The House met at 1332.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

COUPURES BUDGÉTAIRES À RADIO-CANADA

M. Grandmaître : Je suis très inquiet des conséquences de ces importantes coupures budgétaires à Radio-Canada. Ces coupures ont fait l'objet d'une annonce aujourd'hui. Le gouvernement fédéral vient d'enlever aux francophones tout accès à l'information en français sur la vie de leur communauté. Ils n'ont plus d'autres choix que de se tourner vers les stations anglophones. Radio-Canada vient de perdre les moyens de remplir son mandat.

L'annonce de ces coupures survient un peu plus de trois mois après que le gouvernement libéral de l'Ontario ait annoncé que la chaîne française de TVOntario deviendrait désormais un service permanent parce qu'il jugeait qu'il s'agissait d'un outil de développement indispensable à la communauté francophone de l'Ontario. C'est un coup dur pour les francophones de l'Ontario et pour le Canada en général.

Je demande au ministre de la Culture et des Communications de l'Ontario de contacter, dans les plus brefs délais, son homologue fédéral pour discuter des mesures à prendre pour donner aux francophones de l'Ontario un service dont ils ont absolument besoin.

Après avoir donné le contrôle sur notre économie aux Américains, après avoir, à proprement parler, détruit le réseau ferroviaire Via, le gouvernement fédéral s'attaque à un autre élément essentiel de notre existence en tant que pays souverain. Non content de créer encore plus de chômage, il faut en plus que le gouvernement s'acharne sur un autre des outils essentiels de notre unité nationale.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to advise the Minister of the Environment and the House of an imminent emergency looming in my riding. The town of Meaford and the township of St Vincent realized some time ago that they would soon need a new garbage dump or an expansion of the present site to serve some 6,500 people who live in the area.

They decided, since the dump was almost full, that a new site would be the preferable way to go. They presented their case to the Environmental Assessment Board in hearings which lasted 106 days. The hearings ended months ago and they have received no decision.

This is a vital issue to the people concerned. To find a solution, the local government spent well over $1 million to get permission to find a new dump site. The search is now ongoing.

The minister will, I hope, appreciate the gravity of this situation as garbage begins to pile up. Because the limit

has almost been reached, the ministry plans to close the dump shortly. I realize the minister is not responsible for the present drastic situation, but I would ask that she release the decision as quickly as possible so my constituents will know where they stand and can plan a course of action.

HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS

Mr White: Mr Speaker, I would like to first congratulate you upon your election.

I have the honour of representing the riding of Durham Centre, which is the urban part of Whitby and a good portion of north Oshawa, previously represented by Mr Furlong.

Today in the gallery there are a number of students from Paul Dwyer High School in Oshawa. Their presence reminds me of both my own political development from my youth and the idealism of such youth as we have with us today. I remember having been president of the political club in my high school in north Oshawa. That was before I came to the political convictions I have now. In 1968 I helped schedule assemblies for the entire school to hear political addresses. On one occasion we heard from our newly elected MP, Ed Broadbent. On another occasion we heard from the then Leader of the Opposition in Ontario, Robert Nixon, as I recall. There have been some changes in his career and in mine since that time.

The Chinese have a curse: "May you live in interesting times." I hope that the quality of our work here will reflect the need to incorporate the vision and idealism of youth with these interesting times and offer them an opportunity for real dialogue in our community.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mrs McLeod: Although it is considered by some to be remote, Thunder Bay has the distinction of being the geographic centre of Canada. That means Thunder Bay, perhaps more than most places, understands the need for national links. We are neither east nor west and the connections with the eastern and western parts of our country are important to us.

We watched with great dismay as the last train pulled out of the Thunder Bay station last winter. We know what a devastating effect cuts to Via Rail had not only on our travel abilities but on our sense of being a nation linked from sea to sea.

The cuts which we now understand are to be made by the Canadian Broadcasting Corp today will have an equally devastating effect. The national fabric of this place we call Canada will be eroded. The regional material produced by local CBC stations is a vital component of Newsworld, the CBC's own news channel. Newsworld airs stories about Windsor produced in Windsor and stories about Saskatoon produced in Saskatoon to the rest of Canada. The aspirations and concerns expressed by the people of Windsor or Saskatoon are then shared by the people of Canada.

The federal government must not allow these cutbacks to proceed.

KERRI MORROW

Mr Turnbull: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I rise in the House today to pay tribute to a young constituent of mine. Kerri Morrow has been chosen as one of the 12 recipients of the 1990 Community Action Awards given by the Ministry of Citizenship and will be honoured at a special ceremony luncheon on Friday 7 December.

These awards recognize outstanding and significant work of individuals in the disabled persons community. Kerri has been a student at Don Mills Collegiate Institute since 1986, receiving resource room support for a learning disability. She is presently completing her Ontario credits and will enter university in the fall of 1991.

In addition to her academic work, Kerri has been active in many areas. She represented her school in swimming, water polo and orienteering, and served on the executive of the Don Mills athletic council.

She has been a peer tutor for students having difficulties with specific courses and last year worked closely with multihandicapped teens at Don Mills Middle School.

Kerri's assistance and support in academic, social and emotional terms has meant a great deal to her many friends and helped them immeasurably. She has more than repaid the support she herself received by giving so generously of her time and abilities to help others. It is fitting that these qualities are recognized, both as a tribute to Kerri and as an inspiration and encouragement to others.

I wish this young lady every success in the future and am sure she will achieve whatever goals she sets for herself. Congratulations, Kerri.

1340

ROBERT MCDONALD

Mr Drainville: I wish to draw the attention of the House to the brave acts of Robert McDonald of Lindsay, in the riding of Victoria-Haliburton. Mr McDonald is a firefighter in the city of Etobicoke. On 17 February 1990 Rob and fellow firefighter Randall Murrell risked their lives to save a woman trapped in a house engulfed by smoke and flames. Crawling on their hands and knees, avoiding holes in the floor created by the fire, the two men found the elderly resident in the back bedroom. While Mr Murrell broke the bedroom window to create an escape route. Rob covered the victim with his body to protect her from shards of glass, heat and steam. His concern for the wellbeing of others was acknowledged by his peers when he was presented with the Ontario Firefighters' Award for Bravery this past November.

I am delighted to recognize the efforts of another Ontario resident who considers helping others important to his life and important to the community. We owe him a debt of gratitude.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Mahoney: I wish to express my deep concern and the concern of my party over the CBC's decision to eliminate regional news and production facilities at CBET-TV in Windsor. The cutbacks will have a significant impact on the people of Windsor and Essex county.

CBET is a vital source of local and regional news in a television market that is dominated by signals from Detroit-based stations. Only one daily newspaper covers the area, and the CBC's decision means that people who do not subscribe to cable TV will no longer have access to a television station that broadcasts local and regional news.

The decision is also a severe blow to the regional economy. More than 100 CBC employees will lose their jobs at a time when the federal government's free trade and high interest rate policies are already causing severe economic problems in southwestern Ontario.

We have written to federal Communications Minister Marcel Masse to demand that he restore Canadian television service to Windsor. We are also demanding that the Minister of Culture and Communications meet with his federal counterpart to discuss the impact of the CBC cuts in Ontario. On behalf of the member and all members in our party, I would like to encourage the minister to demand that funding be restored.

TORONTO WATERFRONT

Mrs Marland: On 28 November the federal government announced its long-awaited decision on the fate of Harbourfront. The announcement mirrored the plan drafted by Duncan Allan, the Liberals' special adviser, a year ago. The assets of the corporation are to be sold to create an endowment fund for Harbourfront's successful cultural programs.

The problem lies in the fact that the $80-million endowment fund will generate an income of only $8.8 million a year. Harbourfront has indicated that it needs $10.7 million to maintain the current level of arts and recreation programming. Harbourfront is left with a shortfall of $2 million immediately and, as the plan offers no protection from inflation, this shortfall will continue to grow.

If we want to maintain the current programming, attended by some 3.5 million people a year, then Harbourfront will have to get additional funding from the three levels of government. Darcy McKeough advised Harbourfront to "go on bended knee" to beg for funding. Given the recent history of arts funding in this country, this advice seems to mark the demise of some programming.

I have to ask the Premier if this is the best deal for the people of the greater Toronto area. We will still get a wall of high-rises on the other side of Queen's Quay. and we will have no protection for the wonderful family-oriented programming down at the lakeshore. I can only hope that he will not marginalize culture in this province to those who can afford a Phantom of the Opera ticket.

CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY

Mr Perruzza: Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to be able to address this assembly, and congratulations on your election as Speaker of the House.

Downsview riding traditionally is a blue-collar, working-class riding which is heavily dependent on the construction industry. I have to tell members that the previous Liberal government neglected, abandoned and ignored Downsview through its housing policies and through its transportation policies. Now the federal Conservative government has taken Downsview by the throat and is squeezing the lifeblood out of this riding through its high interest rate policy.

One of the most serious problems this riding is facing is high unemployment. I am very optimistic and proud of the statement that was issued by the Treasurer yesterday in suggesting that nearly 14,000 construction-related jobs are going to be created by this government over the next little while. This gives Downsview hope, hope in this government, hope in the future, one it did not have before. I applaud the Treasurer and his initiative.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT

Hon Mr Hampton: This afternoon we will be introducing amendments to the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, 1985. which will now be known as the Child and Family Support Act. These changes will have a significant impact on child poverty and the payment of support orders.

This government believes that we must fight child poverty. This is our intention. The payment of support is both a moral and legal responsibility.

Currently, 75% of support orders filed are in default. Only 25% are in compliance. Frankly, this level of compliance is unacceptable. We must do better.

The consequences of unpaid child support for recipients and their children are devastating. There are now 81,000 orders filed with the program. These orders touch the lives of 100,000 children. Only 20,000 of these cases are receiving all of the support moneys owing to them; $334 million is owing to support recipients and their children and the case load grows by 1,200 new cases every month.

Without a change in the way we do business, the problem of unpaid child support orders and child poverty will continue to grow. This government is committed to making the child and family support program an effective way to help fight child poverty.

The legislation we are introducing today, once proclaimed, will provide for the collection of child support by means of automatic deduction from income. This change will mean that more support orders will be effectively enforced and will speed up the payment of child support.

At the time a support order is made, the court will also make an order requiring payment by way of deduction from income. This order will be immediately forwarded to the child and family support office, which will serve the employer with the order. The employer will be required to

deduct the amount of the support payment and forward it to the child and family support office for prompt distribution to the support recipient. This procedure is similar to the way income tax is collected through payroll deduction and will be just as effective.

1350

The amendments we will introduce will apply to all new court orders made in Ontario. The plan will also be available for cases already filed and for domestic contracts upon the request of the support recipient or where the child and family support office considers this to be the most practical enforcement option.

This approach removes the social stigma of a garnishment order. Support deduction will be the way most orders will be paid. It will become the social norm and will be seen as the optimum way for support payers to honour their court-ordered obligations to their children.

An important feature of this plan is that it is portable and moves with the support payer when there is a change in employment.

As well as this legislative change, the child and family support program is taking additional measures to deal with the current backlog. For example, specialized teams of enforcement personnel will be added to reduce the backlog of unenforced orders. We will also increase the automation of various enforcement processes and work towards increasing communications with support recipients to find out essential information which is necessary for successful enforcement actions.

In addition, public awareness of the massive problem of unpaid child support is a critical factor for a successful child support program. The Ministry of the Attorney General will be launching a public awareness campaign. It will begin shortly and will be aimed at informing the public about the serious problem of child support default and child poverty. Our goal is to change the way society views the importance of paying child support and make it clear that not paying support affects us all. Most importantly, failure to pay support condemns many children to a life of poverty.

These initiatives on their own will not solve the social problem of support default and child poverty. It is up to each of us, as members of the greater community, to make it clear that the failure to pay child support is simply unacceptable. It is up to all of us to work towards changing attitudes among spouses, peers, friends and co-workers. Together, we can make it happen.

MANITOULIN LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENT

Hon Mr Wildman: The commitment of the government of Ontario to deal fairly and justly with the people of the first nations living in Ontario has never been stronger than it is today. The throne speech stated our goals. Our government is determined to take major steps in negotiating aboriginal self-government, resolving historical grievances and improving the quality of life for aboriginal peoples in Ontario. This is not an easy task. We cannot redress hundreds of years of neglect and wrongdoing overnight, but we can move forward quickly and significantly on a number of fronts. We can, in partnership with the first nations, correct historic injustices. We can improve living conditions for thousands of native people. We can negotiate and implement a variety of self-government structures.

I am pleased to inform the House today that we have already taken significant steps. Today, the government of Ontario has finalized its first land claim settlement. Earlier, I joined the chiefs of five first nations from Manitoulin Island to sign the agreement that will make $7.2 million available to the first nations for economic development and land acquisition as well as some $1.6 million worth of land.

Today in the Speaker's gallery we have with us Chief Patrick Madahbee of the Ojibways of Sucker Creek, Chief Max Assinewai of Sheguiandah First Nation, Chief Stewart Roy of the West Bay First Nation, Chief Norma Fox Wagosh of the Cockburn Island First Nation and Chief Joseph Endenawas of the Sheshegwaning First Nation.

Members of this House will remember that the previous government attempted to resolve this matter last July. Unfortunately, at the last moment one first nation decided not to participate. Five first nations did sign on that historic day. That agreement expired last Saturday, however.

Today, the five first nations have signed a final agreement. This agreement now provides for a portion of the funds to be held in trust. This trust fund will provide the basis for a settlement for the descendants of the South Bay West First Nation if its representatives choose at some future date to negotiate.

Briefly, the background of this claim is as follows. The first nations of Manitoulin Island surrendered their land in 1862 to the crown to be sold for the benefit of the first nations. Some 80,000 acres were unsold, however, and the first nations never received compensation for that land. This land is the subject of the land claim settlement today which was negotiated by the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin and the government of Ontario.

Ontario has entered into this agreement without the participation of the federal government. That government disclaims any responsibility for the unjust situation. Ontario has accepted its responsibilities. We now leave it to the first nations to take any redress against the government of Canada.

Later today I will introduce legislation to empower Ontario to transfer some of the unsold surrendered lands to the first nations and to implement the agreement. Some of the land will be available to municipalities for development, and clear title to other portions of the land will remain with the government of Ontario.

As I said, this is the most recent action of my government. Earlier in October we offered land and assistance for the creation of the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation communities in northern Ontario. As well, we have offered additional land to Long Lake Number 58 First Nation.

Last week I joined representatives of Canada and Quebec and the Mohawks of Akwesasne in signing a five-year, $25-million agreement for Akwesasne. That agreement will provide for a range of facilities for that community. These facilities are some that we take for granted, including a community arena and a home for the elderly, for example.

Last Wednesday I was in Thunder Bay for the signing of the interim measures agreement with the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation. That agreement recognizes the inherent interest of NAN and NAN communities in the lands and natural resources on their treaty areas. I was pleased to announce that Dr Robert Rosehart, the president of Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, will be Ontario's chief negotiator in the self-government negotiations with NAN, which will begin early next year.

Ontario is also committed to making major improvements in the land claims process under the auspices of the Indian Commission of Ontario.

I have not achieved this progress on my own. I would like to acknowledge that these were initiatives of the previous government. In particular, I would like to give credit to my predecessor, the former minister responsible for native affairs, the member for St George-St David, and I would like to compliment him for his foresight and leadership.

Now it is my turn to go further.

I would like to assure this House that we are approaching the matter carefully. We are consulting extensively with the first nations and aboriginal peoples of this province, including those who live off-reserve, in order to clearly define and agree upon a new government-to-government relationship.

I look forward to announcing further progress towards our goals.

The Speaker: I wish to extend a very warm welcome to our special guests this afternoon from all members of the assembly here. We are certainly honoured with your presence and we trust that you will enjoy what unfolds from here.

1400

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Hon Mr Cooke: As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I intend to introduce legislation this afternoon to make the Ontario municipal election process more accessible to more people and to make campaign fund-raising and spending more accountable.

Many of these changes were included in legislation introduced in the last session but not passed by the last Legislature. I would like to draw to the members' attention some of the important additions we have made to the previous bill. In particular, our legislation will give the vote to people who have often been excluded from the democratic process.

Homeless people, for example, have been disfranchised by the current system. The Municipal Elections Act requires voters to have a permanent residence in a municipality or to own or rent property in it. The current definition of residence means that anyone without a fixed address cannot vote. The amendments I will be introducing today will provide new ways for people without a fixed address to meet residency requirements and thus be able to vote in the municipal elections.

Our legislation will also make it easier for students and residents of psychiatric hospitals to vote. Current legislation requires a municipal enumeration in May for elections in November. The changes I am introducing today will require a supplementary enumeration in mid-September of each year for students in universities and colleges and for patients in psychiatric hospitals.

The members may recall some of the other amendments introduced last June, many of them concerning the way election campaigns are financed.

The new legislation will require candidates with leftover campaign funds to turn the money over to the municipal clerk, who will hold it in trust for use during the next municipal election. Candidates will also be allowed to apply surplus campaign funds against past election debts. They will not be permitted to spend campaign funds on anything but legitimate campaign expenses.

Current legislation places a $750 limit on the amount a contributor can give to any one candidate. The amendments I will introduce today will also limit to $5,000 the total amount a single contributor can give to all candidates running for the same municipal council or school board or local board.

The legislation also addresses the enforcement of campaign financing and reporting rules. Currently, individual electors have to take legal action themselves if they believe the law has been broken. The new legislation would make the municipality. school board or local board responsible for acting on a complaint from an elector. If the municipality or board fails to act, the provincial Commission on Election Finances will be able to intervene.

Other amendments would allow municipalities to provide election information in languages other than English and French and to provide an alternative form of ballot for the benefit of the visually impaired electors.

The credibility of any government starts with the way in which it is elected. That is why the election process must be as fair and open as we can make it. These amendments will be a big step towards that goal. I look forward, with the opposition members, to developing over the next couple of years more extensive rules that will further reform the election expenses process.

RESPONSES

CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT

Mr Sorbara: I have read with interest the statement of the Attorney General today. Let there be no mistake about it, the amendments that he proposes to the current law are very far-reaching. What they will do in fact is give the agency that he refers to the right -- the obligation, in fact -- to require all employers to automatically deduct funds at source, from the paycheques of the employees who are subject to an order for support, and for those funds to be forwarded through the office that he is responsible for to the beneficiary of the support. This is a very important measure because of the very defaults that he referred to. Indeed, our government only months ago was considering a plan upon which the plan of the Attorney General is based.

