that all he needed was a little bit of help, just some assistance for the workplace to adapt. I take my hat off to the metropolitan Toronto police force. They have done a terrific job of accommodating persons with disabilities. The beauty of all this is that Ontario benefits from a terrific police officer with, in my opinion, great judgment and a major contributor to our society. So I'm anxious to see wherever we possibly can that assistance.
The bill provides some help. I would just caution as to how much it really is. It is in the form of credits. While businesses are able to write off the expense of it, it is not a substantial amount of money to the organizations. That won't stop them from doing it and will provide some encouragement, but I just don't want us to overestimate the amount of assistance this provides for corporations. It provides some; it will focus some effort on it but will not take it that far.
On the bill, I'm pleased to comment on it. What has provoked the least explanation from the government is this $1.5-billion new estate tax. I say again, the reason we're dealing with it is that the courts have said that governments, if they want to raise taxes, have to do it in public through their duly elected legislatures. That was the essence of the argument. They said that raising all of these billions of dollars across the country in estate taxes is being done improperly, but we have done exactly the same thing with property taxes for education, and that, by the way, is much larger and much more emotional. I think it's just wrong, dead wrong that we're allowing the Premier to set $1.5 billion of taxes and we, the elected people, representing the public have no say or no input into that.
The community small business incentive fund: I think a measure of the government's priority on it is that it's been around almost two years now, there is still not one up and operational, and we are amending the original proposals in it. I would have thought, after the 1997 budget spent page after page talking about it, that the government would have put a substantially larger priority on that than they have here.
On the child care supplement, without question what we're going to find about three or four weeks before the election is what I think many will regard as a very transparent use of taxpayers' dollars to try and buy the election. I'll just say to the people in my area that this was announced back in April 1998, and they waited almost a year to get you the money, for obvious reasons. You should have had the money far earlier than this, but it will be delayed so Mike can send out an envelope with his picture. Believe me, they have no hesitation on it. The government right now has spent almost $50 million, taxpayer money, on advertising. I find it obscene and regrettable that they can find $50 million to spend on paid, basically political advertising before an election, and this will just be another one of those things.
Bill 81, as I say, was introduced without much opportunity for the minister to comment because I don't think he wanted to admit he was introducing a $1.5-billion tax. I'm pleased to begin debate on Bill 81 and look forward to continued debate on it.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Crozier: It's a pleasure for me this evening to have a few comments with regard to Bill 81. I'm not a gambling person, and anybody who knows me will know that, but I'm willing to bet that come some Monday soon, we will have time allocation on Bill 81. We spent the afternoon debating a time allocation bill with regard to property tax and we pointed out the total mismanagement of the government in bringing their seventh, and some will argue eighth, property tax bill to the floor, so mismanaged, as a matter of fact, that not only are the number of bills just mind-boggling, but it's brought so late in the year.
I'm just going to make a little prediction tonight, as I have in my introductory remarks, that before the month of December is out we will be debating a time allocation on Bill 81 as well. Whenever we talk about tax bills, budget bills, the 1998 budget, as we're speaking about here tonight, it reminds us of our own taxes. I thought it rather morbidly humorous this past week that I got my 1999 tax assessment and I'm going to be given to - I think we all are - somewhere in January to appeal our tax assessment, when in fact the deadline for the 1998 tax assessment has been extended on occasion and we haven't even reached the point at which 1998 tax assessments can be appealed.
This is the kind of mismanagement we're having to deal with and yet try and debate substantive bills when oftentimes we're not sure whether the very bill we're debating is going to be the last one. So not only do you not know quite how much to say, you don't know what to expect in the near future. For all those folks in the province who have recently received their 1999 tax assessment, I guess, if you had any question about your 1998 tax assessment, which you still have another month to appeal, you'd better get that appeal in on your 1999 as well. I really don't know what the bottom line on my taxes is going to be this year. It's most difficult to have a household budget when you don't know what your taxes are going to be even in December of the year in which you're going to owe those taxes.
2020
It's a really interesting dilemma that we're faced with. I have to think that since my 1998 property tax hasn't been set yet and since there probably are a number of appeals because, as was mentioned earlier today in debate by my colleague from Algoma-Manitoulin, only those whose taxes increase appeal them. When I was on the town council in Leamington, I can't ever recall anyone coming in and appealing because their taxes were too low. The municipality is going to have to make up for those taxes that are appealed. I guess that's going to be part of my tax bill. It certainly makes the end of the year interesting when Christmas is coming along and the monthly amount I budgeted for taxes hasn't even arrived yet.
Earlier this evening, I believe the member for Durham East raised some question about tax increases. When we debate these bills this late in the year, we should be concentrating on what's ahead. But the member for Durham East insisted on going back in history a bit, so I thought I would do that briefly as well. It wasn't my intention to do it tonight, but in speaking, he gave me enough time to do a little bit of research and find that Mike Harris the Taxfighter also has a blemish on his record. We always have to be careful in this place about what we say on any particular issue because often it comes back to haunt us. I have been here five years now. I suspect that over those five years I've said something that may or may not come back to haunt me sometime.
Mike Harris the Taxfighter: Here's his record from 1981 to 1984, in which he supported 16 tax increases that amounted to $1.823 billion on the backs of the taxpaying public of Ontario. Ministry of Finance staff, you will be interested to know, have confirmed that the 1981 tax increases were larger than any Liberal or NDP tax increases when adjusted for inflation and gross domestic product growth. Isn't that an interesting fact? I'm sure the Premier is listening to these remarks tonight and he'll be interested to know that we're all still aware that the Taxfighter was part of tax increases in personal income taxes, in OHIP premiums back in those days and fuel tax increases.
