Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

DEMOCRACY

Mr Henderson: I have made no secret of my view that real reform of governmental process is decades, if not a century, overdue in Canada. Happily, members of this Legislature have generally been responsive to that view, but too little has been done.

The form democracy has come to take in Canada is not necessarily the one best suited to our needs. The will of Canadians can be overturned too easily in our present structure by a majority government.

Many different models of democracy are alive and well and flourishing somewhere on the globe. Wisely, many emerging nations canvass the global options before deciding what model of government best suits their needs.

Canada simply inherited the British parliamentary model, then stiffened the rigidity of party solidarity and caucus unanimity when a succession of leaders objected to the freedom of some caucus members.

Later today I will introduce a bill which would establish a committee to recommend ways of electing our premiers in a direct ballot at election time, separately from the election of MPPs.

Electors in Canada should not have to choose between the party, the local candidate and the leader. Governments, perhaps with cabinets which may include elected members of any party with elected members, should be more accountable to the people and to their elected representatives. To be sure, the situation could arise of a Premier of one party and a majority of elected members of a different party; however, other jurisdictions have shown that to be a workable situation and so can we.

This bill would help advance an overdue process of meaningful reform.

ABANDONED RAIL LINES

Mrs Witmer: I am pleased to rise today to direct the government's attention to the issue of preserving abandoned railroad rights of way as multipurpose recreational trails for use by the residents of this province.

At a workshop held at the University of Waterloo on 30 November -- the workshop was entitled Protecting and Managing Abandoned Railroad Rights of Way for Conservation and Recreation for the People of Ontario -- those in attendance unanimously called upon the government of Ontario to take action immediately to develop a provincial trails policy and program, to provide funding for the purchase of all existing and future abandoned railroad rights of way and, finally, to establish a provincial trails co-ordinating agency.

At a time when everyone in this province is concerned about our environment and the need to protect our heritage, I would urge the government to take action on these recommendations at the earliest possible time. If these greenway corridors are lost now, they will be lost to us and future generations for ever. There are many abandoned railroad rights of way that are currently available for conversion to recreational trails. They would be used by hikers, birdwatchers, naturalists, skiers.

I fully support the Ontario Trails Council's efforts to obtain provincial support for utilizing these unused tracts of land for recreation purposes. What better thing can we leave our children?

WILLIAM STEWART

Mrs Mathyssen: I regretfully rise to inform the House of the death on Saturday 8 December of Bill Stewart. Mr Stewart was the MPP for Middlesex North for 18 years, 14 of those years as the Minister of Agriculture and Food before he retired in 1975.

Mr Stewart was born in Denfield, Ontario. Not only was he a working farmer, but he was a man who had dedicated himself to working for Ontario's farmers. His contributions were many; he was the founding director of the Middlesex Federation of Agriculture, he introduced the Milk Act in 1965 and was very active in the building of the Lake Huron to London water pipeline.

In 1978 Mr Stewart was made an honorary doctor of laws at the University of Western Ontario and was appointed as the chancellor of the University of Guelph in 1983. In 1989 Mr Stewart was inducted into the Canadian Agricultural Hall of Fame, and rightly so. He was a true friend to the farmers of Ontario.

ABORTION

Mr Daigeler: The 28 November statement on abortion by the Minister of Health was an ominous sign of the NDP's dogmatic intransigence. It was a scary portent, in my view, of what is in store over the next four years for people who disagree with the government's philosophical orientation.

Knowing full well how divided Ontarians are on this issue, the minister adopted the most strident yet mostly obsolete pro-abortion rhetoric in her comments. This unwarranted act was another slap in the face to everyone who regards this matter as an issue of the highest moral order, including members of her own caucus.

Even her own pro-choice supporters were surprised that for the first time in Canadian parliamentary history a Minister of Health labelled abortion as a woman's right to control her own body. As is well known, such euphemistic rhetoric totally ignores the rights of the unborn life.

The NDP's true confrontational colours showed in the minister's remarks. She not only announced initiatives that offend many people's deeply held beliefs; she also took pains to put them down in the process.