But there is a shocking deficiency in the announcement he made today. If I might just expand, I want to say at this point that I hope it is a problem of drafting in this statement. He says here that this plan "will provide for the collection of child support by automatic deduction from income." There was a time when the plans of the Ministry of the Attorney General were being prepared for automatic deduction for all those who were the beneficiaries of orders for support. I ask the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues, if the statement is correct, why we have ignored those thousands and thousands of women who were going to be able to rely on this system. I would like the Attorney General to say as soon as possible that this statement about child support really means support for all of those who are the beneficiaries of those systems.

I might also say that in his statement he refers to automation that will soon be implemented in the office. I just want to tell the members that the automation was undertaken by the previous Attorney General and is well under way to being fully implemented.

MANITOULIN LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENT

Mr Scott: I would like to congratulate my colleague and friend the minister responsible for native affairs on the completion of the four initiatives he has announced today. I should begin by saying, for my own part, that these four initiatives alone, although they may have limited rather than global impact, would have been enough for my political career and I am very proud of having played a part in initiating them.

None of these things is easy and I want to congratulate the minister and the government of which he is a member for having early brought the details of these important initiatives to completion. I also want to thank the minister -- I am sure this will not go on for long -- for the very kind things he had to say about me in his statement. I do not want it to go on for long. I have a riding to defend and the minister will understand that.

I only want to make one observation. As the minister will understand perfectly, the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation agreement is a trailblazing agreement and the minister will understand that, having announced it, he will want to be certain that there are available to the Nishnawbe-Aski Nation resources to implement it effectively and that there is some procedure for building in third-party interests in the exercise. Overlooking of these interests can from time to time be easy, but at the end of the day it is not productive. I know the minister will have that in mind.

I would also like to congratulate the chiefs, one of whom remains present. I know that he will convey to his colleagues my admiration for the part they have played in this exercise.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr Mahoney: I would like to respond to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and to congratulate him for bringing forward yet another piece of Liberal government legislation. It seems to be the order of the day for the New Democratic Party to simply recycle all of the good works that were done by people here when they were there. I thank him for doing that and for recognizing for all the people in Ontario the good work that our government did.

I would only caution the minister, though, in the area of costs. Those people over there had for years criticized government for passing on certain responsibilities and items, particularly costs, to other levels of government. I think this minister should address any increased costs that might accrue to the municipalities, which are facing double-digit tax increases. The minister knows -- and if he does not know, he should know -- that the taxpayers out there at the municipal level are fed up with the increases that are being passed on to their councils, so would he please address that issue.

CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT

Mr Harnick: In response to the introduction of the amendments by the Attorney General, I would like to congratulate him and also to indicate that this problem, if not dealt with quickly, was going to expand to the point where these outstanding judgements would never be able to be enforced. My congratulations to the Attorney General for moving quickly on this area.

But there is another side to the equation; that is, support and custody orders also have the element of access, and I hope that the government will move quickly in the area of access and resolve those problems as well.

1410

MANITOULIN LAND CLAIM SETTLEMENT

Mr Harnick: I would also like to respond to the minister responsible for native affairs. On behalf of my party, I would like to extend my congratulations to the government and to previous governments for finally reaching an agreement on a matter which has been outstanding for some 128 years and under negotiation for 10 years. I look forward to the government working out an acceptable arrangement with the people of the South Bay West band so that all claims on Manitoulin Island may be settled and the people there can get on with rebuilding their communities.

Today is also a big day. It is a big day not just because it is the first claim settled by the provincial government but also because it is the first claim negotiated under the 1986 federal Indian lands agreement. As such, it sets a precedent for future negotiations nationwide.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS

Mr B. Murdoch: I would like to address the Minister of Municipal Affairs. I want to commend him on bringing this forward, although it has been pointed out it was Liberal legislation. There were a lot of problems with it and, as a municipal politician, I did have some concerns with the legislation as it sat before and now he has added some more amendments to it.

One of the things that will be interesting is how we are going to enumerate the homeless, and I will be interested to see how the minister is going to do that. I also hope he is going to allow this side of the House some more input into this. As I said before, there were some concerns with the old legislation and now with the new amendments, which I believe look fairly well on the paper that he has written. It is just that we do have some concerns and I do hope that there will be some time for some input into this.

ADVERTISING BY MEMBERS

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to raise a point of order and refer it to you for a ruling if I might.

I have here the Handbook on Constituency Office and Travel and Accommodation Expenses before me and, if you will indulge me very briefly, it reads on page 7: "A member may not use a constituency office to further the member's partisan political activities, including" -- one of many things -- "display of partisan, politically oriented signs."

It then goes on to say on page 8:

"Members can advertise to convey the following information: constituency office hours, telephone number, location. Advertising may also announce special events or give greetings from the member. The assembly does not fund advertising which" -- among other things -- "promotes riding associations or political party activities" or "portrays political party affiliation."

That is a Legislative Assembly document.

Unfortunately, in talking about standards for municipal politicians or others, and perhaps the Premier has corrected this problem, I have here the Peterborough Examiner of 2 November where there is an ad, with the Ontario coat of arms, placed in the name of Jenny Carter, NDP, Peterborough. I also have a photograph of a constituency office sign, which I would like to give to you to take into account in your ruling, of Mike Cooper, MPP, Kitchener-Wilmot, and it has the NDP logo attached to that sign. All this is paid for by the taxpayers.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West will understand that, strictly speaking, what he has raised is not a point of order, but I am pleased, of course, to consider the subject material and to deal with it appropriately and I will report back to him.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Conway: My question is to the leader of the government and it concerns the antirecession package which has been outlined by his government.

As the Premier will know, the recession deepens and unemployment rises, Ontario faces perhaps the worst winter in a decade. Can the Premier confirm that it is the policy of his government under the recently announced capital projects initiative to commit and spend but $41 million in the winter of 1990-91?

Hon Mr Rae: I can confirm that the $41 million which the Treasurer referred to yesterday in his statement is that money which we are allocating right away. As I said in answer to his colleague the Leader of the Opposition, who is seated next to him, if we can move other projects up sooner, if we can bring them on more quickly, we will do so. The $41 million figure is a minimum. We are doing what we can to bring others on stream as quickly as we can. That is the commitment of the government.

Mr Conway: Can the leader of the government further confirm data which were not provided by the government yesterday in the Treasurer's statement but which were provided by Treasury officials, and that is that of the $41 million to be spent in this very bad winter of 1990-91 but $5.3 million will be spent in eastern Ontario and but $6.9 million will be spent for all of southwestern Ontario?

Hon Mr Rae: No. First of all. I think it is important to stress that the $700-million package is not the only money that is being spent anywhere in the province. There are in fact a large number of other projects that we are attempting to bring on stream that have been the subject of proposals coming from individual ministries. Those are coming on. We have other proposals that are under way with respect to both eastern Ontario and southwestern Ontario.

I want to stress to the member for Renfrew North that the figures which are being put forward are a minimum, that they are part of the capital works package only and that there are significant other moneys which are flowing now and which we are doing our very best to bring forward as quickly as we can with respect to additional investment.

I just want to stress to the member that the numbers which he is talking about are a minimum only. They are not the beginning and end of what we are trying to do. We are trying to bring other projects on stream as quickly as we can and that is the situation.

Mr Brown: Last week I attended a forest association meeting. They told us that there were 3,000 people out of work in northern Ontario in the forestry industry. We also understand that in the mining industry the numbers are at least as bad.

In a rather unorthodox announcement yesterday, the Premier stated that $20 million of his plan would be expended in northern Ontario. It is ironic to me that last Friday he opened a $23-million building in Sudbury which was one of only several major Liberal government projects in northern Ontario. By the Premier's own estimate, $20 million in capital expenditure will mean about 400 one-year jobs in northern Ontario.

Does the Premier think he can he stand in this House and tell the people of Ontario, the people of northern Ontario and the members of his own caucus that this is an adequate response to what in northern Ontario in many places is not a recession but a depression?

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the question from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin. I really do. I want him to know that I am very much aware, as aware as I possibly can be, of the difficulties that are being experienced across the north. The layoffs which he has mentioned, somewhere between 3,000 and 4,000 workers affected in the sawmill industry, are devastating. The announcement we have made with respect to the $700 million is not the only announcement that is going to be forthcoming from the government at all with regard to northern Ontario or with regard to sawmill workers.

I want to indicate to the member that I have already indicated very clearly to the Prime Minister that Ontario wants to join with the industry and with other provinces in ensuring that the 15% export tax comes off. If that means our being together and facing the arguments in the United States, I think all of Canada wants to join together to say that the 15% export tax is unfair and should be removed. I have indicated that very clearly to the Prime Minister on behalf of the government of Ontario, and I am sure I have the support of all members when I say that.

With respect to the changes and the very difficult circumstances in the sawmill industry, that is the first step we are taking. The dollar has an impact, interest rates have an impact, but the government is also considering further proposals and, when we have them, we will be announcing them to the House. We are very much aware of the problem that has been described by the member.

1420

GOODS AND SERVICES TAX

Mrs Y. O'Neill: My question is to the Minister of Revenue. In An Agenda for People, her party stated that Ontario would lead a national tax revolt against Mulroney's goods and services tax. Yesterday in Ottawa, her leader, along with all the national NDP leaders, reiterated this pledge.

The GST is being implemented in exactly 27 days. Can the minister please stand and tell this House exactly what she as the Minister of Revenue has done to initiate this tax revolt? How many times has she met with her federal counterpart to discuss this very pressing issue? How and when will the minister initiate this revolt?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Our party has participated in a so-called revolt. We are participating with the British Columbia and Alberta governments in a lawsuit with the retail sales tax, the GST and how it has been implemented, with the Constitution and stacking of the Senate. We also are doing Bill 1, which is going to be debated later this afternoon, by not stacking the GST on to the RST, as the member's government was planning to do. We are putting $500 million back into the consumers' pockets.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I think that could be interpreted as somewhat of a misty revolt, a hazy revolt. The minister does not seem to appreciate her own Premier's promise on this very issue. The Premier had made the fight against the GST one of his top priorities across this province throughout the past summer. The Treasurer has said as recently as yesterday that the GST is one of the main contributors to the recession. The Minister of Revenue's party has stated over and over clearly that it intends to lead a national revolt. Many of the members said that in their own ridings.

As the minister knows, a tax revolt traditionally means withholding payment to the Department of National Revenue. Initiating a form of protest such as a tax revolt is most serious, and indeed perhaps is the most important promise that the Premier has made to date. Given that there are 27 days left, as I have already said, until the GST takes effect, can the Minister of Revenue tell us exactly what she is going to do to honour her leader's promise to start a tax revolt against the GST?

Will the minister be recommending that the people of Ontario withhold their tax payments to the Department of National Revenue for this year and the year to come, 1991? The people of Ontario want to know what specific initiatives or direction she is going to give them on this promised revolt. I am asking the minister for specific initiatives.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: We are not stacking the GST on to the RST and we are not collecting the GST for the federal government, so it will be responsible for collecting its own GST. We will not be participating in that process with it.

Mr Mahoney: I would like to ask the minister if she is aware of just one of the implications of her GST bill which she has introduced in this House. Bill 1, her bill to harmonize the provincial sales tax with the GST, will repeal sales tax exemptions for investment in manufacturing production equipment and machinery. It allows the minister to make new policy by regulation at a later date if she so chooses.

The Quebec government has already exempted Quebec firms purchasing production equipment and machinery from provincial sales tax. The minister's GST removes this exemption for Ontario firms purchasing production equipment and machinery. Her bill places Ontario companies employing Ontario workers at a significant competitive disadvantage in the middle of a recession, if not a depression.

When will the minister act to ensure that the NDP government does not penalize Ontario companies and workers in the face of the GST?

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: Because the excise tax will be removed when the GST comes into force -- as we all know, it probably will come into force on 1 January -- we had to make these regulations there. Otherwise, they will not be covered, and we are by no means harmonizing, as they are doing in Quebec.

RENT REVIEW

Mr Tilson: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. Many of us have now had an opportunity to read the transcript from his appearance on the CBC Radio Noon program last Friday, when a carpenter from the Timmins area advised him that he had undertaken extensive renovations to his building, including $40,000 from the low-rise rehabilitation program and an additional $110,000 of his own money. The minister will recall that he has since been informed by his staff that his rents are now frozen. He also told the minister that he would go bankrupt because of his policies.

In the minister's answer, he implied that he should not have purchased such a neglected building in the first place and that its previous owners should have kept the building. The minister also admitted that it is impossible to write a law that covers everyone.

This is quite an unbelievable admission for a minister of the crown to make. Does he have any more advice for this man and any other people like him?

Hon Mr Cooke: I think what I indicated to the individual, as I have to other people as we have been discussing the new temporary rent regulation system, is that when somebody is going to invest in a building that has not been taken care of, has experienced years of neglect, it should not then be a system that rewards those years of neglect by allowing huge increases in rents for people across the province.

I would think that the member would be advocating, as I would be, that landlords should be taking care of their buildings and keeping them in a good state of maintenance. They should not be allowed to deteriorate and then be flipped, with huge rent increases going on to the tenants and the tenants paying for years of neglect. That is the system the member is advocating. I am not.

Mr Tilson: Let's try another one. I have another example of an apartment building owner who fears he will go bankrupt.

Amile Kassam owns a building at Sheppard Avenue and Keele Street. He borrowed money from a bank to undertake $1.3 million of repair work. This amount includes $200,000 for the repair of an underground parking garage to comply with a municipal work order. It also includes $700,000 for new windows, because an engineering firm told the owner that the only way to deal with the problems of draughts and condensation was to install energy-efficient windows, and I am sure the Ministry of Energy would be pleased to hear about that. Finally, the owner replaced the roof and installed a new heating system. This can hardly be categorized as the luxury renovation described by the minister earlier in the House.

The owner who invested in this building and invested in these renovations did so in good faith, and he has no way to recoup his money and no way to repay the bank loan. Will the minister tell us whether this situation is fair?

Hon Mr Cooke: First of all, I want to make sure the member understands very clearly that we are not freezing rents in this province. He knows as well as I do that there is an increase in this year and there is an increase next year. I believe very strongly, and this government believes, that the rents that are being paid by tenants across this province should be going towards maintenance and upkeep of buildings. That is what rents are for.

Now, if the member is advocating, as he seems to be by his question, that when a work order has been issued by a municipality, and in fact when that work order is carried out, the tenant should pay for a repair that has obviously been a result of neglect, he and I totally disagree on that approach.

1430

Mr Tilson: I do not think the minister realizes what he has done. In effect he has banned renovations from this province.

I have another question. He has not done very well on the first two; let's try a third. This one involves an apartment owner who played by the rules and initiated necessary repair work in January 1990. Tina Schickedanz owns three buildings at Bayview and Cummer that are between 20 and 25 years old. She spent $1 million to overhaul an elevator, replace plumbing, a boiler and cracked plaster. She filed an application on 1 September 1990, before the current government was elected, but because the first effective date of the increase is I December 1990, she will not be able to recover one dime of these expenditures.

Could the minister tell the House why he feels it is fair to change the rules without notice and whether he will consider removing the retroactive feature from the bill.

Hon Mr Cooke: What we indicated before the election, during the election and after the election was that this party believed in better protection for tenants. That is what we have delivered on. I cannot believe that a member of the Legislature would come here today and say that because a landlord spent money on fixing cracked plaster, that should result in increased rents for tenants. The member should give me a break.

TUITION FEES

Mrs Cunningham: I have a question for the Minister of Colleges and Universities, my colleague from the opposite side of the House in the former government. I am happy to be asking him this question today.

On Monday, in response to the recovery plan presented to the minister by the Council of Ontario Universities, the Premier appeared to immediately shoot down the proposal for higher tuition fees with enhanced student assistance for those students in need by stating, "That's not something we're considering." Is that quote an accurate reflection of the minister's position on tuition fees?

Hon Mr Allen: I must say I welcome the question from the member. I know she is very concerned about university issues. She has a university in her own constituency, as indeed do many members of the Legislature. She knows very well the extreme difficulties of the funding problems of those institutions over recent years and that they have put forward a plan to me to recover what amounts to a $410-million loss, in effect, over the last 12 years. If those institutions were today funded at the rate at which they were in 1978, when another government was in power, they would have to be funded at $410 million more today than they now receive. That presents this government with a very serious and difficult problem, especially in a time of recession and financial difficulty.

I cannot tell the member that this is my position with respect to fee increases, which were a central part of the recovery plan, because I have not yet sat down with my colleagues in this government to adopt a position. When I am in a position to tell her, I will indeed inform this House together about where we stand with respect to a recovery plan that might or might not include fee increases.

Mrs Cunningham: My observation then is that the Premier apparently has one position and the minister has another. Since the minister has not consulted with the rest of his colleagues in the cabinet, perhaps he could tell us what he will be advising them to do.

Hon Mr Allen: Perhaps I could say to the member that the Premier and I can never have a different position on this issue, by definition.

The fact of the matter is that I have welcomed this proposal from the representatives of the Council of Ontario Universities, because it seems to me there are some very critical questions that have to be in debate in public around the question of funding universities. There is no agreement between the faculty and the student bodies on the one hand and the administration and the presidents on the other on this particular issue, so I welcome the debate. I have myself invited all those parties in the universities to sit down in a week and a half with me to discuss this out among themselves and with myself as to how we can best devise a recovery plan for the universities of this province.

Mrs Cunningham: Of course the minister will remember that on this side of the House we try to influence the government's position as much as possible, and that is what I am trying to do today. Since the government appears not to be too warm towards the Council of Ontario Universities with its plan for the underfunding of our universities, that is, that tuition fees be part of the solution -- part of the solution, I underline -- could I then ask the minister what his government's solution will be in looking at the real problems that all of us face today, in today's world, with this crisis of overcrowded classrooms, outdated laboratory equipment, cancellation of library subscriptions and the other very large classes of third- and fourth-year students at all universities across the province of Ontario. If this is not part of his solution, what would his solution be?

Hon Mr Allen: I would have preferred that the solution had started 15 years ago with another administration. I would have preferred that the solution had begun with another administration that was in power over the last five years. Both of those governments left the university system in ninth place out of 10 in the average per student grant assistance across this country. We have a lot of recovery to make up.

I respect the presidents of the universities who came to see me and put forward a very innovative, long-range plan, in which the moneys that we would give to them would be committed to a trust fund in which they would have to account for every dollar, and every dollar would have to be spent on quality improvements and instruction. I thought that was a very imaginative proposal. I am sitting down with all the players in the system to ask how we can all best address those issues. I know the member will want to hear at as early a date as possible our response to that particular proposal.