By the way, we're going to debate a resolution of one of the government members this week on gasoline pricing. I will be pointing out to that member and other members of the Legislature that Ontario has the second-highest gasoline taxes in the country. If the member wants to prepare his remarks for Thursday morning and suggest that his government cut gasoline taxes, I'm sure the travelling public and the driving public in Ontario will be pleased to hear that.
Tobacco taxes were increased while Mike Harris was part of the government of the day; beverage taxes were increased. In 1982, they decided that OHIP premiums were too low and Mike Harris voted to increase those. The retail sales tax was increased in 1982; tobacco tax again; and beverage taxes again. In 1983, OHIP premiums: Again Mike Harris felt they weren't high enough and he voted to increase OHIP premiums, the taxes on alcohol and tobacco again, and corporation taxes. Now a friend of Mike Harris, now he's their friend, but back then it would appear, at least in 1983, while he was part of the government of the day, he helped vote for increases in corporation tax from 14% to 15%; social service maintenance tax - it goes on - and OHIP premiums were attacked again.
All I'm saying to the member for Durham East is that when he likes to bring up history, he has to be careful because his Premier was part of that history and his Premier was part of the government that voted to increase those taxes, so he's not without some baggage, as they sometimes say, in public office.
I want to point out again something that's on the record but needs to be brought up in light of this history lesson that we were given by some of the members of the government. On page 14 of the 1991 Provincial Auditor's report, the auditor said, "Ontario has only had one surplus in the last 20 years, the year ended March 31, 1990." That was the year when there was a Liberal government in power.
There was some question by some this evening as to why, following that budget, a surplus turned into a significant deficit the following year. The auditor, in an excerpt from the auditor's report of 1991, pointed out that the 1990 budget, which was tabled April 24, 1990, and forecast a surplus of $30 million for the year ending March 31, 1991, ended up with a deficit of $3 billion.
The major factor, the Provincial Auditor says, was the extent of the recession, which was obviously not foreseen at the time of the budget. The members of the New Democratic government would remember the severity and the extent of that economic downturn. In fact, I think I've heard some governments blame that on the New Democratic government, and yet we know that there were world conditions that affected it and we know that there were conditions in Canada that affected it.
The same as they're trying to take credit for the economic increase now, this government wants to take credit for everything. The member for Durham East said, at least the way I interpreted what he said tonight, that the whole economic increase is because they reduced taxes. I suggest that it's more than that. The same as the recession was not the fault of any one government, perhaps even any one country, the economic benefits that we're enjoying today are certainly the effect on Canada of the United States economy, our largest trading partner. Low interest rates have an effect on them. The recession, as I just mentioned, in the early 1990s was the reason that the predicted budget surplus turned into such a deficit.
There were some special payments not provided for in the budget of March 1991. There were some special payments amounting to about $924 million, some of which were made to the teachers' pension fund, the Urban Transportation Development Corp and the Stadium Corp of Ontario.
You can't just isolate these parts of history. You can't just say that Mike Harris is the Taxfighter today when he was the one who voted for tax increases yesterday. You can't say that the economic benefits that we might be enjoying today are only the result of a tax cut for which we know every single penny is borrowed.
Having responded in that way to the member for Durham East and some of the questions that he raised that deserve some clarification, I'd like to move on in the discussion of Bill 81, this budget bill, to five specific areas.
One is that in the first part of the bill there are some changes to the Ambulance Act. We know that in the budget of May 1998, as my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt has pointed out, there was some significant downloading to the municipalities. He covered very well the amount of that downloading and the effect it's had and will have on municipal taxes.
What I'd like to spend just a couple of minutes on is the idea, the reason, the logic, if there's any, for having land ambulance paid for by municipalities. It doesn't matter what tier it is, as this bill amends, or it doesn't matter who the delivery agent is. It's the idea that land ambulance should be paid for by municipalities.
2030
I always have thought that, as part of our fully accessible, publicly accessible health care system, land ambulance would be part of that, just the same as air ambulance is. As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt said, the government was advised by the Who Does What committee not to put land ambulance on the backs of municipal taxpayers, not only because of the money involved but because of the whole idea that land ambulance is part of our health care system. Whoever would think that land ambulances, when they pull up to the hospital door, are not part of that system?
It was rather humorous to me that in the whole Who Does What story leading up to the downloading of the ambulances I was told of an almost hilarious anecdote, if it wasn't so serious: that the Ministry of Health didn't know that the provincial government owned the ambulances. The Ministry of Health apparently thought, and I assume the minister of the day at the time, that all the ambulance equipment was owned by the ambulance operators. I'm glad they got that clarified. It would be unfortunate if they didn't realize this. For the life of me, I can't imagine how they would have missed that.
But enough to say that I'd just like to raise the question, why is it that we're separating land ambulance service from the health care system and simply putting it on the backs of municipalities? The regulations, the rules are made by the Ministry of Health, and well they should be, so that the type of service that we receive from ambulances is the same across the province. I agree with that. That makes sense. It might even make common sense; I'm not sure. But why you would simply take that out of the health care system doesn't make sense to me. I wish that at some point in time the government would consider rethinking that particular question.
The second point I'd like to talk about in Bill 81 is workplace accessibility. In this bill there is a section that deals with access for Ontarians with disabilities. It's to encourage business to employ persons with disabilities. The legislation would implement the workplace accessibility tax incentive. This incentive would provide businesses with an enhanced deduction or, if the business is unincorporated, an equivalent refundable tax credit for some of the expenses incurred in accommodating an employee with a disability. The tax deduction for corporations would be 100% of the qualifying expenditures incurred after July 1998 for support services and physical accommodation. The maximum expenditure would be $50,000 per employee with a disability.
I give the government credit for that. I think that's a good step in the right direction. The problem is, it's not enough when it comes to recognizing the difficulty that Ontarians with disabilities have in getting a job.
When I speak of Ontarians with disabilities, just this past week or so, there was a government bill - first reading was November 23 - An Act to improve the identification, removal and prevention of barriers faced by persons with disabilities. If Bill 81 and the tax credits or incentives that are being given to business were combined with a meaningful Ontarians with Disabilities Act, it would be a huge step in the right direction. I don't like to be cynical. But it would appear to me, if I were a cynical person, that this $50,000 credit per employee with a disability is some sort of indication that the government wants us to feel they have some great concern for Ontarians with disabilities, and yet they brought in an act a week ago that just doesn't do the job.
I spent an evening at CBC in Windsor when Paul Vasey hosted an hour's program on Ontarians with disabilities. What Ontarians with disabilities need are jobs. They need to be accepted in the workplace and they need to be provided for in the workplace, and not just in a physical way. You have to have the job before you have to have access to the building in which you work. That's the problem.
The act that was introduced a little more than a week ago requires ministers to prepare an annual plan. The bill sets out the contents of the ministries' plans and what they require. But it's with government ministries; it doesn't go to the workplace, where many Ontarians with disabilities want to work, have the ability to work and should be given the opportunity to work.
Even though Bill 81 provides a small benefit to Ontarians with disabilities, I certainly hope the government will bring forth a more meaningful bill that covers the whole spectrum of the workplace, the workforce.
Estate administration is the third item I'd like to cover. Again, my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt has commented on the rather silent way this was brought into being. There were no ministers' statements on it. I would like to refer to some of the statements that have been made by others outside this Legislature, because often that adds some credibility to what we say inside the Legislature. I want to quote from a couple of papers that you'd think would normally, maybe six times out of 10 or a little more, have some sympathy with the government and what they're doing.
The Globe and Mail, on November 24, said, as part of its reporting on this: "The province is essentially replacing the so-called probate `fee' with a tax and making it retroactive to 1950." Isn't that interesting? Wow. I've heard of bills being introduced during any fiscal year that go back to the 1st of the year - in fact, some of the child care funding is going back to the 1st of the year - but I think this is the first time I've seen one that goes back some 48 years.
Anyway, the Globe and Mail said, on the probate fees as they exist now, prior to the introduction and passing of this bill, "Most lawyers agree it now far exceeds the expense of processing the documents." The government has said - it's a term they often like to use - that it's going to be revenue-neutral. What they're saying is that this new tax, this tax to replace the probate fees, all along has been collecting more money than it really should have been.
The National Post, one of our new papers, headed their story with "Still Soaking the Dead." Wow. That's a pretty strong statement to come from the National Post. It said:
"Even from a legal standpoint, this decision is questionable. The Supreme Court decision reminded us that a tax (as opposed to a user fee) must originate with the elected Legislature, not with unelected bureaucrats....
"Mr Harris would be well advised to scrap the proposed new law altogether and cut his spending accordingly. If he decides to revise the probate tax, he must confine himself to soaking the moribund. That, at least, would be an honest tax honestly imposed."
2040
My colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt has raised the question, and I think a valid one, that we are now faced with taxes being collected by the government by regulation, and that's the business tax for school boards, for education. That should be the type of issue debated before this Legislature.
I go back to my years on the municipal council. Any time we wanted to change taxes at all - and I'm proud to say that in the last three years that I was mayor, and I won't go further than that, we didn't raise taxes - we had to do it by bylaw. A bylaw had to be presented before council and then there were 30 days before the bylaw could be passed, in which time, of course, the public would have the opportunity to comment on those taxes. Now we're faced with a government that's going to impose almost $6 billion a year in taxes and we won't be able to say one word, yes or no, about that. That might be something that's going to come back to haunt the government.
Child care: There are portions of this bill which reflect on child care. The Ontario child care supplement for working families is going to combine $100 million of new federal assistance with the $40 million from last year's child care tax credit to create a new program. That, as mentioned by my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt, has been in effect since the beginning of the year, but the families have yet to receive a penny. It's not expected that this part of the bill will receive royal assent before the spring - that was mentioned in a briefing today - and lo and behold, probably the cheques for child care will come out either just prior to or during the election. Now, isn't that a coincidence?
Some were bragging in here this evening about the number of grandchildren they have. Joan and I don't have any grandchildren yet, but I'm pleased to see that there are going to be some provisions for child care and child care expenses. I'm quite happy to help support that kind of thing.
Last, I want to make a quick comment about the Teachers' Pension Act. There are going to be some changes to the Teachers' Pension Act. The problem with that - I think it can best be said from this letter sent to David Johnson, the Honourable Minister of Education and Training, from the Ontario Teachers' Federation:
"The OTF has serious concerns regarding the process used by the government in proposing amendments to the Teachers' Pension Act.
"On October 28 the OTF was informed for the first time that the government intended to unilaterally amend the Teachers' Pension Act. No advance copy of the amendments was provided....
"The government and OTF are partners with respect to this plan. The teachers' pension plan provides retirement income security for the teachers of Ontario...."
The point of the letter is that they felt that at the very least - and I think this goes for any member of any pension plan in any business in this province - if there really is a true partners' committee to discuss these kinds of issues, the government would have consulted the teachers on these changes. They feel there should be an agreement reached between the partners before any legislation is passed. I think that's a fair request.