DEVELOPMENTALLY DISABLED

Mrs McLeod: I have a question for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I understand that last Friday and Saturday the minister at last met with those community groups most vitally concerned with plans to move developmentally handicapped individuals out of institutions and into the community. We know that those groups continue to express very real concern about the minister's actions and have urged her not to delay the transfer plans.

In the meantime the union, which had asked for the freeze and whose members' jobs are at stake, has talked about the failures of past transfers and about the risks of continuing the deinstitutionalization. The union has also made the strength of its influence quite clear. An Ontario Public Service Employees Union newsletter of 21 November states that the minister has assured OPSEU that the union will be consulted before any further moves that affect the jobs of members working with the developmentally handicapped.

I ask the minister which of these rather contradictory positions most accurately reflects her views: deinstitutionalization is too risky to continue; the multiyear plan is being successfully implemented and community integration should proceed; or, perhaps, although I trust not, our priority must be to ensure that union jobs in the institutions must be protected.

Hon Mrs Akande: In my previous life I was an educator and I always hated multiple-choice questions, so this assembly will understand that I am reluctant to respond to them today.

Let me assure the member, as I know she is interested, as I am, that what I am most interested in is that when we move to any facility our clients are well taken care of, that there is no risk involved and that we can be certain that the kinds of unfortunate things that happened to the residents of these facilities under the previous administration will not happen again. That is my prime concern. That is why we are delaying. We are checking our criteria, we are looking at our monitoring of the system and we are making sure that it is sound. As for the unions, I have no idea to what the member refers.

1440

Mrs McLeod: I too dislike multiple-choice questions, and the reason I dislike them is their ambiguity. That is why I very carefully phrased those alternatives to be absolutely non-ambiguous. Our very real concern and the concern of the advocacy groups in the community is that we do not yet understand her very specific reasons for bringing a halt to a program that was well under way and which those groups themselves say was being successfully implemented.

The minister's response today indicates that there may be some concern about the success of past transfers and I want to come back to that because I think many of us were concerned last week when the Conservative critic asked the Premier a question about this deinstitutionalization. The Premier, in responding, seemed to confuse the program, the multi-year plan for moving developmentally handicapped people out of institutions into the community, with a much earlier plan for the deinstitutionalization of psychiatric patients.

It is probably a well-known fact that when psychiatric patients were first moved out of institutions, I think more than a decade ago, there were not adequate community supports in place. But when the Liberal government introduced the multiple-year plan for moving developmentally delayed people out of institutions, the commitment was made that no moves would be made without adequate community supports being put in place.

My very honestly concerned question is, does the minister believe that adequate community supports are or are not in place, and if they are not in place, what will she do to ensure that those supports are put in place so that these moves of people out of institutions and into the community can proceed?

Hon Mrs Akande: I too am very concerned about the adequacy of supports and I have for that reason discussed this with Mr Zwerver and the association. Their understanding of my concern was obvious and they have been extremely supportive in contacting me even subsequent to Saturday to assist me in providing some additional information. I have taken an opportunity to look at all the services that are provided in many communities, to make sure that there are the supports that are necessary in all of the communities. These supports are rather unevenly provided, and it is for that reason that I continue to look at this and continue to act to make sure that those services are provided where they are necessary. I recognize the member's concern; I too share it.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. I have here in my left hand -- appropriately enough, I guess -- An Agenda for People with, by our estimate, promises of some $14 billion. Equally appropriately enough, I guess. I have in my right hand the economic forecast made by the Treasurer in this House yesterday.

In this economic forecast there is kind of interesting information. One is, "We do not believe that as a government we can spend our way out of this recession." If you go on further to page 7, "The government expects to hold the deficit to within the projected $2.5 billion," and on page 8, "I remain acutely aware of the difficulty of increasing revenue during a recession."

We have all those economic forecasts, those types of commitments before us from yesterday. We have the NDP Agenda for People, which I will emphasize is a pre-election document. Which document is now the policy for this government? Can the people of this province simply take An Agenda for People and ram it in their blue box and measure the effect of this government's recycling program?

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, it is so difficult to resist some lines.

Hon Mr Rae: Please do.

Hon Mr Laughren: I am resisting because the Premier insists. I very much appreciate the fact that the critic for the third party appreciates the enormity of the task of mixing the commitments this party has made -- not just during the election campaign but in years gone by -- and continues to make on some very fundamental principles in which we believe very, very strongly. I think the member for Etobicoke West would appreciate the fact that we have not, as I can recall, retracted any of those principles contained in that Agenda for People. I cannot think of anything in there that I would want to refute --

Mr Nixon: What about the previous one?

Hon Mr Laughren: Or previously.

I would just say to the member for Etobicoke West, however, that he would appreciate -- I know because of some of the comments that his leader has made that he would want us to move most prudently at this time of recession, facing a deficit of $2.5 billion and it is almost certainly going to be more next year, that he would not want us to move with undue haste on the proposals contained in An Agenda for People.

Mr Stockwell: The commitments are before the public. The Treasurer has at least $7 billion in education commitments to this province for the next five years. In my opinion, I would rather not see a lot of these programs instituted, but the minister's party promised these programs last election. In fact, I think it was the basis for a lot of support that it received across this province. The big issue in the last election was keeping the promises. The previous Premier was chastised by the minister's leader for not keeping all his promises.

The Treasurer has $14 billion in promises. He now suggests he is going to hold the line on the deficit. He does not really want to increase spending, he does not want taxes to go up and he wants to keep his promises. It does not mix. Something has to give.

He knows he is going to break some promises in here. What the people of the province would like to know is, is it the $7 billion in education funding? Is it the government's housing policy? Is it the government's environmental policy? What other policies is the government going to put on the back burner and not keep this five-year term?

The government cannot have it both ways. The government cannot be fiscally responsible, stop spending, no debt and claim it is going to fill $14 billion in promises. Come clean. Which promises is the government not keeping?

Hon Mr Laughren: The member for Etobicoke West is quite right -- he is not quite right on his numbers, by the way, but I will not get into that -- that we cannot make a commitment to implement the proposals in An Agenda for People this year and next year while at the same time containing the deficit projections for this year at $2.5 billion, or next year either for that matter. So what I would say to --

Mr Stockwell: So the deficit is?

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, if the member would listen for a moment, what I would say to him is that he cannot listen and talk at the same time. I would just say to the member that I do not believe either he or the people of Ontario expect us to carry out that Agenda for People in this first year or two. He, and others I suspect, will judge us at the end of our mandate, not during the first six months of it.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Malkowski: This morning at Toronto city hall a broad coalition of women's groups called on the federal government to establish a royal commission to study violence against women. In Canada, one out of eight women suffers from physical abuse from her partner. My question is directed to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. What is her response to this call for action?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I am pleased to have this opportunity to inform the House that I am strongly supporting this call by the coalition of women's groups for the federal government to establish a commission on violence against women. The groups are calling on this to be a memorial to the 14 women who were killed in Montreal last year and, of course, to the many women killed and maimed across this country each year by violence. I have issued a media release to outline this position and I have asked my staff to provide a copy to each member of this House.

The proposed royal commission would study and document women's experiences of violence, evaluate the responses of our social institutions and make concrete recommendations and timetables for action.

In supporting this call, I would like to explain to the House that I do have a grave concern that this royal commission could deflect the need for the federal government also to take action, as this provincial government has been doing, to deal with this problem. I am calling on the federal government not only to establish this commission but also to ensure that this action is taken meanwhile to prevent violence against women.

1450

Mr Malkowski: What will this government do to educate the public regarding this problem?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: We have just finished going through the fifth year of the wife assault prevention campaign, in which we undertook multimedia ads, brochures and grants to community groups to try to undertake local public education. I, of course, have been going around the province speaking and doing media interviews.

We are also now about to launch the sexual assault initiative which was initiated by the past government; we are about to get that under way. I will provide further full details as we are ready for the next leg of that campaign.

I would also like to inform the House that this government has decided it will allow that sexual assault initiative to mature over the next three years in its own right, as the wife assault initiative is doing, and three years hence plans to roll those together as initiatives into a combined program to eliminate violence against women.

We are now in the process of planning towards what comes after that five-year initiative on wife assault. I would like to invite all members of this House who have ideas to participate with me in the formulation of how we can make serious change to eliminate violence against women in this society.

ROUGE VALLEY

Mr Curling: It was on 26 March 1990 that the Liberal government announced in this House that we have the largest urban park in Canada. At that time, the Minister of Transportation, William Wrye, stated that no new roads would be permitted in the Rouge Valley area south of Steeles Avenue. As recently as 5 November 1990, Pickering council requested that Durham region build a four-lane road across the Rouge River marsh, Metropolitan Toronto's last class 2 wetland. Also, they recommended the widening of Twyn Rivers Drive as an east-west connection through the area of the Rouge designated as being of natural and scientific interest.

My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The connection of Lawrence Avenue and Bayly Street would have a serious impact on the Rouge River park. Will the minister confirm that he will uphold the policy of the previous government that no new roads will be built in the Rouge Valley park?

Hon Mr Wildman: As the member will know, an independent advisory committee representing a number of agencies, including the province and the affected municipalities along with citizens' groups, has been set up to guide the planning exercise for the park. Any road construction proposals that could impact on the park will be taken into account by the advisory committee as it considers the planning for the park. I want to emphasize that, in my opinion, any such proposal would be subject to environmental assessment.

Mr Curling: This government was very emphatic in its stand on the Rouge Valley, making all these political promises, saying it can make a commitment. I want a commitment from the minister that no roads will be built in the Rouge Valley. Telling me about environmental assessment now is not a commitment. Could the minister say no new roads will be built in the valley?

Hon Mr Wildman: I want to assure the member that any commitment made by the previous government stays.

Mr Cousens: I hope the government thinks back to the last session, when the member for Mississauga South's bill passed and mine passed that prohibited any roads through the Rouge Valley. There is not going to be a road through the Rouge Valley. We already agreed to that, so just do not even think about it.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Cousens: This is a question for the Minister of the Environment. During yesterday's debate on waste management, the minister reminded the House that the former Liberal government was afraid to move aggressively on regulations and was afraid to put in place mandatory programs to reduce solid waste. The minister also stated that, contrary to the former government, she is going to put in place plans, strategies and programs to achieve diversion rates of at least 25%. Has the minister tabled these regulations to cabinet? When can we expect to hear what these regulations are here in the House? We need immediate answers on just how the minister is going to accomplish this.

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly recognize the need to move as quickly as we possibly can with a serious program of waste reduction. My ministry is in the course of preparing regulations. We are also meeting with environmental groups, with the waste reduction advisory committee that was put in place by the previous government, and it is certainly my intention to have a full and comprehensive plan prepared as quickly as I possibly can. I am afraid I cannot give the member a firm date at this point.

Mr Cousens: When the minister talks about a crisis, and she has admitted to that, we are looking for speedy and quick action. We really do not need to remind the minister that the greater Toronto area municipalities are waiting anxiously for some information from the province on exactly how she intends to proceed with her plan. In fact, some councils, notably Metro and the city of Toronto, are putting forth their own suggested bylaws for recycling and reduction efforts.

Will the minister include in her plan Toronto's proposals to force industries to use recycled products and to expand recycling programs to include aluminum foil and plastics? Where does the minister stand on refillable liquor bottles?

Hon Mrs Grier: Let me say that I am really pleased with the proposals that are before Metro council. As I think I indicated in the debate yesterday, this is not a unilateral action; it has to be a partnership with the municipalities that have primary responsibility for waste disposal. I am delighted at the actions that have been taken by Metro and by the region of Halton. I hope that York and the other regions, particularly within the GTA, will respond in the same way.

The effect of the announcement I made last week about the commitment of this government to getting serious about the 3Rs has been a very enthusiastic response from communities across the province, which now know that very shortly they will have in place a system of regulation and a plan for waste reduction at the Ministry of the Environment within which they can fit and to which they can respond. Certainly the elements of that plan the member has mentioned are elements we will be looking at and making a response to.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Dadamo: In light of the announcement by the CBC to cut back and eliminate broadcast stations throughout Canada and closer to home in my riding of Windsor-Sandwich, I wish to express great displeasure concerning this action today. From my office this afternoon, I learned that CBC Windsor had a $6.5-million budget and that has now been reduced to $1.3 million. As well, 82 radio and television people have lost their jobs in Windsor, and in my estimation Windsor is losing excellent local programming.

My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. What is the minister's understanding of these drastic cutbacks today?

Hon Mr Marchese: I would like to share with my colleague and the other members of this House my feelings and my understanding of this matter. I think the cuts to the CBC are a national disaster. This action represents almost the strangulation of the CBC. It will mean several things. It means joblessness, and at this time in this recession this is not good news. It will jeopardize access to Canadian programming: 10 of the 17 local programs are being closed down, and that is a serious problem for Canada. Third, I think it is an attack on our cultural identity and sovereignty. What this does, to use the example of Windsor, is literally give away our airwaves to the Americans. They only have one television program in Windsor, and what it does is leave the American television programming to go into Windsor, and that is all they will get. At a time when Mulroney speaks of national unity, this does nothing to bring unity in Canada, but it does a great deal to aggravate disunity.

1500

Mr Dadamo: Given this outrageous action that chips away at our cultural unity, what does the minister plan to do about this ripping apart of our cultural sovereignty?

Hon Mr Marchese: Several things --

Mr Scott: Lead a revolt. Now it comes. Come on, Rosario, lead it.

Hon Mr Marchese: I think the member for St George-St David will lead us.

I will be expressing my indignation to these cuts. I will urge the federal government, the minister and the Prime Minister, to restore funding to the CBC, not only to restore but to enhance the funding it needs. I will work, as the member for Mississauga West suggested, with my federal counterparts to achieve that end.

GASOLINE PRICES

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Energy. It relates to gasoline prices and follows on her failure to protect the consumers of this province from what her leader has in the past called price gouging.

The NDP in the past has advocated a number of actions to ensure equitable gasoline prices across the province. In particular, they have promised to continually review gas prices, to hold public hearings to determine fair prices, to set equal wholesale and retail prices across the province, and to permit increases in price only when they have been justified at public hearings. We are now looking for the conversion from rhetoric to reality. Will the minister tell this House when and how she will equalize gas prices across Ontario?

Hon Mrs Carter: I believe I answered this question yesterday, but I will answer it again anyway. We are monitoring gas prices carefully in this province. Prices have increased to some degree, as everybody knows, but not as much as crude oil prices. We do have emergency plans in place so that if supply or prices went beyond what we feel is reasonable we would take appropriate action.

Mr Ramsay: I would like to further this questioning to the minister. This is the same answer as yesterday. We are not talking about monitoring. As the minister is aware, many of her northern colleagues during the recent election made a commitment that this government, coming into power, would equalize gas prices around the province. Specifically, to give you an example, the Minister of Northern Development said in her election material she was committed to create a Nova Scotia-style regulatory commission so we could equalize prices right across the province.

I would like to ask the minister, when we have prices as we had yesterday -- and I do not know how the member for Cochrane North would justify this with his constituents at home -- unleaded super gasoline yesterday in Hearst sold for 77 cents a litre, about 13 cents a litre more than that being sold in Windsor. We would like to know from the minister: When is she going to set up this commission and what will be its regulatory powers?

Hon Mrs Carter: There are special factors at work in the north as regards gasoline prices, and this is not a new thing. For one thing, the bulk of gasoline being sold is less so that it is more costly to deliver it. It is farther away from the United States and, as everybody knows, people have been in the habit of crossing the border when they were near enough to do so because prices there were less.

There also are local problems in that in some areas, it has been brought to my attention, the prices are considerably higher than they are in other towns just a few miles away. We can only attribute that to local suppliers who are in fact charging more than they should. We do have under consideration the possibility of setting up alternative suppliers there, maybe on a co-operative basis, so that if that is the reason for the higher prices, then that would solve the problem over time.

NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Mr Eves: I have a question for the Minister of Northern Development. Just a few months ago, on 19 August 1990, to be exact, the Premier made a commitment to the people of northern Ontario, and I quote directly from An Agenda for People:

"We propose a northern fund of $400 million over two years -- returning money that's made in the north to the north -- to promote economic development, job protection and job creation and improved services throughout the north. The fund would be supported at the rate of $200 million a year."

He went on to say in the Agenda:

"New Democrats would make a further $100 million a year available for the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway through northern Ontario."

The funding announced yesterday by the Treasurer, some $20 million for the first six months of this government at least, falls far short of the $300-million-a-year commitment made by the Premier last 19 August. Where is the commitment to northern Ontario?

Hon Miss Martel: I point out to the member that in fact the announcement made by the Treasurer yesterday with respect to the $700 million and some of the announcements that will be made at the end of this week with respect to the portion going to northern Ontario are

only the first stage of the funding that is going to northern Ontario. The projects we will announce are short-term winter work projects; the rest of the package with respect to northern Ontario, the portion we will get out of the $700 million, will be announced some time in mid-January, and I look forward to making those announcements.

With respect to the broader question of where the $200 million is over two years, I would remind the member of two things. We are in a recession, and we do have a debt. It was his party and his leader, who is a northerner as well, who got up in the House on Thursday and said we should adopt a policy of restraint. I find it very strange that he can have the two sides and come here and ask me where this money is.

I say very clearly to the members of this House that we have a four-and-a-half-year mandate, we have a very good Agenda for People, which is a vision for this party for the future, and we intend to implement that agenda over a four-and-a-half-year mandate.

Mr Eves: It was the Treasurer who stood in this House and said that everybody knew in April that this province was in a recession. That was many months before her Premier bought the votes in northern Ontario on 19 August, if the minister wants some rhetoric.

Now another quote from the Premier's Agenda: "Men and women across Ontario" --

The Speaker: Whoa, whoa. It is amazing how on such a cold day outside, the temperature can rise so quickly indoors. The member for Parry Sound may wish to consider the language used in describing how votes were obtained as he rephrases his question.

Hon Mr Pouliot: This isn't a poolroom.

Mr Eves: I would certainly like to withdraw the remark about buying votes. To quote one of the honourable members opposite, perhaps it was "poolroom" behaviour during the election campaign by the Premier of the province.

Another quote from An Agenda for People: "Men and women across Ontario have told me that they don't want promises that can't be kept."

For the minister to stand here in the House today and say they have four or five years to fulfil their commitment is simply not what An Agenda for People says. I refer her to pages 10 and 11 of her own document, which says she will spend this money during fiscal year 1990-91. The money, according to her Premier's commitment this August, will be spent, all $300 million of it, in northern Ontario by 31 March 1991. That is what he said. He said: "Don't tell untruths in campaigns to people, giving promises you don't intend to keep." Is she going to keep the promise or not, yes or no?