Thank you, Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to mention these few items tonight.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Christopherson: I want to commend my colleague for his comments with regard to this bill. When we're talking about the impact of the tax measures of this government, which Bill 81 is all about, and start to talk about winners and losers, it's very clear that it's the government's friends and the very wealthy in this province who have done very well by their tax measures, and average, hard-working, middle-class families are the ones who have been stuck.
I found it particularly interesting that in his comments he would mention the Ontarians with Disabilities Act and the absolute insult this government has shown to people who have disabilities, particularly given the fact that they made commitments, very clear commitments, that they would put forward meaningful legislation. At least that's what they said before the election. Now, just prior to the next election, they bring in the feeblest of potential laws, and quite frankly, nothing that the courts hadn't already ordered them to do, nothing that they weren't already committed to do. Anything that really would have mattered they shied away from, because all they want to do is to be able to say, "We said we'd introduce an act and we have." The fact that it's a do-nothing act and has nothing in it is beside the point. "We said we'd introduce an act and there it is."
It's interesting when we look at the Liberals' red book, the infamous red book that they don't like to have shown around, where it talks about what the Liberals, if they'd been the government, would have done to injured workers, that injured workers somehow aren't disabled persons under the Liberal definition. They were going to scrap the Royal Commission on Workers' Compensation, just as the Tories promised and did. They were going to close the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, which the Tories said they would do and did. Those were measures that were going to help injured workers, help disabled people, not hurt them, the way the Liberals promised.
Mr Young: I wanted to respond to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt on a couple of comments he made earlier. He was referring to the changes in the act that will allow ambulance services to be provided and controlled locally. I want to comment on that, because in the region I live in, when you dial 911, you get three levels of government at your door. You get the fire service from the town - we get it from the town of Oakville - you get the police service from the region and you get the ambulance service from the province. So there you are, with three levels of government. We think there should be a better way. We think we should be amalgamating services and empowering the municipalities to take local control. This bill moves much closer towards that. They can amalgamate the services, they could eventually get to amalgamate the dispatch, and provide better service at lower cost. Now there's a novel idea: better service at lower cost. That's what we're trying to do with the bill.
Mr Phillips talked about the probate taxes, and then he said: "Of course the government can't give up the revenue. We wouldn't do that if we were the government." So I'm not sure exactly what point he was trying to make about that. It's very important to remember that Mr Phillips's government, when they were in power, brought in 32 new taxes. They made up taxes no one had ever heard of before. They put taxes on large buildings. They sat around the cabinet table and said: "Here's what we'll do. Anybody who's got a building over 100,000 square feet, we're going to put a tax on that, because no one will be complaining about that." There was no thought for the people who might lose their jobs because the taxes went up for their companies. They put taxes on parking lots. They said: "There's an idea. We'll put a tax on parking lots, because we won't get many complaints about that."
This bill does the opposite. It reduces taxes to create economic activity.
Mrs Lyn McLeod (Fort William): I'm pleased that my colleagues who opened the debate on this bill, both my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt and my colleague from Essex South, have commented on one of the many factors in this bill, and that has to do with the changes to the Teachers' Pension Act. The member for Essex South pointed out that the Ontario Teachers' Federation has some very real concerns about the fact that there was virtually no consultation on changes to the Teachers' Pension Act, even though the Teachers' Pension Act is supposed to be a partnership between teachers and the government. The OTF tells us:
"On October 28 the OTF was informed for the first time that the government intended to unilaterally amend the Teachers' Pension Act. No advance copy of the amendments was provided.
"On October 29 and November 2, representatives of OTF were briefly allowed to view draft amendments to the Teachers' Pension Act. They were not permitted to take away copies. This prevented the responsible decision-makers, OTF executive and the partners committee from reaching any informed conclusions."
2050
The OTF makes it clear that in the past, when either partner was considering changes to the plan, the partners met, they had extensive discussions, and they consulted their own and the plan's advisers before proceeding, but this process was not followed in this case. They consider that the presentation of these proposals in this bill is a violation of the partnership.
They go on to note that they can't comment on the content of the legislation, the substance of the changes that are proposed to the Teachers' Pension Act, because they did not at that point in time possess a copy of the amendments.
The same problem should be a problem for this Legislature: We are looking at changes to the Teachers' Pension Act, which is managed by a partnership, which has always been changed through mutual discussions and agreement, and we can't comment on these changes because there has been no appropriate consultation.
I'm also glad that my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt raised a very real concern about this government's continued violation of a Supreme Court decision not to raise taxes by regulation.
Mrs Boyd: I'm proud to have an opportunity to comment on the debate so far this evening. I think those of us who often are here in this place or who watch on television know that the quality of debate is often somewhat questionable, but tonight we are actually talking very clearly about very conflicting notions of what the obligations of government are and what the purpose of budget bills ought to be in terms of serving the population of Ontario. I congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt and the member for Essex South on the ability they have had to identify some of the issues.
I want to deal with one issue that the member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised and that was about the child tax benefit provisions in this bill. The member for Scarborough-Agincourt was pointing out that of course families across Ontario could have been getting this benefit for quite some time, and gave the opinion that the government was simply waiting until it could deliver a cheque that would clearly come from this government that might fool the people of Ontario who have been so hurt by this government, the low-income families, that this government really cares. The member for Halton Centre spoke out and said, "Of course it'll be by direct deposit."
We certainly don't think that first cheque will be by direct deposit, because of course the government does not necessarily have the information it needs. We know, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt pointed out, that this provision in this bill will enable this government to make direct payments to low-income families in this province, right at the time they call an election, in an effort to buy their votes.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Essex South.