1510

Hon Miss Martel: I remind the member that in April of this year, when we knew that there was a recession, we certainly did not know that there would be a $2.5-billion deficit in this province. I suggest to the member that regardless of which government was in power in this place, any government would have to deal with that.

Now, I have said clearly to him and my leader has said clearly to this House that we intend to move forward with the promises made in An Agenda for People. I also know that the people who I talk to around the north are very conscious of the fact that not only do we have a deficit but also we are in a recession, and they believe, as I believe, that over the course of our mandate we will keep those promises.

I remind the member again that I find it very strange that he can get up in this House and ask this question, when his leader called on this government for a policy of restraint. He cannot have it both ways.

TOURISM INDUSTRY

Mr Drainville: As we are no doubt aware, there is presently great difficulty in the tourism industry, and I would like to address the Minister of Tourism and Recreation. As he has seen in the last week or two, there have been recent newspaper articles indicating that the industry is in decline. That is certainly an underestimation. I must say that this decline is very worrisome to the people of Victoria-Haliburton and we are wondering what the minister is going to do, what he is planning to do to alleviate the decline faced by the tourism industry in Ontario.

Hon Mr North: I want to thank the member for Victoria-Haliburton for the very good question. I appreciate it and I understand the concerns that he raises.

Our ministry is presently working on three major ways to better the tourism industry. We are working on better promotion, better facilities and infrastructure and better service to the communities. We are also presently launching an extensive marketing campaign to promote the province and to make sure that our ads portray Ontario in an exciting and very creative way. I have had meetings with the industry on a number of occasions already and we are enjoying a very good working relationship.

Mr Villeneuve: Don't be too hard on him.

Mr Drainville: I will try not to. It seems that one of the problems we have in the tourism industry is keeping our competitive edge, and we have not been able to do that in the last number of years. We have seen that in terms of the mismanagement of the tourism industry under the last government. Right now what we need are some initiatives on the part of our government. We know also that the goods and services tax is going to have an impact, that there are federal policies that are impinging upon our ability to make the industry grow, so I would ask the Minister of Tourism and Recreation if he could possibly give an indication of how we are going to be able to maintain our competitive edge in this industry.

Hon Mr North: Unfortunately, there is not a lot I can do about the federal government. What we have done is, we have talked to the people in the industry and we have asked them very clearly to see if they can give us some direction as to what they think are the tax measures that would help. Just yesterday, as a matter of fact, I spoke at Tourism Ontario and I discussed some different ways and means by which we could implement a joint working group between the industry and ourselves, the ministry. I think that once the necessary research is done we will have a very good system in place and we will have a very good presentation that we can bring forth to the Fair Tax Commission.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE RADIO SERVICES

Mr Grandmaître: I will try to be very short. My question is addressed to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I have listened very carefully to the question asked by a member of his own party, the member for Windsor-Sandwich, where 500,000 southern Ontarians will be affected by the budget cuts, but I want him to remember that this government provided $5 million on 1 August to TVO's la Chaîne française to provide French radio services right across this province. As he knows, a good number of francophones are located in the Windsor area.

I am much more concerned about my own people, my own community, which will be cut off completely from those services. Is the minister willing to spend some of those dollars from the $5 million that he has just received to provide French services? Is he willing to use some of these dollars to provide all francophones with radio services right across Ontario?

Hon Mr Marchese: I have two responses. One, I would like to separate the issues in terms of what I was speaking to with regard to the CBC cuts; that is, as a national issue, that will affect all of the French-speaking communities and everybody throughout the country. I think that people pay taxes to be able to get national services for everybody throughout the country.

In terms of what we are doing, we give plenty of money to TVO -- to the tune of $60 million -- and we are providing the services that I think we need to provide in Ontario so that all French-speaking Canadians have access to that service. I will make sure, as I am doing, that they continue to get that service, but I want to make sure that I will do my best not to take away from what the federal government needs to do nationally.

CITY OF VANIER ACT

The Speaker: I beg to inform the House that the Clerk has received a report from the Ontario Municipal Board with respect to Bill Pr30, An Act respecting the City of Vanier.

Bill and report ordered for standing committee on regulations and private bills.

PETITIONS

AIR AND WATER QUALITY

Mr Carr: I am pleased to table a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by approximately 1,200 residents of Oakville and area, objecting to the Petro-Canada refinery, Bronte plant, continuing to pollute the air and water. The odour and effluent from the refinery process is, in their belief, causing health problems and is a nuisance to the property, therefore reducing the property value.

FANSHAWE PIONEER VILLAGE

Mrs Mathyssen: I have a petition signed by 21 members of the Catholic Women's League of Mary Immaculate Parish, London, asking that every effort be made to secure permanent funding for Fanshawe Pioneer Village and that the village be kept open until at least December 1991 while funding is sought. I have signed my name to this petition.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr17, An Act to revive The Interlock People Ltd.

Bill Pr18, An Act to revive Conyork Construction & Engineering Ltd.

Bill Pr19, An Act respecting The Oratory of Saint Philip Neri -- Toronto.

Your committee begs to report the following bill as amended:

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting the Town of Richmond Hill.

Your committee further recommends that the fees, and the actual cost of printing at all stages and in the annual statutes, be remitted on Bill Prl9, An Act respecting The Oratory of Saint Philip Neri -- Toronto.

Motion agreed to.

1520

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

EMPLOYMENT STANDARDS AMENDMENT ACT (PREGNANCY AND PARENTAL LEAVE), 1990

Mr Mackenzie moved first reading of Bill 14, An Act to amend the Employment Standards Act with respect to Pregnancy and Parental Leave.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: These changes to the Employment Standards Act are being made to protect the jobs of workers who take extended leaves to look after their newborn or newly adopted children. The changes will also protect Ontario workers who wish to claim the new unemployment insurance benefits now available to new parents.

MANITOULIN, BARRIE AND COCKBURN ISLANDS ACT, 1990

Mr Wildman moved first reading of Bill 15, An Act respecting Land on Manitoulin Island, Barrie Island and Cockburn Island.

Motion agreed to.

Hon Mr Wildman: This is a historic piece of legislation for Ontario. As I said earlier today, I have had the honour of signing the first land claim ever resolved by the government of Ontario. The claim concerned Manitoulin Island and the land surrendered by the first nations in 1862. The land was intended to be sold by the crown for the benefit of the native people. However, the first nations were never paid for 80,000 acres of land they gave up. Today, 128 years later, the first nations received payment for it.

The legislation will enable the government to implement the agreement by transferring land to the first nations. The total land claim settlement is worth some $9 million. I am pleased with the agreement and the legislation we are introducing today. The purpose of the bill is to fulfil our commitments under the agreement.

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 16, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act and certain other Acts related to Municipal Elections.

Motion agreed to.

CHILD AND FAMILY SUPPORT STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LES LOIS RELATIVES AUX OBLIGATIONS ALIMENTAIRES

Mr Hampton moved first reading of Bill 17, An Act to amend the law related to the enforcement of support and custody orders.

M. Hampton propose la première lecture du projet de loi 17, Loi portant modification des lois relatives à l'exécution d'ordonnances alimentaires et de garde d'enfants.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Hon Mr Hampton: The principal purpose of the amendments to the Support and Custody Orders Enforcement Act, 1985, is to provide for the automatic support payments from the income of people required to pay support and to provide for the payment to the director of the child and family support office of the amount deducted. This will be done through a new court order which is created by the bill. We believe that this bill will be very important in the future in terms of dealing with child poverty.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990

Ms Wark-Martyn moved second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: This bill implements the changes required to eliminate the stacking of retail sales tax on the goods and services tax. It also implements the changes announced by the former Treasurer in his budget of 24 April 1990. These changes are designed to reduce the confusion the federal goods and services tax will bring.

To begin with, as I promised a few weeks ago, this bill contains an amendment to the provincial sales tax base that redefines the definition of fair value. It ensures that Ontario consumers will not pay provincial sales tax on top of the federal GST, if the GST is implemented.

The introduction of the GST will put a lot of pressure on retailers and we recognize the additional costs that will result for some. To offset some of this burden, the compensation to vendors for collecting retail sales tax will increase from 4% to 5%, and the maximum compensation per year will increase to $1,100 for the current fiscal year and to $1,500 for all subsequent years.

Amendments in sections 2, 7, 9, 10 and 14 are for administrative purposes and bring retail sales tax into line with similar GST measures. They increase the time limits on audits and refunds to four years from three years and for keeping records from six years to seven.

Visitors to our province will benefit from changes to the tourist rebate program on goods removed from Ontario and on transient accommodation to parallel the limits in the federal legislation.

To assist manufacturers, the definition of "production machinery" currently tied to part of the Excise Tax Act, which will be repealed with the GST, will now be prescribed by regulation.

The tire tax, when it was first passed, placed harsh conditions on the short-term car rental industry. This bill will allow us to establish a formula to ensure fairness among renters while ensuring that all taxes are paid.

With the passage of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, certain confidentiality provisions will be updated and brought in line with other ministry statutes.

Again, paralleling GST, directors of corporations will be made personally liable for retail sales tax collected by their companies in specific circumstances. Provided that a director exercises due diligence, he or she will not incur personal liability for tax collected but not remitted.

The GST rules propose charging interest on a compound basis. Similarly, the bill proposes changing retail sales tax interest to the compound basis. Interest paid on overpayments of tax will also be compounded at the same rate as on taxes due.

Finally, tax practitioners have indicated that the movement of assets is difficult when a small business is expanding and bringing in additional partners. This bill will simplify the requirements needed to transfer business assets.

The Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am pleased to rise today in the debate on second reading of Bill 1, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, 1990.

The Speaker: Order. The first item is our questions or comments to the member who has spoken, before we enter into debate. I thought the member wished to ask questions or to make comments.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I am sorry. I would like to respond to the minister's statement.

1530

The Speaker: Are there questions or comments? Okay, further debate.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: Once again, Mr Speaker, I thank you.

The Minister of Revenue's press release, dated 20 November, quotes her as saying "Our first piece of legislation fulfils our commitment to reverse the previous government's decision when it increased provincial revenues by stacking RST on GST." What the minister did not say is that there is a great deal more to this bill than simply that, and it is the implications of those additional aspects of Bill 1 that I wish to focus upon today.

Bill 1 goes to great lengths to harmonize Ontario's tax laws with the proposed federal goods and services tax. I repeat, harmonize and accommodate the GST. This NDP government has now its opportunity to divorce itself completely from the GST, and yet in this opportunity we are provided with a small diversion at best -- no divorce, no real cutting loose.

None of us needs to be reminded of what the New Democratic Party's policy was when it was to have come into implementation: "The GST is the wrong tax on the wrong people at the wrong time." "Ontario should cut itself loose from the Mulroney tax program." "Fighting the GST is a major priority of this government." "We reject an amalgamated sales tax." "We're committed to making taxes fairer by saying from the beginning that we will have nothing to do with the Mulroney tax." And my personal favourite: "Ontario should lead a tax revolt -- a revolt against the Mulroney GST."

In fact, as late as Tuesday of this week, according to a Southam News report, the Premier of this province met with the leader of the federal New Democratic Party and other NDP leaders from across Canada to discuss a five-point plan to fix the Canadian economy. One of the five points was to scrap the GST.

But from the very beginning, this government has introduced, as its very first piece of legislation -- may I repeat, its very first opportunity to present legislation -- in this House and to the province of Ontario, a bill which is almost in complete harmony with the GST. A promise to the people of Ontario, "Fighting the GST is a major priority of this government," has been broken. Leading a tax revolt has been left quietly in the dust.

May I now proceed through the various sections of this legislation as I demonstrate a real reversal of direction within this present government? Indeed, it is a 95% about-turn, a 95% about-face in a revolt that was to have happened. I quote from the explanatory notes appended to the legislation itself which, in the minister's own words, brings Ontario RST into line with similar GST measures.

Section 2: "The amendments in this section...are made...to parallel similar provisions in the proposed goods and services tax legislation." "Parallel" is the key word.

Section 3: "This amendment...authorizes the minister to pay a rebate of tax paid on tangible personal property purchased in Ontario and taken outside the province for permanent use outside Ontario, and a rebate of tax paid on transient accommodation by a person not resident in Ontario.

"Subsection 15(2)...will...enable the minister to make regulations providing for both types of rebates. The provision of these tourist rebates by regulation will provide the minister with flexibility in prescribing terms and conditions of rebates similar to those provided for rebates to be made under the proposed goods and services tax legislation."

Section 11: "This re-enactment of section 32 of the act provides for the compounding of interest daily or as otherwise prescribed by the minister on all amounts owing under the act. This amendment will parallel a similar provision in the proposed goods and services tax legislation."

Section 13: "This amendment provides for the joint and several liability of directors of a corporation for amounts owing and unpaid by the corporation under the act. The amendment is parallel to the proposed goods and services tax legislation." How many times have I read the word "parallel"?

"The amendments in the sections of the bill listed in subsection 16(2) relate to the proposed goods and services tax. The intent is that these sections will not come into force until the goods and services tax becomes law in Canada, but upon that happening the listed sections will be effective as of the first day of January 1991."

For a government that said it would have nothing to do with the GST, "cut loose," "fighting," "revolt" have become the much softer words of "parallel," "similar," "accommodate." How interesting. In Bill 1, this NDP government is going to considerable lengths to harmonize its sales tax policy, the sales tax policy of the province of Ontario, with the new GST and plans to continue to do so into the future by extending through ministerial powers its ability to enact much new tax policy by regulation rather than legislation.

Bill 1 proposes to permit the Minister of Revenue to make new tax policy and in effect enact new tax law by regulation without ever bringing proposed new taxes to this Legislature for debate.

This is done no doubt in anticipation of new policies that will stem from the GST, new taxes without listening, without consulting, without debating, taxation by regulation to harmonize with the hated GST. Is this in keeping with the very basic democratic tradition of no taxation without representation? Is it in step with the proposed tax commission promised in the NDP government's speech from the throne?

How interesting for a government, an open government, a government of consultation, "a government that will listen to the people," "a government that will work with all partners in the economy on the design and implementation of Ontario's tax system."

Take one industry as an example: our tourism operators -- the effect of this decision, of tax policy by regulation on their industry, an industry indeed which has done its own impact study. Rebates for this industry are now going to be placed into regulation. In the minister's words today, these measures are to parallel the limits in the GST federal legislation. These regulations, rather than legislation, result in more and more instability, instability in an industry which is often the first to feel the effects of recession, an industry which often involves family operations and small business people. Indeed, it hits hard at this large but vulnerable industry that is situated in every region of this province.

I also have concerns relating to business inputs and the results that Bill 1 has in this province for manufacturers.

Section 5 of Bill 1 will repeal the aspects of the Retail Sales Tax Act that had allowed for exemption from provincial sales tax for production equipment and machinery. This section, which allows the minister to make exemptions for production equipment and machinery, again by regulation, will mean that there is a time lag between the time the minister can bring in new exemptions and the implementation date of the GST. This time lag will cause particular damage to the competitive position of Ontario manufacturing vis-à-vis the province of Quebec.

Many companies in eastern Ontario, the part of the province that I represent, do business or indeed compete with businesses based in Quebec. What this means in essence is that the Quebec government has guaranteed its manufacturing sector an estimated 3% competitive advantage over their Ontario counterparts, who will no longer have the sales tax exemptions. This when we are in a recession.

1540

Bill 1 accommodates -- and I want to repeat the word "accommodates" -- the GST in the matter of sales tax rebates for tourists as well as endorses the elimination of exemptions for certain manufactured goods, harmonizes interest charged on tax owed to the government, and extends liability, again paralleling the GST -- the minister's own words this afternoon for tax owed to corporate directors. Yet the Minister of Revenue brushes all of this aside. She does not even breathe a mention in her press release of one section of this bill beyond its first clause. She does not even whisper that Bill 1 is more than friendly to the GST. In fact, Bill 1 has made a promise of marriage to the GST.

On numerous other sections of Bill 1 that are "horrendously complex," to use the minister's own words as she speaks about the GST, difficult, and which indeed need explanation, the minister is almost silent. Although the minister says she does not want to add to confusion, this she has certainly done for both consumers and small businesses in this province; and to speak to this point more directly, the promised communication strategy is almost non-existent. How unfair, how unfortunate for the consumers and small businesses in this province.

May I ask again, where does Bill 1 cut loose or divorce itself from the Mulroney tax? Accommodate, amalgamate, harmonize, accept describe Bill 1 better in its relationship to the GST.

Bill 1 is complex and confusing. If you and I examine it closely, Mr Speaker, we, the people of Ontario, you and I, must spend $100 to save 56 cents, while at the same time being subjected to taxation by regulation, increased taxation without representation, the formation of tax policy without debate.

Is this what the people of Ontario really expected from those who label themselves the leaders of a tax revolt? Bill 1 is a small step in a time of need, a weak initiative in difficult times, a deficient economic incentive in a tough year -- "difficult times," "tough year" -- this government's own words.

This minister had many options to stimulate the economy in tough times by tax reform, to put more money into the hands of the Ontario consumer, you and I, Mr Speaker, but this government made the decision in its very first bill to take one small step, one small initiative in an area that is of great importance to you and I.

How much braver real reform would have been, tax reform that could have been creative, revenue policy that would have really fought the impact of the recession, that would have really put a dent in the deficit. But again we have a moratorium, a wait-and-see position. How unfortunate; a prime opportunity missed.

How much braver it would have been for the minister to announce a reduction of 1% in Ontario's retail sales tax. This step would have truly bolstered Ontario's economy at a time when such stimulus is desperately needed. A reduction in the sales tax rate could boost Ontario's economic growth. You know that, Mr Speaker, and so do I. It could lower inflation. The province's unemployment rate could be reduced and it could create up to 15,000 jobs in the Ontario economy at this time of need. On top of all of this, it would have left $1.1 billion instead of $500 million in the pockets of the people of Ontario.

This move would have been truly brave, but we hear over and over again from this Premier and other members of cabinet, day after day, "We are doing our best, our very best." I, for one, do not think so. It seems that the only tax reform that this minister can muster is fed-bashing.

I close with a series of questions to the Minister of Revenue. As I asked the minister earlier today, when will she begin to lead her promised national tax revolt? This was not to be a so-called revolt, as she answered earlier to me today; this was to be a real revolt. She does have transportation to Ottawa as a member of this Legislature. Perhaps she would like to take that trip.