Mr Crozier: Thank you to the members for Hamilton Centre, Halton Centre, Fort William and London Centre. This is an interesting place to spend your time, because oftentimes when someone gets up you get prepared to thank them for what they said, and by the time they're finished, you're not so sure whether you should or not. But I appreciate the fact that, as the member for London Centre said this evening, we're all here and we're all debating and we're all hopefully to some degree articulating our position.
I just want to reiterate that in the five years I've been here I've seen two governments. I've seen that the government of today was the third party of yesterday and the government of yesterday is the third party of today. I've found myself in the middle all the time, which is not unusual.
My point earlier in the comments was that I guess things change when you're in government because you then expect, "There's no reason in the world why everybody shouldn't agree with me," and that's just not the case, obviously. When the government was the third party, Mike Harris railed about probate fees. When the government was the third party, Mike Harris read off all the lakes and streams in the province. Yet what does his government do since they've been in power? They restrict debate by tightening up, almost strangling us with the standing orders.
I'm simply pointing out to those people who might happen to be watching tonight that we all have to be careful of what we say today because as we can see in practically everybody's comments it comes back to us tomorrow. So I hope we're all sincere in what we do.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for Hamilton Centre.
Mr Christopherson: I want to begin my comments, first of all, by asking for unanimous consent of the House to split the leadoff time of the third party.
The Acting Speaker: You don't need unanimous consent any more, but we like to be told, so thank you, that's fine.
Mr Christopherson: I'd think you'd find you might, but that's fine.
Mr Wettlaufer: We changed those rules, remember?
Mr Christopherson: You've changed so many rules, it's hard to keep up with them when every one of them took away some right somewhere. The fact that something wasn't and that it wasn't a total poke in the eye doesn't stand out.
Let me say at the outset that I want to start by reflecting back on some of the comments that the government members have made, both in their initial leadoff debate and during responses to other debates in the House. What they like to say, and they make it very simplistic, is, "We've cut X number of taxes and we've cut so much red tape," as if somehow just cutting taxes and just cutting red tape automatically, miraculously give us better government and a better province. By that kind of thinking, by that simplistic kind of thinking taken to its extreme, what you ought to do is eliminate the entire budget of the province and, by your theory, we should have a perfect society.
I can see the Minister of Labour lifting his eyes, kidding with one of his colleagues, but I knew it would get that kind of response. I know he's only joking, but it does reflect their philosophical basis, where they would kid with one another and say, "Maybe not a bad idea."
If you were to eliminate all the regulation that existed, by the Tory simplistic theory of how our society ought to be structured, that should give us the perfect rules: no rules. Of course that's ridiculous. But that is no less ridiculous than the idea that standing up and announcing how many tax cuts, in total number, you have made somehow creates a better province as an absolute, because it doesn't. It sure as hell doesn't in Hamilton.
Mr Ernie Hardeman (Oxford): It sure as what?
Mr Christopherson: I said, "It sure as hell doesn't in Hamilton."
Mr Hardeman: I thought that's what you said.
Mr Christopherson: The 30% tax cut: I talk to the people in the new riding of Hamilton West; they're not benefiting. When I ask them on the doorstep, or if I'm out in my riding at an event and I ask people, "How much has the 30% tax cut meant to you, how much of an improvement in the quality of life of you and your family have you seen as a result of the 30% tax cut?" most people say, "Nothing." The odd person will say, "I guess I've seen a couple of bucks."
The vast majority of people say nothing has improved for them as a result of the 30% tax cut. But, boy, let me tell you, people are pretty quick to understand that if someone in Ontario is making $150,000, $250,000, $300,000 or $500,000 - as much as that's out of the realm of most people who would watch the parliamentary channel to imagine, the fact is that there are those people and they support this government. Why not? When you're making that kind of money and you get a 30% tax cut, you're talking serious coin. Never mind Mike Harris, one loony holding up a can of loonies; I'm talking real money. We're talking about tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars.
2100
The former minister can sigh all she wants but that's the reality. The very wealthy see a huge benefit from your 30% tax cut. The average, working, middle-class family in Ontario sees nothing in terms of a benefit, but boy, what do they see on the other side of the ledger? Because there is another side to this ledger, oh yes, and what is it? Hospital closures, school closures - you may have delayed it by a year, but your plan is to go back at it. If by some unfortunate circumstance you should form another government, you're going right back at it. Those schools in those neighbourhoods are going to close. People's property values are going to drop as a result. The quality of life of their children is going to drop as a result. Property taxes in the city of Hamilton have skyrocketed, because you downloaded tens of millions of dollars to our municipal budget.
Ms Marilyn Mushinski (Scarborough-Ellesmere): Wrong.
Mr Christopherson: What do you mean, "Wrong"? Don't tell me "Wrong." That is a fact. I would remind the former minister, whichever one of them happens to be commenting - they're sitting side by side, and there are two of them.
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Oh, come on.
Mr Christopherson: I didn't name you. I would remind those former ministers that the person who compiled the figures that I use in the House when I talk about your impact, your tax cut, your downloading on to Hamilton, is the very person you just hired as the new Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs. If you want to stand up, as you have done in the past, and say that our figures are wrong or that we're playing some kind of game, go ahead. Go ahead and stand up and hurl that accusation, because the person you're talking about is your new Deputy Minister of Municipal Affairs.
To go back to where I was, there are over $36 million worth of services and programs that this government has foisted on to Hamilton-Wentworth that you didn't cover off, as you promised. The Premier pinky-swore, remember? I guess that's the highest Tory form of oath-taking. The Premier pinky-swore that it would be revenue-neutral, and it's not. In fact, the member for Wentworth North, who is a member of your own government, is on record as saying so. He just got promoted to parliamentary assistant to the Solicitor General, so you must think his word is worth something, given that that's a justice ministry. He went on record as saying it's true, that the downloading exercise in Hamilton-Wentworth was not revenue-neutral, and he voted against it.
So $36 million, and our people have to pay for it through increased property taxes. They have to pay for it through increased library fees or reduced library services and increased recreational fees or reduced recreational services. We've got a horrible, terrible strike going on in Hamilton-Wentworth right now that involves the HSR drivers, the Hamilton Street Railway, a really difficult situation, drivers facing a situation where they are justified in demanding that they receive better compensation for the work they perform, and a regional government - I'm obviously oversimplifying and not trying to get into the politics of it, but one cannot deny and it would be wrong for me to run from this issue when talking about your taxation and how it affects my community - that's faced with $36 million, right off the top, of added costs that you promised would be revenue-neutral. That's in addition to the problems they've got in terms of new responsibilities for housing because you downloaded it, new or increased responsibilities for public health because you downloaded it. It's the same for social services or virtually every other issue that matters to people in Hamilton-Wentworth, at the community level, where it matters.
You caused that, and all we hear is the backbenchers standing up and saying, "We cut X number of taxes." I want to tell you, there are no regional councillors and no Hamilton aldermen who are proud of what you've done or happy for you or who think you've done the right thing in terms of putting the province on a proper footing. Not one of them, not even the card-carrying Tories, will publicly say that. Why? Because you're the ones who get to run around and say, "We cut taxes and we gave a 30% tax cut." Meanwhile, they're stuck with the bill, stuck with cutting services, stuck with increasing your taxes. Every dollar of that property tax increase in Hamilton is your tax increase. Every user fee increase we see is your increase. Every cut and every harm done to our education system in Hamilton, you have done, but you've tried to set it up in a away that school trustees, whatever is left of that entity, are the ones who have to face the music, community by community. The aldermen and councillors are the ones who are out in the community. These cabinet ministers aren't there.
The Minister of Health rolls in today with another one of her famous announcements, similar to other announcements we've seen - made two or three times, by the way - and money that never seems to show up at the hospital until there's a front-page scandal. Then suddenly there's emergency money delivered by the Premier himself. What a joke. You're not there in our community answering the questions, but my aldermen and my councillors are there. They're out there in our community, on the streets, every day, and they're the ones who get the phone calls from seniors on a fixed income or disabled individuals on a fixed income whose property tax has gone up by $100, $200, $300, $400. For a senior in Hamilton, $300 or $400 comes right out of their standard of living, right out of their quality of life. They've got nowhere to go to bargain up their income to offset it; they've got nowhere to increase prices to offset it. They've got nowhere to go. They get the bill and they either pay or lose their home - that's how straightforward it is - or another family member has to step in and pay it, and in that case their family is affected and now there's less money for their kids.
Oh, but none of your rich friends are hurting. Do you know what probably drives me the craziest about it all? There are polls that show your support level, depending on what poll you follow, anywhere from the 30s to the low 40s in terms of percentage of the population of decided voters who are convinced you've done the right thing. I am convinced that there are people out there who are benefiting from that 30% tax cut to the tune of tens of thousands of dollars, which I mentioned earlier, who are sitting in their big, beautiful homes - and it's nice that they can have them; the thing I object to is that it's on the backs of people who can't afford it - killing themselves laughing. They're saying: "What a great government. Not only did I get all these tax benefits, but you got rid of those labour laws and got those out of my way - thanks a lot - and those environmental protection laws that were in the way of me doing what I need to do." You've got a third of the population out there saying, "Way to go."
When the history of this era is written, people will wonder what kind of mass psychosis was going on out there that allowed this kind of situation to exist. Let's scratch this a little further, in terms of this great economic miracle you want to talk about. If what you've done is so fantastic, why is it that when we look at the bond agencies, which measure all of us when we're in government in terms of what kind of rating you're going to get and therefore what kind of interest you pay when you borrow money, particularly on the international bond markets, why is it that Standard and Poor's in the last days of the Bob Rae government was at AA-, and as we stand here today under Mike Harris it's AA-? When we look at Moody's, in the last days of the Bob Rae government the rating was AA3. What is it today as we stand here under Mike Harris and the great economic miracle? It's AA3. Why is that? One of the reasons - and it turns the arguments we've heard here tonight on their ears - is that none of the economists who do the analysis for these folks believe it makes any sense at all to be giving any kind of tax cut, let alone 30%, at least until you balance the budget first. At least balance the budget first.
2110
Here we have a government that talks about how wonderful things are, in the most simplistic and I would say insulting terms, while only a small percentage of the population benefits and everybody else, to one degree or another, loses something, and the bond rating of this government is exactly the same as it was under Bob Rae.
It must just eat at you that in addition to that, the first provincial government in Canada to balance the books was an NDP government in Saskatchewan. It wasn't a Tory government. It sure as hell wasn't you guys, when you give up $5 billion or $6 billion a year in revenue, which is what that tax scam costs the people of Ontario. It was an NDP government that balanced the first set of provincial books in the modern-day history of this country. You could have done it sooner if you hadn't done the tax cut.
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: Why did you do the tax cut? First of all, before I talk about that, let me also remind all these hidebound, hard-line right-wingers who are now cackling away from their seats that that same NDP government, the first in modern-day Canada to balance the budget, was also the first government in North America to bring in universal health care. The same government, the same party, the same philosophy brought in universal health care, and they were the first province in the country to balance the books. Not you guys. What are you doing? You are giving away 30% of the tax revenue. Who are you giving it to? You're giving it to your friends. It's not that difficult to figure out.