Does Bill 1 really cut loose the Ontario tax system from the Mulroney tax? Is this tax really what the people of Ontario think it is? I do not think so. Is this government really fighting this tax down to the last wire in these 27 days that remain, this tax that no one wants? I see very, very little sign of fight. I do see about-face and about-turn.

Is Bill 1 truly this government's very best effort at having nothing to do with the GST? I hope not. Is the minister recommending that the taxpayers of Ontario not pay the GST? She certainly did not answer my question when I asked it earlier.

To this date, we in this House have had no real answers to the questions I have just posed. Bill 1 is much, much less than this government could have done, much less than it should have done. Tax reform, Bill 1 is not. Incentive to economic growth, Bill 1 is not. Creative reform, Bill 1 is not. Acceptance of the GST without a murmur, without a whisper, without a sigh or even a muffled roll of revolt, is what Bill 1 really is. The tax revolt promised to the people of Ontario, like many of this government's promises, is in the mortuary, the morgue.

Mr Hope: As we heard that elegant speech about the bill itself, when it finally got down to parallel versus horizontal, we find out where the Liberal government would be is horizontal on the GST.

I think a lot of people are looking forward to seeing what is coming out of this bill. I know a number of us have been on the streets fighting the GST. We do not need to lobby it from an area of the Queen's Park offices. Most of us are in the communities out there on the streets protesting, not offering a lot of lipservice. That is one of the main things we must get across. It is a federal jurisdiction but it does not stop us provincial members being out there in our communities airing our concerns. This is only one step that this provincial government is doing to make sure that we run parallel, not horizontal, on the GST itself.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to comment on the remarks from the member for Ottawa-Rideau. As usual with the remarks she presents to the House, her words were thoughtful and analytical. She had clearly done her homework and examined the bill in a way that the previous speaker had not.

I was very interested, first of all, in her comments relating to the failure of the crusade, the vaunted crusade, against the GST which the government had promised and to have seen that this has in fact turned into a going along with the GST.

1550

There was another matter the member raised that I think is very important and I hope the minister will speak to it as we proceed through the debate.

Section 3 of the bill, as the member pointed out, will enable the minister to change tax laws without reference to the Legislature. There will be a particular impact as a result of that change, as the member has pointed out, on the tourist industry and on our retail trade, particularly in relation to our tourist visitors and for other exports.

I wonder if, as the member has indicated, the minister will guarantee that she will respond relating to any consultative arrangements she has set up with representatives of the tourism industry, the hospitality industry and the retail trade relating to the kinds of impact those changes by regulation may have on their operations. I want to thank the member for Ottawa-Rideau for raising those points.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: My entire remarks this afternoon were really an attempt, as was my question earlier, to bring to the floor of this House the desire I have to know the degree of commitment that this government and this minister has to very serious promises made to take a leadership role in something everyone in this province understands very well: the GST. There is nothing that has had more media coverage and more conversation over kitchen tables and in backyards this summer than that particular tax.

In examining every document that has been presented to me by this minister and in listening to every word she has said in the House, I have been unable to determine a sense of commitment to the revolt that was promised, a divorcing of this government's position from a fundamental tax bill in this province. I have heard and observed, and every word I read in the legislation is congruent, other than no tax on the tax which is a situation and a part of the bill that really separates itself out; it has to do with collection. As I said, $100 has to be spent to save 56 cents.

I am asking this government not to be an observer of the economy of this country or this province; I am asking them to do something in a time of need. I am asking this government to give leadership and direction on tax reform, something that is very near and dear to each of us.

Mr Stockwell: Before I get involved in the actual debating of the motion or piece of legislation, we should first discuss the revolt against the GST and the federal government by this particular government. It reminds me -- much the same -- of the Liberal government's promise of the free trade revolt that was going to take place.

From sitting in municipal government at Metropolitan Toronto, I also recall very clearly many, many debates that took place about the Metropolitan Toronto level of government having grave concerns with whatever government was there, be it Conservative or Liberal, and how there was going to be a major offensive on the pink palace down the street.

It never really materialized because the facts of life are simply this: The federal government has the power and jurisdiction to do certain things, the provincial government has those powers on a smaller basis, and the municipal governments have the same powers to plow your roads and collect your garbage and so on and so on.

Anybody who promises you open revolt and non-compliance and so on with respect to certain pieces of legislation by a more senior level of government is simply blowing smoke. It just is not going to happen. They are strong words and there are interesting slogans that come out of them, open revolt and so on, but the fact of the matter is that the debate is not whether the NDP government has in fact had this open revolt; the NDP government has no power to have an open revolt. For the NDP government, it matters not what it thinks of the GST and it matters not what its rank and file think of the GST. There is not one thing they can do about it. It is very clear today that there is not one thing they can do about it, because they are doing what they are doing. They are instituting this piece of legislation before us.

It makes me hark back to those days at Metropolitan Toronto when we would puff up our chests with all the bravado and tell the members of Metro council how we were going to go down to Queen's Park and beat up a Premier.

To continue on, our party has been very consistent with respect to the GST and our opposition to it. We spoke during the campaign -- even before the campaign, if members would check the record -- in opposition to the GST. Our leader was campaigning for the leadership of our party and his position was equally clear. It was opposed --

Mr Mahoney: Honest Mike.

Mr Stockwell: Honest Mike; that is right. He was opposed to the GST and he said so with some concern from the Conservatives in Ottawa, no doubt about it, but he stood his ground and said, "I am opposed." He also said during the campaign that he would not tax on tax. I think that is a position he has taken on which we have been very firm. I fundamentally do not agree with tax on tax. Now apparently neither does this government. If that is the case, then I think they had better review some of the pieces of legislation that were passed and are in fact in place today.

The tire tax is a perfect example of tax on tax. The government today, with a simple amendment by the minister, could be consistent with respect to its policy on tax on tax. They could do away with that double-dipping of the taxpayers when it comes to the tire tax. What it basically means is that they are generating revenue from tax on a tax.

Mr Mahoney: Explain double-dipping.

Mr Stockwell: For the member for Mississauga West, who I think is fully cognizant of what that means, it means -- his government was professional at it.

Mr Mahoney: I always thought it was at Dairy Queen. What is it?

Mr Stockwell: They do it at the Dairy Queen too. What it means basically is taxing tax, and in fact those members have an historic platform for just that. So our position is clear. Our support today is equally clear. We will endorse this piece of work from the Minister of Revenue. We think there are flaws and there are concerns, but overall we think that it is something the taxpayers in the province of Ontario will enjoy. Clearly, a $500-million benefit to the taxpayers is nothing to be sneezed at and I think that it is something they will look forward to and certainly appreciate.

Now I would ask that the minister also look into this tax on tax for the tire tax and, hopefully, she can do something about that, just so that she may become consistent. I would not want her to be inconsistent, considering the implementation of An Agenda for People and the government's consistent backpedalling on that one.

The concerns that I have stem also from further taxes that I think the minister could look at. Her party was equally opposed -- this was probably the most high-profile issue that was debated on the campaign trail when it came to taxes, but there were other taxes that her party was opposed to as well.

I speak of the commercial concentration tax, one of the most regressive taxes ever implemented. It is a tax that is just killing municipalities with respect to paying a tax that is really unfair. It is really an unfair tax directed basically at the greater Toronto area. It is nothing more than a discriminatory tax against Toronto and the area.

I think it would be important for the Minister of Revenue if she could also gain some consistency, and not just with the high-profile goods and services tax. She would gain some credibility with being consistent, not just with the high-profile GST but also by doing away with the commercial concentration tax. I know full well that is a tax that every mayor, every council, every school board, every transit system in GTA opposes. It is not fair. It is inequitable and in my opinion it should be struck down. If the minister could do that, I think she would have a great sigh of relief from all parties involved at the municipal level.

1600

Just to give an example, her party is committed to public transportation and the effective movement of people within the GTA, which we are as well, and it certainly is a laudable platform, but it goes contrary to and flies in the face of that commercial concentration tax by hiking parking lot hourly rates at all subway stops, GO stations etc. Those are a couple of the issues that I think would help me in accepting that they truly believe in this opposition to tax on tax and that they truly believe in a consistent, equitable tax system for the province of Ontario.

They do not have to go through an 18-month process to figure out that these couple of taxes are unfair and inequitable. They know that right now. If they could just do away with those, I am sure a lot of people in the GTA would be extremely happy.

The one major concern I have with this piece of legislation is the petulant attitude that the government has taken with respect to separate collections. I think it is obviously their attempt to justify this open revolt process that they have suggested they will undertake. It is not an open revolt; it is petulance. It is simply the case that they are causing the taxpayers tremendous sums of money for no real, worthy purpose. There is absolutely nothing to be gained by the position of separate collections, nothing at all.

To bring it back to a municipal level again, since some of the members opposite come from the municipal field, it would be much the same as the local council saying to the regional council or to the school boards, "We are not going to collect your taxes." That is insane. Then you would have duplication of tax collection. In certain cases you would have three levels of government going out to collect taxes off the same people. Now in all honesty, that is insane. It is insane from the point of staffing it. It is insane from the point of funding it.

If they think for a moment that this ruse, this red herring that they are offering is going to be taken as some kind of revolt against the goods and services tax, I think they are very sadly mistaken. The time will come in the not-too-distant future when they as a government will figure that this has served its purpose, and it will in fact be adopted through the process, through a small piece of legislation. It will be changed to a more efficient process of collecting the tax money.

I do not believe that the constituents of this country and this province really would like to see a provincial government exacerbate the problem of collection, or exacerbate the problem of the GST with its tax implications by in fact piling more taxes on top of it through separate collections. That is exactly what they are doing. As I said, it is petulant, poorly planned and ill conceived. If this is their attempt to justify their open revolt, it is laughable.

I know full well some of their members must agree because I know their positions from a municipal level, their positions with respect to duplication of the tax bills, etc. The member for Downsview, I am certain, understands the point I am trying to make.

The army of bureaucrats it is going to take to collect this, believe it or not, is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 3,800 person-years. What is hard to believe about that is that it is going to take more money, $365 million, that this government is going to spend more, $365 million to enslave the taxpayers, than it spent liberating Kuwait. It seems to me they are liberating one country and enslaving another. It is going to cost them more to collect taxes than to liberate a country, which I guess is a sign of the times.

We all say there is a lot of bureaucracy. I think it is pretty clear that, man, are they overstaffed.

The savings are none. There are no real savings with respect to this piece of legislation. From a government point of view, there are only costs. The one selling point that we totally agree with is the $500 million that the taxpayers will save, and we will support this piece of legislation.

If there were some way we could split a money bill, we probably would and not endorse the separate collection. It is not a revolt. It is a petulant act.

In conclusion, our party is in favour. We support this. It was a good idea when we thought it up. It must be a good idea when they stole it. So we will endorse this piece of legislation.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments.

Mr Mammoliti: I look across and I see empty seats. The member for Etobicoke West certainly likes to talk; there is no question about it. That brings me to a comment that he made about blowing smoke. Look who is blowing smoke. I have been in this chamber for a few weeks now and I have heard the member for Etobicoke West talk. I leave once in a while. I come back and the member for Etobicoke West is still talking. There is no difference whether there are people in those seats or whether there are not. The member for Etobicoke West seems to be doing all the talking. So let's talk about blowing smoke and look at who is blowing the smoke.

I ask the member for Etobicoke West again and I plead with him -- he wants something to be done about the GST -- to go to his federal leader. I plead with him, we plead with him, to go to his federal leader, talk to him and get all these people who seem to be away from their seats to talk to him and plead with him to stop this from being implemented. This is important. I will say it again. Stop blowing the smoke and stop accusing us of blowing the smoke.

Mr Stockwell: That was an interesting comment. I do not know what the point was. Maybe somebody will, somewhere. What is very clear is that he must have been out of the room because he was not listening. What I said with respect to blowing smoke was: "You're wasting your time. You're moving the GST through." In fact, it is a tax that is going to happen 1 January. The minister has agreed that it is going to take place 1 January.

I thought I was being very kind with respect to the policy, to his party's position on an open revolt. Where is their open revolt? Is the GST going to go through on 1 January? Apparently so. Their open revolt is this petulant attitude that they are not going to collect the tax, thereby costing the taxpayers more money.

The comments, I think, are unfair and unreasonable, considering the fact that this party, through the campaign and before the campaign, did not support the GST. We were firmly opposed. We did not support a tax on a tax. Our position was clear. If the federal government is listening to us, it would be hearing exactly the same thing yesterday that I said today, and that we will be saying tomorrow. If the federal party listens to the member's party, it hears something different yesterday, something different today and probably something very different tomorrow.

Mr Drainville: I was going to speak about some of the sections of the bill that have not been spoken about at this time, but it seems to me that as we begin the debate we need to talk about the philosophy behind taxation, because surely, as we look across the House and hear the comments about the GST and how these parties have been the saviours, if you will, of the people of this province in terms of taxation -- we heard the inaccuracies given to us by the other party.

The member for Nipissing, when he was running for the leadership of the Conservative Party, made it very clear that he thought the GST was a great thing. I will be glad to give chapter and verse in terms of Globe and Mail reports, and Star reports also, to the honourable member to show him what the member for Nipissing said as he was running for the leadership.

We hear also from the official opposition. We hear many things about how they are going to support the people of this province now, when they themselves thought the GST was a great thing. The member for Brant-Haldimand himself, in many public utterances, gave his view of how the GST was a good tax, a tax that should be brought into this province, a tax that should even be linked with the provincial sales tax. So as far as the views of the opposition are concerned, we can more or less disregard some of the comments that have been made up --

Mr Stockwell: Where's your chapter and verse?

Mr Drainville: I would be glad to do that. Both parties will have chapter and verse tomorrow.

1610

When we speak about taxation, we have to speak about the philosophy of how taxation is going to affect the reality of the society in which we live. The question in terms of taxation is: Who pays? As we go across this province and speak to the people of Ontario, we see that people across this province have indicated that they know who is going to pay, and it is not going to be the wealthy and the rich, who are traditionally supportive of the opposition parties. It is not going to be those people who are going to pay; it is going to be the lower-income people and the middle-income people of this province. That is why we are against this.

In terms of the selling of the GST, will we ever forget those immortal words of the Prime Minister of this country -- Progressive Conservative Prime Minister, I might add -- who said on 23 August 1989, "We will proceed with the sales tax not because it is popular, but because it is right for the country."

If you were to go across this province and speak to the people of this province about this tax, what would they say? Yes, it is unpopular; that is one point of agreement they would have with the Prime Minister of this country. But they do not believe it is right for this country, and we do not believe it is right in Ontario, and that is why we brought this bill into this House.

There have been great, grandstanding statements about the lack of revolt. I have to say, as I look across at the opposition, I am looking for the revolt over there. There is no revolt. Yet here on this side we in the government have been willing from the beginning to set forth our views in terms of Bill 1 and to indicate our fundamental disagreement with the federal government and with the opposition parties on this very issue.

An Agenda for People is being held up; the honourable member should hold that up, because it is a very important document in the lives of the people of Ontario.

I want to bring this debate down to a couple of issues that need to be looked at in terms of what has been said by the member for Ottawa-Rideau. The member spoke about leadership, the member spoke about protest, the member spoke about many issues -- taxation without representation was even raised. We go back two centuries in terms of our political development to see that even this government, according to the member, is not following the honoured traditions of this country and this province. Let's talk about this.

In the last number of days we have heard opposition speaker after speaker saying to the government, "You don't keep your promises." Let me tell members about those promises. We began at the beginning of the GST debate -- in terms of our federal party in Ottawa and our own party here in Ontario -- and what did we see? Right from the beginning we said this tax is unfair, that it will hurt people with lower incomes and middle incomes and that we do not accept that this tax should be allowed to exist in this province. We have fought it since the beginning. We fought it during the election. We have not wavered. We have not discontinued that policy. If there is a promise that we are proud to keep it is that we will fight the GST to the last possible moment of its implementation.

We hear the opposition parties day after day, in the lugubrious outpourings of their bile, say to us that they are upset that we are not governing, that we are not taking action immediately on these issues. No wonder they are upset. We look at the Progressive Conservatives and their view on taxation. We hear, day after day, their support for landlords when we, on this side of the House, have supported since the beginning those tenants who were in need.

It is the same with the GST. Whose interests are we going to support in this House? Are we going to support the interest of the privileged, of the powerful, of the wealthy? If we are, then we go the route of the Progressive Conservative Party or of the Liberal Party. But no, the people of Ontario have said it is the NDP they have asked to lead them. It is their party that will lead them, fighting the GST all the way to the end.

Let me speak also about wealth. We know that one of the reasons the GST is unacceptable is because it does not hit those who need to be taxed. Now, if we are going to see the taxation issue continue, we are going to have to begin right where we are, saying that the GST cannot, in any way, be acceptable to our form of taxation. It is regressive in every sense, it is punitive and it is unacceptable to this government. That is why we are going in the direction we are.

I thank the honourable members for their support. It is about time they found out that the people of Ontario need that support. I say to the honourable members of the opposition that in terms of their views of no revolt, let them be very clear this day and from this day on that the revolt was joined during the election. We knew where they were. Now they know where we are.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: We have just witnessed a very dramatic performance. I still do not have the answer on how this government will fight the tax. It must be with speeches, because that is all I have seen to this point. I am going to continue to resent, and my party resents, that members of this party, the NDP, continue day after day in this House to talk about themselves as being the only people in this province interested in people.

Every single member in this House represents people, and every single member in this House who is a politician is here to serve. The members of this party who continue to say they are the only ones interested in the poor should come to constituency offices around this province. I certainly resent the statements of the member for Victoria-Haliburton; I think he can do much better.

Mr Daigeler: The point I am raising is perhaps one of a somewhat delicate nature. I am not a clergyman myself; nevertheless, I am a theologian and have a rather extensive background in that field and I think perhaps I am permitted to make this comment.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton certainly has every right to dress whichever way he wants, but I think he has to decide whether he want to be in the House as a politician or as a clergyman. In the remarks he makes, we will attack him, criticize him as an MPP. However, many people watch us on television and I think they will be confused in their views about the way the member is representing himself with the collar as a representative of another profession. In my opinion, it would be the proper thing to be in this House as an MPP.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The discussion is on the principle of the bill and not on personality.

Mr Drainville: Mr Speaker, if I might rise on a point of privilege. I think there was an imputation that needs to be corrected for the member. Let me say this: The people of Victoria-Haliburton elected an Anglican priest to be their representative. I am proud to be both their representative and an Anglican priest and I am proud to wear the collar. If that offends the honourable member, that is too bad.

1620

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I tread into this with some trepidation with an honoured theologian and a man of the cloth. I do not know. Having attended a Catholic boarding school, where all they did was beat me up a few times --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: I am not allowed to talk about my background, apparently. Okay.

I fully respect the member's profession and background and point of view, but I am curious, because his Premier said he was going to lead a national revolt. Those are not our words. He stood over here and shouted at David Peterson that he should stop free trade. Yet when the shoe was on the other foot, it seems to me that -- help me, Mr Speaker, if my memory fails me -- the honourable member was one of the people who was arrested at Temagami and issued a press release on parliamentary assistant letterhead, I believe, which may be inappropriate, stating how proud he was to have been put in the slammer.

I do not understand: If the member believes in that sort of philosophy of lying down in front of the bulldozers, why does he not chain himself to the Peace Tower? Why does he not go off to Ottawa in some great cloud of dust and some of the member for Etobicoke West's smoke and some of the member for Yorkview's nonsense and say: "We're not going to take it any more. We're fed up and we're angry and we're not going to take it any more"? I do not see that. What I see is the member defending a backup position of his Premier and his minister, who are not prepared to live up to statements they made before they were elected to the job they hold.

Mr Perruzza: I have sat in this House, as the member for Yorkview has suggested, for several weeks now and we have engaged in a number of debates with both the official opposition and the third party. I cannot help but think, when I see a bill like this, that this is a revolt. This government is sticking to a commitment it made during an election campaign, which in many ways I see as a revolt on many fronts.

We had the Liberals sitting on this side of the House. When that revolt began at the end of July, they were 94 members strong. When that revolt carried through into September, they had been reduced to -- excuse the expression -- a handful of hecklers. I have not heard one concrete, positive suggestion come from that side of the House. I remember when the Premier was campaigning throughout this province --

Mr Stockwell: Pay for the stationery. That's a concrete suggestion.

Mr Perruzza: If members would like some, I will get them some on a good deal. By the way, it was tax-free.

I remember the Premier at the time, during the election campaign, tramping through this province. He came through this province on an iron horse. He jumped on a train, which he intended to steamroll --

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired.

Mr McClelland: It is a pleasure to participate again today in debate in the House. I want to address a few comments to the debate before us on second reading of Bill 1.

This bill touches on the retail sales tax. As has been said by my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau, we have to ask some questions about what is taking place here in light of the many promises and indeed the impression that was created by the government during the time of the campaign leading up to 6 September. Prior to that, I sat here for some time and listened at length to people -- who are now sitting, many of them in cabinet on these very benches -- talking of all the wonderful things they were going to do to protect the average working person on Ontario.

I might add, as my colleague the member for Ottawa-Rideau has said, that I too take exception to the suggestion that was made again today as I watched and listened on TV, the sense that only people who sit on the government side are sensitive to people's needs.

I want to tell members for a moment about the people who have called and come into my office, the people of Brampton North who have been in the past few weeks talking about taxes and the opportunity to address things in a real economic way in this province. We are talking about real people who may or may not have voted NDP, real people who may not even be able to vote because of their citizenship, people who may have voted for the so-called fringe parties, people who voted Progressive Conservative, and some, yes, who voted Liberal, but those people are real people who count on us to come here and represent them and do a job to the best of our ability and believe that principles of integrity and honesty work here.

It has been said before. It would be totally improper to suggest that anybody, because of his religious convictions or lack thereof -- to the same degree that those of us who espouse a particular political philosophy do not preclude of necessity anybody, however they vote and wherever they live, whatever their income or social position is. We are here together to do a job for them. I think we had better understand that fundamentally, if there is going to be a sense of working together.

The invitation of the Premier in this House was to work together for a constructive session of Parliament. We had better understand that we are here on the basis of the opportunity given to us and the responsibility given to us to discharge our duties in serving people in our community without regard to how they voted, where they come from or whether they voted at all.

When I hear of the wonderful things that are going to be done economically by this new government -- Bill l, of course, is the first, and we will see much more come in the near future --

Mr Harnick: After the moratorium.

Mr McClelland: I appreciate that. I was just going to say after the hold is removed, the freeze is gone. It reminds me of the fellow who was so despairing over a situation in his life that he jumped from a high-rise, and as he got about halfway down somebody saw him coming down and yelled, "How's it going?" He said, "Not bad so far." I really wonder what is going to happen when we come crashing down and they have to come to the reality that much of what they promised people are going to expect them to deliver on.

Bill 1 is an example of something that is not, I think, substantively contrary to what they promised in their election, but I think the impression was created that they were really going to do something totally different, that only the New Democrats had the answers to all of the woes and ills that befall society, things ranging from economic problems to environmental problems, to health care, to finances that affect people in a very real way.

When we are talking about the economy and finances, we are talking about real people. We are talking about the people you have been elected to serve and I have been elected to serve. We are talking about people like a 57-year-old man who contacted me at home during the weekend past. He is a skilled labourer who has enjoyed prosperity in the past number of years, who lived in Brampton and enjoyed, quite frankly, an economy for the past few years that had an employment problem. Our difficulty in the past few years in Brampton was not one of unemployment, it was one of employment; we could not find enough people to fill the jobs that were available in our community.

But that is beginning to change, and in light of that change people are saying: "What is the government going to do to help us? What's going to happen so that I don't have to worry about a bleak Christmas?" One individual represents many others, but this particular man, 57 years of age, still is not knowing where to turn.

1630

There are others. I have received more phone calls and had more people come into my constituency office over the past number of weeks than in my previous three years with respect to the economic crunch that they are feeling. That is not a problem that was born solely because of the changes on 6 September. Let's be realistic. The question that remains in the minds of people is, "What is this government going to do to help us?"

I want to talk about what is happening with Bill 1. The new government has said essentially that it is going to address the retail sales tax. In simplistic terms -- and I think people watching will be caught up in some of the jargon we talk about; let's kind of walk through this. You go out and buy an item now for $10 and you have your 80 cents put on it, provincial sales tax. What is going to happen with the goods and services tax is that 7% tax will be put on, and the New Democratic Party is saying, "We are not going to stack the provincial sales tax on top of that; we're going to put it beside the base price." That base price unit will do the parallel tax. That has an impact economically. It certainly puts money into the pockets of the consumers of the province.

But I want to contrast that -- and reference was made by my friend the member for Ottawa-Rideau -- with respect to what would have happened if the New Democratic Party had done something that was quite simple, and that was to reduce the sales tax. I am not going to take issue philosophically with whether they put it on top, put it beside or put it on top, having reduced the sales tax, because at the end of the day it is still going to provide some money to the people of the province at a time when we need to stimulate the economy.

What I want to talk about for a moment is a sector of this society that I think we have to pay heed to -- I am going to take the position now that I hope the members will listen to, those who are sitting opposite -- who, members may be surprised to know, are real people too. Some of them voted for the NDP, many of them voted for the NDP. That is the small business person -- the person who runs the small shop, the individual who together with perhaps mother and daughter runs a small shop at the corner, those who are employed, creating the vast majority of jobs for people graduating from our high schools and community colleges.

As we look at the application of this tax, I think that what we have to do is ask ourselves what consideration is being given to what may seem to the government to be a very simplistic problem but is the practical problem that businesses have in administering taxes. The government has provided, happily, a little bump-up in terms of the tax that they are able to maintain as the cost of doing business, if you will, the first percentage that need not be remitted to the Treasury.

As businesses are gearing up for the implementation of the GST, they want to know clearly how they can do that in a smooth transition and provide their staff with the means of collecting tax and then remitting it. I raise that simply to say to the government that there is an issue of consideration with respect to the small business sector and the small business community across this province. They want to work in harmony with the government of the day, whatever government that is, but I want my friends the members opposite to be very aware that they are a voice that needs to be heard.

We are talking about economics, we are talking about taxes. The bill that is before us on second reading today touches on a specific tax: provincial sales tax. It brings tremendous revenue to the province of Ontario, but with that revenue is also opportunity to do things for people.

I want to talk about Brampton for a very brief moment. In 1989 we had applications in Brampton in terms of social assistance in the month of October of some 1,970, approximately 2,000. This month there were 3,107 who applied for social assistance in the region of Peel. One might ask what relevance that has to the tax that we are talking about today in the bill. Let me address that rhetorical question. The question is about people in need in our communities. The question is about a government that said: "We are going to fight a tax because we believe it will hurt people. It's the wrong tax at the wrong time."

I have a very interesting view of the GST. I will be happy to share it with members some time. I happen to believe that we need fundamental tax reform in this country and, indeed, I would be happy to see some fundamental tax reform. But the government told the people of this province that it was going to make sure that they were not subject to this tax. Now what the government is saying is, and it has been said before by my colleagues: "We'll pick up on it because it's convenient. We're going to change it a little bit, we are going to put a little bit of a different twist on it. We are going to do a parallel, as opposed to an on-top, tax but we are really going to run with this."

I think people are asking, "When are you going to come forward and when are you going to lie down in front of the bulldozers or whatever you feel it is appropriate to do?" I do not say that in a trite, offhand sense; I say that in a sense of people wanting to know what the minister is going to do to help them. Is this an indicator of his commitment to fight for the people who believed that they were going to have him in their comer fighting for them? It seems to me that a lot of people are going to be disappointed if this is the message that is being sent to them across the province.

There are a number of communities right across Ontario who are hurting very, very badly at the present time. There are one-industry towns that are in jeopardy. Today, my friend from the riding of Algoma-Manitoulin raised the issue of how many people are out of work in the forestry industry.

The GST, with its implementation, and the lack of clarity, the lack of understanding that people have with respect to it, the fear that is creating the uncertainty, at economic times, when they are already faced, clearly, with recession, compounded by the uncertainty of a government that says, "We are not really sure about how we are going to fight it, we are not sure what we are going to do," adds to that kind of difficulty, that sense of despair that people are feeling economically. They are looking to him for leadership. They are looking to him to say, "Here is what we are going to do to help."

Bill 1 sends a very, very plain signal to people. It says we are going to do a few little things on the fringes, we are going to make an adjustment here and an adjustment there, but we are not prepared to deal with taxation that we said we would deal with in a head-on, fundamental way.

It seems to be that this is true in the case of the act to amend the retail sales tax. How much more are they going to have to, if I can use the word, compromise the positions that they took across this province on other matters that are much more plain? The Premier said very, very clearly in unqualified terms, without qualification, "We will have nothing to do with this and we will stop it." Today we are debating a bill that says: "We cannot stop it, really. We recognize that reality."

The member for Victoria-Haliburton says they will fight to the dying day, right to the last moment. And let this be marked today in the Legislature: This party, the New Democratic Party, is going to fight it henceforth. That fight will continue.

Rhetoric is great. It is easy for any one of us to stand up and express his displeasure, but having said that, I think people are going to say they appreciate the government's position, they respect its position, "But what are you going to do? How are you going to help me? Is this going to find me a job? Is it going to create jobs in my community?" Is it going to help the agriculture sector, I say to the Speaker? Is it going to help people in Hamilton who are facing layoffs as the steel industry faces difficulty upon difficulty compounded by the taxes that are coming at a very inopportune time? People in the north. where communities are suffering, is it going to do something for them?

Is this the message, is this the signal that is being sent by the current government? "We really cannot do a whole lot. We are just going to fine-tune what has already taken place."

The Retail Sales Tax Act is very important for a variety of reasons. One of the fundamental reasons, as I have said, is that it impacts people on a day-to-day basis. It impacts small business people who are collecting the tax, it impacts consumers, manufacturers, those who create jobs; impacts the jobless, the homeless; it impacts people in every corner of Ontario.

I hope that as we conclude this debate, whenever it may be today, we would hear forthcoming from the government benches a sense not of rhetoric in a sense of saying, "This is how we're going to fight this terrible tax," this goods and services tax that they are so opposed to and have stated clearly that they are opposed to, but they would say in addition to that, "We want to provide some concrete direction for this province."

1640

There are people in my community and in communities represented by every member here who are worried, who are uncertain about what is going to happen. The first of January 1991 will roll around 27 days from now. It is apparent that the goods and services tax will be in place. There is already tremendous stretch, strain on the economic fabric of our province, indeed our country, but in this province the new government has an opportunity to put some elasticity back into that so that it will not stretch to the breaking point. The Minister of Revenue has brought forward a bill and we understand the principle and the rationale for it. We will be supporting it in second reading because we think that it is making a cut, in part, for the consumer of this province.

I raise again the issue, by way of contrast, of if we had taken that 1% and knocked it off the provincial sales tax, injected $1.1 billion into the economy now. If people knew that $1.1 billion was going to be there, created or saved 15,000 jobs, perhaps some of them in the forest industry, that may have prevented the individual who came in to see me, that 56-year-old gentleman who does not have a job, perhaps people from Cochrane South, I say to my friend who is shaking his head. Maybe those 15,000 jobs would have affected his community. Maybe some of them would have helped people there.

I think that it is important that we consider what else can be done in light of this. We need to move forward with a concrete plan, move forward with an economic agenda that we want to see forthcoming from the government that is going to create jobs at a time when the goods and services tax is going to put a damper on an already stagnant economy. So I say that as we proceed with this debate I would hope that our friends opposite would be prepared to indicate in their response what else they might be able to do.

With respect to Bill 1, which is before us, my friend the member for Ottawa-Rideau very clearly and very ably set out some of the problems with it, some of the deficiencies that we feel are there. I think the fundamental deficiency is this -- and in conclusion I want to draw this point to the attention of the people of Ontario and this House. People look at this very, very symbolically. The mechanics of it, I think, are problematic in terms of the small business community, and I have a very real concern about that. I would urge the government as it deliberates and brings legislation forward to make that a very, very important factor in determining what kind of legislation it is going to bring forward and how it is going to implement it.

But the symbolism that is contained herein that says, "We're going to deal with this not exactly the way we told you we were going to deal with it," says to the people of Ontario: "What have we got here? What gives? What's going to happen? They promised us that they were going to fight this. They promised us they would have nothing to do with it. They promised us that they were going to protect us from all of the ills that befall society."

Quite frankly, I wish them well. I hope that they are able to do all of the wonderful things that they have promised. Apparently they have all the answers for all the problems in the world and I hope they can deliver on some of them. The GST was one of them, one promise that they were going to deliver on. They were going to take care of it. They were going to make sure it was not going to happen. They were going to protect the people in Brampton, in Cochrane South, in Hamilton, in the north. They were going to take care of them. They were going to make sure that the GST did not hurt them any further.

The people who are hurting, people who are out of work, who will have a very bleak Christmas and no good prospects for the year 1991, who were represented on the shop floor by the government members -- I see my friend opposite who did that and did that ably -- are now saying: "What's going to happen? What are you going to do? Is this a message? Are you going to just cave in? Are you just going to pick things up and go along with a nice little twist that really does not do anything to help us in a significant way? Could you not have done more? Could you have seized this as an opportunity to really put some teeth into what you said you were going to do?"

I ask them again and I say that is the question that the people of Ontario, the people in Brampton North are wondering about, "What is this government going to do to help us?" They said that they were going to stop the GST. They have talked about it very eloquently, I might say. Our friend the member for Victoria-Haliburton stood up and with --

Interjection.

Mr McClelland: Well, I would not want to use the expression the member for Mississauga East used, and I hope Hansard did not pick that up. The member for Victoria-Haliburton very ably put forward his position and he has obviously had much opportunity to put forth a variety of inspirational messages in the past. I am inspired and encouraged by what he said today.

Again, we are talking about this bill. This is the story of the clergyman -- and believe me, if members bear with me, there is some relevance -- who attended one of his parishioners who was really not doing well at all. Unhappily, he was about to pass on. I think I may have told this story once before to the House. He talked to the clergyman and said:

"I wonder if you could call my physician and my solicitor to my bedside. I want to charge the three of you with a very important responsibility."

This supposedly average citizen in the parish turned out to be quite wealthy, but in fact he had stored all of his money underneath his bed. He was, in a word, a miser and had tucked away the money. Upon his imminent demise, he called his clergyman, solicitor and physician together and said:

"Now, I know I am not long for this world, but I am going to charge you with an interesting responsibility. I am going to put $200,000 into three different envelopes and I am going to give you one each. I want to prove that in fact you can take it with you. I want you to put this money on top of my coffin as they lower me into the ground."

Of course it was pledged to the dying that they would do this. As it was inevitable, the man passed on and the three people attended the funeral and three envelopes were very discreetly deposited into the grave. But on the way back, the clergyman's conscience, as you would expect, was bothering him and he was obviously the most likely to first confess. He said to his colleagues:

"I have to tell you something. There is $200,000, but the church really needs a new furnace and I pulled $50,000 out of that envelope. But I did not think it would really matter because it was, after all, going to service in the community, a good cause."

The physician, whose conscience was somewhat bothered by this, said:

"Well, I have to confess too. I took $100,000 of the $200,000 out of the envelope and I only deposited $100,000. But the $100,000 that I took I used to furnish the nursery at the new hospital, because that hospital desperately needed a new nursery." They undoubtedly blamed it on the previous government and said that they had not provided enough transfer payments.

The lawyer said:

"I am really, really disappointed in you two gentlemen. I want to tell you that I deposited a cheque for the full amount with the casket."

I see the member for Victoria-Haliburton chuckling.

Maybe there is a little message in there. Maybe the people of Ontario are wondering, was the cheque deposited or was it the real goods? I think they are going to be asking themselves, is this government prepared to deliver on what they said they were going to do? They made some pledges. They said that they were going to do all kinds of wonderful things; they have not done them. Bill 1 is evidence of that. I think Bill 1 stands, in effect, as a first opportunity for them to send a message to the people of Ontario, an opportunity to clearly stake out their ground with their friends in Ottawa -- maybe they are not their friends, but the government in Ottawa -- and let them know where they are coming from. They have not done it.

I say to them that as we proceed with this debate, and as other legislation comes forward, the people of Ontario want to know, what are they going to do to live up to their promise? What are they going to do to fight this scourge of the GST, as they have titled it?

I look forward to hearing what might be done in the future. Thank you, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to participate.

1650

Mr B. Ward: I would like to thank my good friend the member for Brampton North on his good speech. He was very calm and collected in his thoughts, and I think that is the way the debate should be in this House.

However, he did make reference to the potential $1.1-billion sales tax cut that was proposed during the recent election. It was made reference to a couple of times in the speeches by the opposition party about what should be done to put money in the pockets of the people of Ontario.

I would like to point out that what they failed to explain is that their policy would have been to tax the goods and services tax. So while they are giving $1.1 billion to the people of Ontario on one hand, they are taking $500 million away on the other hand, leaving a net $600 million increase that goes to the people of Ontario.