Why does Bill 81 make sure the credit is going to be mailed directly to individuals? Because you know now that people have figured it out. You were so arrogant that you didn't believe they could. You thought: "They'll never figure it out. They don't pay enough attention."
Interjection.
Mr Christopherson: I hear the heckling from one of these jokers beside me, from the Tory rump, telling me, "You don't understand economics." That's how they like to portray things. Anybody who doesn't come from their world -
Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: He referred to one of my colleagues as a joker, and I think that's totally inappropriate.
The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member for Hamilton Centre to withdraw that comment please.
Mr Christopherson: Actually, Speaker, I meant him, and I withdraw it totally.
The reason I responded to the heckle is that that's the sort of thing you were hoping the vast majority of Ontarians would take in, that any time a Tory representative, a member of this government or a supporter or somebody in the corporate community, is put against the wall on an issue of economics, the immediate response is: "You don't understand. What could a poor working person like you understand? How could you possibly figure out this high finance?"
Guess what. They did figure it out, because it's not all that complicated, and they are paying attention to what you're doing. The fact is that the average person knows that the vast majority of your tax scam went to your wealthy friends, and the only reason you're going to mail these cheques out every month is that you're trying to offset that realization people have. That's the only reason you're doing it.
Under any other circumstances you would never cut a cheque directly to anybody out in the public like that. That's not your style. You would have more requirements. You'd have to give a blood test and a fingerprint and a DNA test before you could cash the darned thing at the bank. That's the sort of philosophy and mindset, because you would be so worried that all those plebs out there are going to rip off the system: "We'd better make sure we tighten things up, because they can't just follow ordinary business rules like the rest of our good people. We've really got to latch on to them." No. You have done this in a way that is meant to try to say to people, "See, we care about you."
Well, guess what? This deathbed repentance is not going to do a thing for you, not when you look at the kind of damage you have done to communities like mine in Hamilton and others all across this province. I have said from day one, and I still believe it, that a lot of you backbenchers are in serious trouble when you start going door to door - and I doubt very much that many of you have started yet - particularly in those parts of your ridings, if you have them, where there are working folks, middle-class folks, not your wealthy pals, not the wealthy folks like those who invited Mike Harris and the Attorney General down to New York for a nice, quiet little trip around Luxuryville; not those folks, but I'm talking about all the rest of the people out there. When you get out there and start trying to defend what you have done with the nonsense you have put forward here, you are going to find out where real Ontario is.
If you stand on the doorstep of someone who took their child to the hospital in the middle of the night and couldn't get the service they needed because the funding to the hospital has been cut and there aren't enough nurses there, and they worried about whether their child was going to live or whether there will be permanent damage because they couldn't get the service they needed immediately, if you talk to somebody on the doorstep who has experienced that and you try to answer that mom or that dad, "Yeah, but we cut 5,000 taxes and we cut almost every single environmental red tape protection in the province," you're going to get that door slammed in your face so fast, and you should. I'd love to be with you on the day that any of you has the nerve to go into an area where real poor people live. Remember them? Remember what you did to them back in June 1995?
Mr Young: Cut their taxes.
Mr Christopherson: There's the kind of joking that we put up with. That was another one of the members from the same area of the rump, and there's a reason they call it the Tory rump. When I said, "What did you do to the poor in June 1995?" one of them thought it was funny to say, "We cut their taxes."
Mr Young: That's right.
Mr Christopherson: No, you didn't. You cut their income by almost 22%. You didn't do that to your rich friends, did you? You didn't do it to yourselves. But it was OK to do it to the poor.
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: You can make all the noises you want on the government side. That's what you did. You can't run from the fact that you cut the income of the poorest of the poor by 22% and took great joy in doing it. That's history. You stood up in June 1995 and said you were going to cut the income of the poorest of the poor by almost 22%. I believe it was 21.6%. That's what you did. That is a historical fact. The other fact is that half those people are kids. I challenge you in the next election to go door to door and talk to those people and tell them that what they ought to care about is the fact that there has been a 30% tax cut in Ontario. Tell them that. Tell them about all the other tax measures you've given to large corporations.
2120
For that matter, once you've finished talking to the poor in your riding - and if you think you don't have any, come on into Hamilton or any other real city and we'll show you that there are poor people in this province - I want to march you into downtown Hamilton where we'll talk to small business people. What have you done to them? Given the absolute fiasco you have made of property tax reform, given the fact that we're on our seventh bill after you were told, when you introduced your first bill: "You're going too fast. Nothing is being done properly here. You're going to create havoc. You can't do that much assessment in that short a period of time" - it wasn't even a philosophical issue. It was merely a pragmatic, honest evaluation of the work and the amount of homework that would have to be done to implement the changes you wanted to make, notwithstanding that they were horrible changes in most cases. But if you accepted they were a good idea, and some do, you were still told by those folks, "You can't do it within these time frames."
But you didn't listen. You've never listened. You never listen to anybody. So you marched ahead and screwed it up, and you screwed it up so bad that now we're on our seventh bill. I understand today that now it's got to go to committee because you need to make more changes to that bill because it didn't cover off all the mistakes you made in the first six bills.
And the cap? After you had this huge uproar, outcry, from small business in our community of Hamilton-Wentworth, and there's at least one other member who can corroborate what has happened to small business as a result of your measures - you wouldn't listen to anybody else. You won't listen to teachers, you won't listen to nurses, you won't listen to aldermen, you won't listen to regional councillors, you won't listen to school board trustees. You don't need to talk to anybody, because everybody's a special interest, but once small business started to speak up, then you got a little worried, because you do purport to be and put yourself forward as the party that represents small business. In fact I heard one of your ministers - it might have been the Deputy Premier but it could have been another one - say, "We are the party of small business."