I would like to point out that we have gone better than that, that we are putting $700 million of new money into the economy through constructive work in our municipalities. I think that is the appropriate way to go, the best way to go for the people of Ontario in this case.

Mr Hope: There are a couple of good things I want to bring out. Number one is, we do have small businesses out there that are petrified at what is going on. They understand the ramifications of the goods and services tax. They do know that when the goods and services tax comes in, their business is probably going to go away. But they have been a part of the coalition group that has been formed in Ontario to fight the goods and services tax. They have been very instrumental in this.

But I think the opposition has been so adapted to seeing people with signs and lying in front of trucks and lying in front of bulldozers and I think the people of Ontario are tired of doing that. A lot of people are proud to see that we are not piggybacking on the fault of the federal government. At least they have a government that is trying to help out a little bit and making some changes within the realm where it can make the changes. I think the people are going to somewhat welcome this. Yes, it is not everything we want in killing the goods and service tax, but I think in two years, when we have an election, if we do have an election, there may be some changes that will kill that incident.

I think the whole thing is that we have a major issue out there with the goods and services tax. It is one step our government is doing. We do not want to have to mobilize people again to come to Queen's Park, to go to Ottawa. People are getting tired of it. What they are looking for is a government to at least try to assist in some way to make changes within its power, to have a little bit of respect and put a little bit more money into their pockets and not into the pockets of the government or corporations.

Mrs Sullivan: I want to comment on the remarks of the member for Brampton North, who I thought was very articulate and energetic in his discussions relating to Bill 1. I particularly appreciated his eloquence in discussing the work of all of the members in the House to forward legislative matters, and the integrity and the work that is required of us applies to all members. There is no corner on integrity by any party or any area in the House. I thought that they were useful reminders, particularly for new members.

I also thought that he spoke very practically about the impact of this bill in combination with the GST on small business in Ontario. We know that small businesses are the largest employers in the province. It is a sector that is already hurting in a downturning economy. We know that the GST, and in fact this bill in conjunction with the GST, will add new demands to their particular burdens at this time of economic life. We know that their administrative costs will increase. We know that those administrative costs, whether they be in adding personnel or in the addition of new machines, will be substantially more demanding with the GST coming on board.

I think the member has indicated that some of the paralleling that is being done in this bill simplifies some of the problems that small business will have, but I guarantee members that this bill will not solve those problems. Frankly I would like to have seen, along with the member for Brampton North, additional fight and additional spirit from the Minister of Revenue in terms of ensuring that our small businesses did not hurt as much as it appeared that they were going to with the GST.

Mr McClelland: I want to say to my mend the member for Brantford, who said I was calm and so forth today, I appreciate that because I look over and see those smiling faces and it is easy to relax. But, believe me, there might be an opportunity, and when the time comes, members may be surprised to see a different reaction from time to time.

But I do want to say to my friend the member for Brantford that we are given a tremendous amount of latitude in this House from time to time and we are often allowed to say things that are on our minds. As members will notice from the comments that I made, we are even allowed to wander a fair bit. But one of the things that people expect is for us to be relatively accurate.

For the sake of the record, I want the record to show that I appreciate what the member is trying to say, but the $1.1 billion is a net benefit if the sales tax is reduced by 1%. With respect to what the member talked about, I think it is important, given the latitude that we are allowed in this House, and I want to correct what the member put on the record, that it would have been $1.1 billion net, 15,000 jobs created and/or saved net in this province with the reduction of 1% on the sales tax. Having regard to what the member said, the rest of it I think makes sense, and I understand what he is saying.

I say to my friend the member for Chatham-Kent, when he was representing people in the union, they wanted his help. He is going to find in this place from time to time that he is going to be able to help some of the people most of the time a little bit. Some of the people are going to be helped entirely. They do not want a little bit of help. The member said that. He is going to help them a little bit. They did not ask for a little bit of help. He promised to help them totally, and they are saying to him: "We elected you not to help us a little bit. We elected you to help us all the way because that is what you promised." So I say to my friend the member for Chatham-Kent, a little bit will not do in this case.

Mr Mahoney: Come on, stay calm.

Mr Sutherland: Just to respond to the member for Mississauga West, I am certainly going to try to follow in the footsteps of the member for Brampton North and remain calm and collected and leave a sense of decorum here in the House today.

It is a pleasure for me to speak today on the first bill that we have the opportunity of dealing with in this House, particularly again to speak on behalf of the people of Oxford, who were very kind to send me to this House.

I want to talk about several things related to the bill. I want to talk a bit about GST. I want to talk a bit about taxation. I would like to talk a little bit about some of the areas that the member for Brampton North also mentioned in terms of the effects of taxation on small business and deal with some of the other initiatives.

I think there is general agreement, we have heard today there is general agreement, that all three parties dislike the GST, that we think it is a bad tax, that we think it is the wrong tax at the wrong time and that it is not in the best interests of this country and certainly not in the best interests of this province.

The members of the opposition have pointed out that the Premier said during the campaign that he would lead a national revolt against the GST. The members of the opposition have also said in their arguments today that they do not believe this government has done anything to fight the GST and do not believe that the action in this bill is enough.

I would like to remind the members of the opposition that this government has joined in a legal battle to fight the GST. My friends opposite here and from the Liberal Party have talked quite a bit, saying that we were not doing anything about it. They brought up the example of free trade and they talked about how our Premier, the former Leader of the Opposition at the time, called upon the former Premier, Mr Peterson, to fight the free trade agreement. Mr Peterson, in the 1987 election, said he would fight the free trade agreement. Once Mr Peterson got his majority, what were his comments? There was nothing he could do.

1700

There is a distinct difference between what our Premier has done and what the past Premier has done. Our Premier, cabinet, caucus and this government have decided to engage in a legal battle in the courts to oppose the GST. Now maybe the members of the opposition do not have a lot of respect for the judicial system in this country or do not feel that this is a very significant way of fighting the goods and services tax, but I would think that when it boils down to everything, we all must respect the laws and the courts in this country. We must have very high regard for that. So I would hardly call a legal battle an insignificant act in fighting the GST.

As a matter of fact, it is a very significant act because it clearly states and clearly outlines what the position of this government is in relation to the GST. We do not believe they have the authority to collect the GST. They are interfering in provincial territory and we are taking them to court to fight that.

I do think that is an important point to be put on the record. I guess it comes down to a definition of how you define national revolt. The people over there in the opposition have suggested that maybe some of our members should go and chain themselves to the Peace Tower and do other things of that nature. I just do not believe that members of the opposition should belittle what a legal battle is and how that states what this government wants to do.

I hardly think the members of the Liberal opposition have a great deal of credibility on this issue in trying to tell us or trying to suggest that we are not doing enough on it. They said they opposed the GST as well. What were they going to do? They were going to charge the GST on top of the provincial sales tax. I am very happy that the Minister of Revenue and this government have seen fit to change that and that we will not be charging the provincial sales tax on top of the GST. We will only be charging it as it normally was on the base rate.

Clearly, that is a significant difference again from what the Liberals were saying. They were saying they opposed the GST, but to use the term that I believe was used earlier by the member for Ottawa-Rideau, they were going to harmonize the GST and the provincial sales tax. So, as I stated earlier, clearly the members of the Liberal opposition do not have a great deal of credibility in trying to say this government is not doing anything on the GST.

I am very happy to see that the member for Etobicoke West, in representing the Conservative Party, has said that his party supports the initiatives in this legislation and primarily the initiative not to charge the GST on top of the provincial sales tax. I am very happy that the member for Etobicoke West is supporting us. I think all of us should probably make a note of that and see how many times that may happen again during this term of the Legislature.

I think some of the other initiatives that the Minister of Revenue has brought forward in this bill are also encouraging. The fact that the minister and the ministry have recognized the impact that this is going to have on the business community and particularly small business people by giving them extra percentages for collecting sales tax and for some of the other things that have been initiated relating to audits and refunds, giving them an extended time to deal with those issues, were very positive initiatives in trying to make this bill have less effect on the people of Ontario.

Clearly, there is only so much this government can do. We are certainly trying. Many people who are members of this caucus, as has already been mentioned, were very active in many groups throughout this province who were trying to form a coalition to oppose the GST. They have stated those opinions on many occasions.

As to whether we can deal with all the issues related to it, only time is really going to tell. But we have clearly stated our opposition to the GST and we are taking action on it, unlike the Liberals were doing when they were in power.

I want to come back to the comments about what our colleague the member for Brampton North was talking about. I am talking about the issues of taxation affecting small business. I too -- and it might be to the surprise of the member for Brampton North -- am very concerned about issues of taxation on small business. I really do feel that many members of my caucus are as well.

While the members of the third party constantly talk about taxation, how high taxes are, and on and on, yes, some of the small business people I talk to are concerned about taxation. But I think what they are really concerned about is the question of how much work is involved in remitting their taxes.

I certainly hope that when the Fair Tax Commission is established, all of us, whether from this side or from the other parties, can look at ways of how we can simplify this process for small business people so we can make it much easier for them to figure out the amount of taxes that they must remit and cut down on some of the paperwork. Clearly, a lot of the accounting procedures and other things that they have to do to be able to figure out the amount of tax they have to remit takes a lot of time, takes a lot of money.

I think we would all agree that the federal GST is a prime example of creating a whole new bureaucracy, an accounting nightmare for many businesses. I have heard many of them talk about how they have had to get entire new computer programs to be able to figure out the GST and how costly that is going to be to their businesses, primarily small businesses.

That is an issue that all of us are going to have to address in the future. I certainly hope the role of the Fair Tax Commission will be to examine that issue closely and that we will receive lots of input from the small business people in this province.

There are a lot of other issues here that have been mentioned today about taxation in general. We heard calls for tax reform from members of the Liberal Party. It was quite interesting because we certainly know that in their five years, three years in majority government, there was ample time to put proposals forward on widespread tax reform, but I do not recall seeing any of those proposals come forward.

Again, here we have another issue where the opposition is saying one thing now, but did not act upon that thing when it was in government. I realize the role of the opposition is trying to point out faults in the legislation and trying to point out problems, but I do believe that the opposition also has an obligation to try to be consistent in its criticisms.

I also have not heard a lot of constructive suggestions. We have heard what the problems are in this legislation, but we have not heard a lot of alternatives from the opposition. I think it is important as well when you are criticizing things that you certainly propose alternatives, as I fundamentally believe our party did during the election campaign. When we presented An Agenda for People, we were presenting a platform of reform, an agenda of what this government wanted to do if it was elected. I think that is one reason why the people of Ontario responded to our party rather than to the third party.

During the election campaign, all the members of the third party talked about was taxation -- taxes were too high. The members of the third party seem to have a rather simple outlook about life and how everything operates. They could not put their collective minds together to come up with a genuine platform that the people of Ontario would endorse. As a result of that, the people of Ontario clearly rejected them during the campaign. As you can see, they remain the third party.

I also think, if you look at the issues related in the campaign and what we said about taxation un general, we talked about fair taxation. I mentioned earlier that I hope, once the commission is established and is up and operating in the new year, will look at -- all kinds of issues of fair taxation, not only the ones about what small businesses must do in terms of accounting procedure. There are a lot of other areas where I personally feel we need to make a lot of changes on taxation issues.

1710

I think these are most of the comments I wanted to make today on this piece of legislation. Again, I want to compliment the Minister of Revenue, her staff and the cabinet for proposing this as the first piece of legislation. I think it is very significant that this is the first piece of legislation from our government, being our first time in government. It is a clear commitment to the issues we outlined in the campaign when we said that we would not charge the provincial sales tax on top of the GST.

Clearly, when this legislation is passed, the people of Ontario will know that this is a government of integrity and that it is working to keep its promises to the people.

Mr Ruprecht: I listened quite intently and with a certain respect to the member for Oxford and the member for Brantford, and these are honourable gentlemen, but that is the very term Mark Antony described before these kinds of honourable gentlemen stuck the knife into Caesar's back.

What did these honourable gentlemen and honourable women promise the people of Ontario? What was the promise? A tax reform or a tax revolt. There is nothing that this government can be happy about and certainly proud about when it is talking about this specific bill and this specific piece of legislation. I cannot think that they can be proud. In fact, they should be ashamed of themselves because they did not keep the promise.

They promised the taxpayers of Ontario that they would fight. Is this what they call fighting? I call this sticking the knife deeper and deeper into the backs of the already taxpaying public of this province. Do they want to be proud of this fact that they are even continuing to maintain harmony with the new GST? Are they going to be proud of the fact that they are increasing the bankruptcies that are going to happen in terms of more people being on the dole? Is this the kind of pride they are going to show?

My friends made a solemn promise to the people of Ontario and they did not keep it, and consequently I think they can take no pride in trying to mitigate that promise by simply saying: "We're trying to do the best we can. We're trying to be reasonable people."

This GST is not reasonable. This bill is not reasonable. We expect them to stand up and fight and lead the tax revolt that they promised the people of Ontario. Where is this NDP that said, "We'll fight"? Where are these guys who said to themselves, "If not, we're going to chain ourselves to the fences and to the posts"? Where are they now? They should stand up and be counted and reject the --

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): Time.

Mr Daigeler: The honourable member for Oxford is taking great pride in this bill and is talking about the integrity of the government. However, I think, in fairness and in integrity, he should also mention that this bill, off the bat, adds $500 million to the provincial deficit. I respect his decision and I respect the decision of his government and of the Treasurer to do that. He was elected to adjust the budget according to his own wishes, but I think he should not then stand up in this House and say: "Well, the former government and the bad Liberals left a big hole in the provincial Treasury and therefore we cannot afford to fund universities. We have to charge tuition fees for students."

The way the minister seemed to indicate this afternoon in question period, I think he should be up front and say, "Yes, we deliberately are adding $500 million to the provincial deficit by taking this measure and that is the decision we have taken." I think he should mention that to the people of Ontario as well.

Mr McClelland: My new friend the member for Oxford made reference to the fact that he too is very concerned about the small business sector, as are some of his colleagues in government. I just want to say that the sentiment I have heard expressed around the province of late is that in the current economic state, without any clear direction or knowing where we are going, the way to get a small business going in Ontario is to start a big one and just wait.

Mr White: The member for Parkdale referred to Julius Caesar, Shakespeare's play, and I recall a passage from that where the question that Antony raised was, "Pardon me, thou bleeding piece of earth, that I am gentle and meek with these butchers." This is in fact what has happened to the people of Ontario, to the people of Canada. After years and years of regressive taxes, which the GST represents, we have been butchered, and butchered again.

This is the first step on our government's part to introduce a fair tax system. It is symbolic that it is Bill 1. I think it incumbent upon the members opposite in the Liberal Party to remember that supposedly their confreres in the senate are battling that same tax. I am not sure if they recall that or not, but certainly this is an important step, this bill. But in and of itself it is only one step towards reintroducing a real sense of fairness in the taxation of the people of Ontario. Certainly, people in Ontario did not vote for us thinking that we were going to lower taxes. No one in our party said that. What we did say was that we would be introducing a fair tax system, and this is certainly the first step in that. I think the people of Ontario will be proud and will be grateful that this is our first act.

Mr Sutherland: I just want to deal with a couple of points that the member for Parkdale mentioned when he talked about harmonizing the provincial sales tax with the GST. I think that as a member who was part of the government, he also realized that as a government you have to be responsible. Let me say this: This government is not backing down on its commitment to fight the GST. We are going to fight it as much as we can. We are fighting it through the courts and we are going to fight it in other ways. But I also think it would be very irresponsible, if our battle is not successful, not to be prepared to deal with the fact that the GST could become a reality. Rather than saying that the minister is harmonizing here, I think the minister is being responsible and preparing should that occur.

I also want to deal with this issue about the $500 million and whether we are being responsible by adding to the deficit. I believe we are being very responsible by ensuring that $500 million stays in the pockets of the people of Ontario. As the Treasurer has stated, that is also part of our policy for helping to deal with the recession, along with the $700 million that we are committing. That is going to help stimulate the economy.

The member for Etobicoke West even stated earlier that $500 million is nothing to sneeze at, so I guess maybe his fellow member is beginning to sneeze at $500 million and does not think that is significant in terms of helping to stimulate the economy of the province.

1720

Mr Conway: I appreciate the opportunity to engage in the debate on Bill 1 and I want to congratulate the member for Port Arthur on this, her first ministerial responsibility in so far as bringing legislation to the House is concerned.

I must say of my constituents, and I will speak largely for my constituents in eastern Ontario, that if there is one subject about which they would like me to express an opinion, I have to believe it is on the subject of the goods and services tax. I would certainly expect that before this debate is over, most members of the Legislature will want to avail themselves of the opportunity Bill 1 provides, which is of course an opportunity to express their views and their concerns about this particular tax and how the provincial retail sales tax will apply.

I was very interested in listening to what some of my friends opposite were saying about the policy of the government. I certainly respect the position that has been advanced and I really congratulate the government for coming forward in a way that is consistent with its electoral manifesto.

I listened very carefully to the member for Oxford and I heard him say what I heard my New Democratic opponents say in the election campaign. I thought it was very skilful what the New Democratic Party did with respect to this issue. They made very plain their views about how reprehensible it was to impose a tax on a tax and they congratulate, happily, the member for Port Arthur, the Minister of Revenue, who now gets to come into this House and to do what they said they would do.

In the debate during the election campaign, and quite frankly in most of this debate, I do not think I will hear very much about the pain of that position which, by the way, will not be borne by the Minister of Revenue, good person that she is. It is of course her silent partner, the member for Nickel Belt, who will really now have to wrestle with the downside of this decision, and the downside of this decision is to forgo $500 million worth of existing revenue.

I know that will not trouble most people, and it probably should not, because that is why cabinet ministers are paid more than private members. and in this case the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt. He will really have some fun with this. Interestingly, on the basis of his statement yesterday, in the first few months he will apparently be able to fill the gap with a windfall from provincial income tax payable, which is up this year by about $500 million.

I am prepared to suggest that a year from now the Treasurer will be, not here but in another place, the Frost Building, looking at data that will be probably the reverse, deeply, deeply discouraging information from the federal Department of Finance that will probably suggest that because the recession of 1990-1991, the winter particularly, was so much deeper than anything we had planned for, revenues on the personal income tax side will not be $500 million above what had been projected, but in fact might be, as they were in 1981, 1982 and/or 1983, $500 million to $800 million below expectations.

So for the moment I would simply observe that what we have here is an initiative that is going to cost the Treasurer about $500 million. One might say, how can that be? It is simply that this was, of course, some of the more sophisticated argumentation, which was not and could not really be advanced in something as colourful as an election campaign. But as honourable members will know, certainly as the Treasurer will know, for a long time the provincial sales tax in this province has applied to the federal manufacturers tax.

I simply observe that a consequence of this initiative will be to deny the Treasurer of Ontario roughly $500 million of revenue that has been traditionally made available by that long-standing practice of a tax on a tax. That I do not expect will trouble very many people, but I know one person it will trouble. It will trouble in a real and big way the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, because it may not appear to be very much, but I want to submit to my friends on both sides of the aisle that $500 million is, at last report, more than the entire budget of the Ministry of the Environment, more than the entire budget of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, more than the entire budget for the Ministry of the Attorney General.

As I say, a year from now when as a result of this initiative, which I say again is consistent with what the members opposite advanced during the recent electoral campaign -- I will be very interested to see six or eight or 12 months from now how in a new budget cycle -- unlike some people over here, I am going to give time and opportunity to my friends opposite because I do not think it is fair to expect too much too soon. I think there should be opportunity at least to the point of the next budget, because I know that my friends opposite are a very skilful, capable group who have made very significant commitments that in time they are going to want to keep, and they are going to want to pay for those promises.

I know that this is not Social Credit. I know that, as the Premier said on Wall Street a couple of weeks ago, they are going to be fiscally responsible. But a year from now as a result of this initiative, my guess is that revenue losses that are going to be very significant as a result of the recession, and the member for Nickel Belt, someone for whom I have the highest regard, is going to have to show himself to be more dexterous than I can imagine myself ever being, so I will be interested over time to see how that develops.

I am also, by the way, going to be interested to see as a result of this policy what the Minister of Revenue does over time when, as I suspect, we will get from the government of Canada a value-added-tax-included GST. That is really going to be interesting. It will not happen right away, but I suspect it will happen over time. I will say to the Minister of Revenue -- not really today because it is not an issue for today, but the Premier rightly observes that this is a five-year mandate. I suspect that before the five-year mandate is out, I suspect that before 18 months has passed, we might very well have ourselves in Canada a VAT-included GST. Then I am going to be interested to see how the principle of Bill 1 applies in so far as Ontario is concerned.

I want to say a couple of other things about this bill and the principle to which it speaks, and for me, again, I am really concerned about its relationship to the goods and services tax. I say so as the duly elected member for one of the 130 electoral districts. I have been around for some 15 years. I have seen a number of taxes come and go, but I have never seen a public upset over a tax quite like I have seen over the GST, and I have to remind myself that the tax in most cases has not yet been felt. My sense is that the GST will produce a fire-storm. We have talked in parliaments about what the principle is, and I always enjoy listening to economists talk about fairness and equity.

In my really mischievous moments, and somebody earlier this afternoon talked about the Fair Tax Commission -- I think it is a very good idea. It might start, for example, with market value assessment in certain communities where I think we have, in the antiseptic sense at least, a good database. It might be not entirely, but I think most reasonable people would agree that if you want to talk about fairness and equity in an antiseptic sense, I cannot think of a better place to start with for the Fair Tax Commission than market value assessment.

1730

My learned colleagues opposite will know why there has been some reluctance to proceed in that connection. I must say, one of the joyful realities of the new polity in Ontario is, as I said the other day, that the wheel has come full circle. All of the main parties will now have an experience in government. I think that will lead to a very significant maturation of the political debate in Ontario, because I well remember in a previous life having to do something that I had not done as a private member. I remember having to defend certain taxes, and often, in cases where equity and fairness could not have been more abundantly clear, a lot of people who said they were for equity and fairness took to the hills like Che Guevara because they understood the reality of politics.

As I say, for my friends in the new government who are interested in equity and fairness, I think of one large urban community, for example, in the province. I cannot imagine that there will be much restraint in terms of market value assessment. Apostles of and advocates for fairness and justice in taxation might very well start with that proposition, because, as I say, an awful lot of good work has been done by a lot of very learned people over the years.

But back to the point about the GST. In my area of rural, small-town eastern Ontario, people are upset. They would want me to convey that sense of upset and rage over the GST in the course of this debate and I am pleased to do so on their behalf.

I really do think that this is the tax that is going to push a lot of people over the edge. I was struck, for example, in some of the analysis across the Atlantic, to realize that in fact it may have been the community charge which ended a government in Britain a couple of days ago. By all accounts, of the several ingredients that ended the Thatcher government, the community charge was perhaps the most significant issue in driving the members of the government caucus to a change, and a change that led to the resignation of the former Prime Minister.

When people in my part of Ontario, and certainly elsewhere in the province and country, start to pay this tax, when they start to realize that it is going to apply to funeral services, to reading materials that are not religious, to certain foods, to a host of daily items and inputs that have not been taxed before -- in Pembroke, Petawawa and Killaloe they are mad already and they have not even started to pay this tax.

I think it is going to be very important for all politicians to understand this concern of tax burden. I have to say to my friends opposite that when in the Agenda for People the member for York South promised a tax revolt, some of the 19% of voters in North Renfrew who voted for the New Democratic candidate cited to me on the street that that was why they were going to support the very distinguished candidate for that party in my constituency. Because people were and are angry.

I am not going to rethrash the old straw about what kind of revolt constitutes a real revolt. Some of us over the last few years watched the now member for Brant-Haldimand engage in some pretty interesting tactics. I can appreciate how some of my friends might be excused for thinking that we might see a certain kind of behaviour to give effect to the commitment in the Agenda for People.

I saw the Premier -- I think he was at the Ottawa airport -- yesterday morning, as he gathered together with people like Mr Romanow and Ms McLaughlin and others to plan the NDP national approach, part of which appears to be an abandonment of the goods and services tax, I think an enormously popular position. And who knows? We may be 18 to 34 months away from that day in the history of Canada when the member for Yukon will have her opportunity.

I only know this from my experience in government, that at the national level we continue to spend at well above our capacity to pay. My friends opposite will say that is because the system is not very fair. I would be very happy to see the goods and services tax abandoned. I would never accept an invitation to become the Minister of Finance for Canada, and I would resist very rigorously an invitation to become the Treasurer for Ontario, because I know something of the pressures that this bill will place on my good friend the member for Nickel Belt. They will get worse, not lighter.

My sense as well is that people are going to, as a result of this tax, begin to look very carefully at how it is we spend their money. I get a growing sense from my constituents -- very good, hard working, self-reliant people, who are not very happy about some of the things I did on their behalf as a member and minister in the previous government -- but I sense their tolerance for some patterns of government spending, which are in the theoretical sense very eminently supportable, losing a lot of its appeal as people look at the month-end pay stub. All they see is that as they work more and more, they do not seem to be moving ahead.

I want to take issue, quite frankly, with some of my friends opposite. In my area some of the most privileged people in the community are the most active supporters for the New Democratic Party, and that is as it should be. Many people who are well-off in an economic sense support me, but sometimes I hear in this House that our friends opposite -- and one of my colleagues took umbrage at this earlier this afternoon -- the sense is sometimes left by my friends opposite, and I know it is inadvertent, that they represent exclusively the poor and downtrodden.

I think the NDP over the decade has done quite a good job, particularly in advocating for a lot of those groups. But I can only again speak from personal, local experience. Some of the most economically well-off people in my constituency are the most able supporters of the New Democratic Party. I have always been struck by some of their views on tax reform. I think they are in for some interesting surprises.

I am all for fairness and equity. I want more, not less of it, and I am expecting that our friends opposite are going to be able to deliver what they have promised.

Again, it was suggested the other day that some people do not have access to government. I can only again speak for my five years in government, but some of their best friends over there had the best, easiest and highest-level access to our government, as they did to the previous Davis government. I know that to be true, some of them know it to be true, and watching the ease, the rapidity and the regularity of that access was for me a real education in the fall and winter of 1985-86.

I am going to be very interested to see, for example, as the New Democratic Party moves forward to give effect in real terms to its tax policy, how it is going to be able to do that with an eye to the poor and the downtrodden particularly. I was particularly pleased yesterday to see in the announcement of the Treasurer that the tax reduction program was going to be enriched to target more assistance for that group of Ontario residents.

I will be watching very carefully over the next four to six months, and particularly around budget time next spring, how this party in government makes some of those calls, because some of their best friends are among the most powerful and the most well-off in the community, and I have a sense, if my experience is any guide, that they are going to resist in a very strong and vigorous way some of the claims for fairness and equity. When one starts into tax policy, one very quickly discovers where the rubber meets the road and where rhetoric leaves reality.

1740

As I look to this particular initiative, some of the concerns I have are already indicated. What will happen in new budgetary policy to make up for the $500 million of forgone revenue? I repeat. not an issue for most people here, but it will be a central issue in the budget-making plans of the government and particularly the policy and priorities committee and most especially for the Treasurer himself. What happens to the policy incorporated in this legislation when we get, as I am absolutely certain we will, a value-added-tax-included GST? I think it is probably back to the drawing board.

What about collection? I know my friend the member for Oxford and others opposite, like my colleagues and members of the third party, are genuine in their concern about what it is going to mean for the collecting retail vendors across the province. I suspect that this policy is going to cause, in Sparta and in Thamesville and a lot of other places across Ontario, a big headache for a lot of people who will support in principle the notion that there should be no piggybacking. but they are going to be forced into a collecting mode they have never experienced before and which is going to drive them to absolute frustration and distraction.

My guess, and again it is purely a guess at this point, is that because of that some very interesting market dynamics will occur. We all know, because experience in these kinds of VAT taxes suggests it, that collection becomes a very major issue. My guess is that the market out there will be very dynamic, and vendors who have to collect this are going to respond. They are going to respond in an understandable and realistic fashion. It will be very interesting to hear from the Minister of Revenue, not next year but about a year and half or two years from now, how projected revenues on the retail sales tax account are moving. If there is some leakage, I will not be surprised, because the experience in other jurisdictions with this kind of parallel tracking is very suggestive.

I simply want to conclude by observing that we have a very interesting piece of legislation, one that is consistent with what our friends offered during the campaign, but a campaign where not much was said about the $500 million of revenue that would be forgone. They are not Social Credit, so they are going to make that up. I am going to be very interested to see how the Treasurer makes that up, and I suspect there are going to be some people over there, not on the back benches but on the Treasury bench -- oh, it is going to hurt. It is going to hurt in ways they cannot yet imagine, and a campaign will be a long piece away and nobody will much notice. Most people, probably, will not even care.

But I am going to be interested, just because I am interested in those kinds of things. I will look very carefully next year to see the impact on the budget-making policy of the new government of the loss of the $500 million of traditional revenue, particularly when that gets married with what I suspect will be a certainty, very significant losses on the income tax and retail sales tax side that will be occasioned entirely by the recession. That is what recessions are. So a year from now I will expect to see the Treasurer with nary a grey hair left on his head, because he will have to do some things that he is really not going to want to have to do, and he is going to have to do them to some of his colleagues, who are not going to like to have to deliver the message. That is a consequence of this initiative, and it was certainly not one that was widely advertised in the campaign.

I repeat: My sense is that once people start to pay the GST on everything from funeral services to books and antiques and a whole host of other things that we have not ever imagined as taxable in this province, we are going to get a tax revolt. And it will not be led by the member for York South; it will not be led by any of us. I suspect most of us will be, in the first instance, just running for cover, because I think what the GST tax revolt is going to do more than anything else is really focus attention on where the money goes. I could be wrong, because I am only one person and I am listening to what people are saying in my own constituency.

After 15 years and some months, I am finding more and more interest in how it is we spend taxpayers' money. The interest in my community in how politicians spend money on themselves has reached an Olympian height. I know some of the members know that on this subject I have very old-fashioned views, but I would certainly counsel all members, new and old, to some Presbyterian rigour when it comes to the next few years, because this tax is really going to put all politicians under a very sharp focus.

We had better adjust our sails to that wind. I, for one, intend to the best of my ability to represent my constituents who feel that they are taxed too much. They have just about had it and they are going to be assessing a lot of very careful scrutiny on all politicians in the coming months and years as to just how the taxes are collected, who is paying and what the money is going to support.

Mr Daigeler: I would like to stress a few points the member for Renfrew North made, I think with great true reason. As I said earlier, the fact is that the government has chosen, and certainly it is free to do so, to forgo $500 million of revenue -- and, I may indicate, of revenue every year; this is not just a one-shot deal. Every year, they have chosen to forgo $500 million.

It sounds great and very generous and benevolent. To the people, of course, they are the guys who are not taxing on top of tax. The hard reality, however -- and I think the member for Renfrew North has clearly indicated that -- is that somebody has to make up for that shortfall. If anybody who is watching us today thinks this $500 million is not going to come from somewhere else, he is sadly mistaken.

I am sure that very soon we will see that void being filled by tax increases. The Treasurer, in fairness to him, has already indicated the areas he wants to increase taxes on. But I think for the government to say, "Well, we are so great, we are benevolent, we are generous, we are not charging you $500 million," is very misleading, because there are so many groups out there which need funding. We know the hospitals, we know the need in the social assistance system, we know the need of the colleges and universities, and the money has to be found.

So if anybody thinks we are at this point getting $500 million, I think they are sadly mistaken. What the government is giving us with one hand here, it will be taking with the other one. People can certainly count on that.

1750

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I too, like the member for Renfrew North and the member for Nepean, will be watching very closely. As the members know, the way in which this tax will be administered is that every single person in this province will be getting the tax break that is so great, that we have heard about today, which I humbly think is a very small step, but it will be the programs where the need is the greatest that we will be watching to make sure that the needs of this province are met, that the $500 million is not just part of a slush fund, that the $500 million will be missed. Let us hope that it will not be missed by the people who need it the most.

The member for Renfrew North also spoke about the complexities and the problems that cannot even be anticipated by the vendors and retailers of this province. Double remittance, double collection -- some of them hardly know what those words mean. I beg again for more training, for more communication with these people.

The consumers are another case in point. They really do not know what is going to happen in Ontario on 1 January 1991. I beg and implore that this government communicate with both consumers and retailers about what Bill 1 means and about what the GST means to the ratepayers and taxpayers of this province.

Mr Hope: I am having a hard time understanding. As we notice, the 7% is only a negotiated calculation. They started off with 9%. As most of us are well aware, the 7% is going to escalate because the commitment of the federal government is to keep going until it gets the debt paid. What I am hearing from the opposition, especially from the Liberal side of it, is that they are talking about putting their tax as their proposal on top of the GST. That means as the GST escalates, what are we going to do to compensate the people of low and middle income?

That is the question I am really having a hard time trying to understand: what is really going on, what the philosophy is behind it. Running parallel just alleviates that. If the federal government wants to make a whole bunch of errors, why should we follow in the errors of the federal government? What I am really puzzled about is where they are coming from with it.

Mr Ruprecht: The member for Renfrew North made a good point in his remarks. In fact, it was reiterated by some members of the government that the new tax imposition, the GST, is going to be so complicated that it will take hour after hour to figure it out. It will consequently add to the burden of small business and in fact to the burden of everyone concerned.

What will happen consequently is that the bankruptcy rate is not going to increase just because of the GST, but the expense that I want to talk about will be added by tax lawyers and accountants, compounding the problems that will exist just by simply collecting it.

Finally, the residents of Ontario are really favoured by an exceptional lifestyle. We are the number one destination across the globe for people who want to emigrate. They look to Ontario for emigrating to and settling down in. When this GST pops in, the fundamental changes of this lifestyle will be radically altered to the point where we may no longer enjoy our lifestyle. I fail to see, even though we might have to support this legislation, how this Bill 1 is going to mitigate this problem to the point where it is going to help a great deal. As some members said, it might help a little bit, but not enough to affect the kind of lifestyle that we have grown used to.

I would expect that members of the government again would stand up and do more. They should talk to their Premier and try to ask him to do more to stop this GST.

Mr Conway: I particularly want to thank my friend the member for Chatham-Kent for his point. I guess I just want to reiterate that from my point of view, the interesting ingredients of this policy are the following.

In making it, the government has abandoned $500 million worth of traditional revenue for a good cause, in its view. I am not disputing that. I am simply making the point that the finance minister must make that up if he is not just going to add it on to the deficit. I do not imagine he is going to tack all of that on to the deficit, although he might. I do not think that was very well understood by a lot of members inside or outside the place, to be perfectly frank. I know I had some difficulty understanding the impact of the GST replacing the manufacturers' wholesale tax, which has always been taxed by the provincial sales tax.

The point I want to make is that in the policy that Bill 1 incorporates, the government of Ontario has forgone $500 million worth of revenue. I respect my friends opposite. I know that they are not Social Creditors. I expect that they are going to operate on a calculus other than Major Douglas's A+B=C, and I assume that the member for Nickel Belt is going to have to deal with that $500-million loss.

Second, I expect that in short order we are going to have a value-added-tax-included GST, which I think renders this policy a nullity, but I might be wrong. It is a very, very technical question, but I cannot imagine that if it is VAT-included, the policy of Bill 1 can in fact be made to work.

Third, I make the point that it is going to be one grand headache for small business out there, most of which will in principle accept the argument of Bill 1, but will not like in any way, shape or form the reality of their day-to-day life, which is having to collect it on this parallel track.

Mr Christopherson: I take great pride in standing and speaking in support of Bill 1. As I said in my first speech, I felt very proud that Bill 1 was the first legislative action we took. In listening to the debate today from my honourable friends on the other side of the House, I have not changed that opinion one bit.

I was very interested to listen to the comments of the previous speaker, the member for Renfrew North. I have a great deal of respect for this member, for his intelligence, his sensitivities, his speaking abilities and also the fact that on balance he seems to be a very reasonable individual, which in this House can sometimes be a bit of a scarcity among some of the opposition members.

I was very interested to listen to his concerns about the fact that we had abandoned $500 million in tax revenue. As the member for Burlington South said earlier in an interjection, it is interesting to note that it was the opposition party that in a panic towards the end of the election was prepared to forfeit all the revenue from a slash of 1% in the sales tax without any regard for the ramifications and what that might have meant.

I think we understand very well the implications of $500 million in lost revenue. What makes the difference between this government and previous governments is our commitment to the word "fair." When we talk fair taxation, that is not a word we are throwing around lightly.

According to the latest statistics available -- which by the way are in An Agenda for People, which the opposition seems to love to quote from so much -- it is worth noting that in 1984, the most recent stats available, the wealthiest 10% of the population in Canada had 51% of the total net wealth, while the bottom 50% had only 5.7% of the total net wealth. When we talk about fair taxation, we are talking about this kind of situation that Canadians and Ontarians are no longer going to stand for. This government is committed to doing what it can to change this, and we will do it by making the tax system fair.

On motion by Mr Christopherson, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1800.