Hon Mr Flaherty: What do you think the Minister of Labour said?
Mr Christopherson: I thought to myself, "Boy, if an NDP government had said that about labour, you guys would have gone off your stick and accused all kinds of ideological nonsense," but you're quite comfortable saying that. The real irony, I say to the Minister of Labour, is the fact that you have hurt small business unlike any other government in the last 20 years.
Interjections.
Mr Christopherson: Let the Hansard show that almost every Tory in here is laughing when I talk about what's being done to small business in downtown Hamilton.
Hon Mr Flaherty: Laughing at you.
The Acting Speaker: Order.
Mr Christopherson: That's the issue. What you have done to small business in downtown Hamilton is disgraceful.
Finally, there was going to be some correction in property tax discrimination against small business in downtown Hamilton and in Westdale and in other communities around Hamilton that would start to take steps to correct the unfairness of the tax system they faced. When you announced your cap, you all but eliminated the majority of the benefit that the downtown of Hamilton and Westdale were finally going to see. If you think I'm just talking off the top of my head, because none of you seem to believe me, then I'll copy you the correspondence from the Hamilton and District Chamber of Commerce, because that's their position. They asked you not to do it. These are business people who understand what that $36 million downloading on to Hamilton taxpayers and Hamilton business means in the real world.
I have yet to raise the $17 million that our business community has been hit with as a result of your business education tax. Had you gone to the provincial average in one move, as we asked you to as an element of fairness, instead of the eight years you took, our small businesses in downtown Hamilton and in Westdale and other parts of Hamilton wouldn't have been penalized the $17 million that the eight-year formula you used means.
After you've finished talking to the poor, after the way you've savaged their standard of living and the education system they need, arguably more than anyone else, and perhaps the health care system, because we know the challenges that people in poverty face, after you've finished talking to them and telling them how wonderful they are because you gave all this money to the very wealthy in our province, and you've cut all these other taxes that had no relevance to them, and you've cut all this red tape, which merely means that protections they had for the environment and other things are now gone, then come on down to downtown Hamilton and talk to the small business people I'm talking about. Then we'll go over to Westdale and we'll talk to those small business people. I can assure you that they will not be singing the praises of your government's tax cuts as they relate to taxpayers in Hamilton.
I see I have only a few more minutes so I will move quickly to one issue I want to make sure I address this evening. I'm sure this will make the Tories feel a little bit better, although nothing's going to make them feel really good at this stage, but maybe a little better. I want to point out that everything I have said about this tax system that they've created, that they have imposed and used to benefit their friends at the expense of average, middle-class, working families is going to be adopted holus-bolus by the Liberals if they form a government.
They aren't going to change a thing. They've said that they think the tax scam has to stay in place. They promise and make speeches promising investment in health care and investment in schools, but they can't tell you where the money's going to come from, other than I guess they're hoping you really will find your surplus. As I mentioned in an earlier speech last week, it is an interesting political situation. You desperately need this surplus to show where you're going to get money to invest, and it's the money they need so they can point to a revenue source, because they have said they're going to leave the tax cut and the tax situation that you've put in place exactly the way it is. They're going to leave it there.
I don't know where taxpayers, small business people, poor people, middle-class people are supposed to find any comfort in what the Liberals are going to offer them in the next election. I don't know what it's supposed to be. If they want to compete with taking care of the wealthy, I suspect the Tories are going to beat them at that game 10 times out of 10, although Jean Chrétien proves that Liberals can give them a good run for their money.
That's a fine point to end on, to talk about what happened when finally the country rid itself of Brian Mulroney. There was a minor interlude there with Kim Campbell, but that really didn't change anything. It was Brian Mulroney the people wanted to go after. When the country so savagely dumped the Brian Mulroney government - and I have some experience understanding that procedure - and they brought in the Chrétien Liberals, what changed? Nothing. The GST is still there. The free trade agreement? Hell, it's not only still there, it has expanded. The tax structure? Still there, same as Mulroney set up. Cuts in transfer payments for health and education to the provinces? Still there; even deeper and quicker. Brian Mulroney himself was on his feet a few months after, within the first year of the Liberal government, praising Chrétien, saying: "Way to go. I couldn't do it that quickly. I'm impressed that you were able you do it so well."
When Ontarians start to look at an alternative in the next election, the Liberals aren't going to offer it. They didn't with the red book. All the stuff that was in the Common Sense Revolution is in this red book that the Liberals ran with in 1995, either exactly the same or just a minor, watered-down version.
You were planning to fire and eliminate what, 13,000, 14,000, 15,000 public service jobs? They were going to do the same to 12,000. Cold comfort, a couple of thousand difference; same philosophy.
You killed the royal commission into WCB. We desperately need real reform of the WCB. They promised the same thing and they would have done the same thing.
You ran and said you were going to kill the Workplace Health and Safety Agency and you did, much to your eternal shame. It's in here: "Kill the Workplace Health and Safety Agency." Same promise. They turned on working people in the last election just as fast as Chrétien did. Make no doubt about it, the Liberals in the next election would do exactly the same thing that you're doing and pretend that it's somehow different. But it'll be no different because at the end of the day, you're still playing to that right-wing argument and that right-wing position that benefits those in our society who already have at the expense of those who don't have and the most vulnerable people in our society.
I have said since the beginning of your term in government that this will be seen as one of the darkest eras in the history of Ontario and arguably the entire country.
The Acting Speaker: It being 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2132.