I was not surprised to see the minister move on the NDP's long-held policy on free access to abortions. I was shocked, however, to note her total disregard for other views on this issue.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Turnbull: In a recent speech to a New Democratic Party provincial council, the Premier blamed federal government policies for making "it harder for people to invest here, and for causing hundreds of jobs lost and dozens and dozens of plants closed." His own government has implemented and is committed to policies which discourage investment and destroy jobs.

Bill 4 has had an immediate negative effect on jobs in Ontario. Triple R Roofing Ltd laid off all of its employees on 30 November 1990. Day Restorations laid off one half of its staff on 28 November 1990. Regal Aluminum laid off 108 of its 200 employees. Armstrong Baum Plumbing and Heating may have to lay off 30% of its workforce. Why? In the words of that owner, this has nothing to do with the recession. This is legislation. The work needs to be done but, if the owner cannot recover his costs, he cannot continue the work.

These are some of the hundreds of jobs lost in Ontario as a result of the government's legislation. The Premier cannot suck and blow at the same time. He should stop blaming others and clean up his own house first.

1340

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mr Mills: Every week the average person in this country produces 19 pounds of garbage, and this has created a garbage disposal crisis in almost all of our communities. I am proud to say that the people of Durham East are fighting back and waging a war on waste.

For example, local residents Pat Lycett and Kristin McCrea formed the Durham garbage reduction program. They convinced 77% of the people in a six-mile rural area of Durham to save their garbage for four weeks. The residents were shown how to compost, reduce, reuse and recycle. The results have been spectacular. The amount was cut from 19 pounds of garbage per person per week to approximately one and a half pounds. By educating people on shopping smart, buying products with low-waste packaging and purchasing articles that can be reused, real reduction in waste management was achieved.

Other organizations making important contributions on environmental issues include Newcastle Environment Committee, Clarke Constituents Committee, the Zero Garbage Group, the Durham Recycling Group, the GOOD committee, Save the Ganaraska Again Group, Port Granby/Newcastle Environment Committee, STORM and the Port Darlington Community Association.

I ask my fellow members to give these groups and others dedicated to this cause across Ontario a round of applause.

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Offer: This province and country is in the midst of a recession. Many thousands of jobs are being lost every day. Over 11,000 jobs have been lost since October. In Mississauga we are not immune. Jobs across the city and throughout the region of Peel are being lost through reduced operations, partial closures and complete closures.

The question remains, what is the Ontario government doing to assist displaced workers? Promises have been made, but without any specifics, in the NDP's Agenda for People and throne speech. The economic statement recently released by the Treasurer provides no strategy for digging Ontario out of the recession. There is nothing in the Treasurer's statement to encourage investors to create jobs in Ontario.

The previous Liberal government broadened the scope of statutory severance pay, instituted new information requirements in mass termination cases, increased individual notice requirements, established the Transitions program, implemented with the federal government the program for older worker adjustment in Ontario and increased funding for short-term skills training for employed workers under Ontario's Training Strategy.

The laid-off workers in Mississauga, Peel and throughout Ontario need a continuation of the policies initiated by the previous Liberal government and not an accumulation of promises by the NDP government. The recession is now. Action today.

NORTHERN HEALTH TRAVEL GRANTS

Mr Eves: I rise today to talk about northern health travel grants and their status in the riding of Parry Sound, being the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing.

On 9 June 1988 the then Minister of Northern Development and the then Premier announced that as of I April 1989 the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing in their entirety would become eligible for all northern Ontario programs by any ministry, agency, board or commission of the provincial government. As of today the Ministry of Health still does not recognize the residents in the district of Parry Sound and all the residents in the district of Nipissing as qualifying for northern health travel grant status.

I rise to ask the minister today if she would kindly consider the promise made by the previous Minister of Northern Development and the previous Premier, who reiterated that promise during the recent election campaign this summer, so that these restrictions be removed from people in the districts of Parry Sound and Nipissing so they can partake of specialized health care services, as other Ontarians can, all across the province of Ontario.

I also would think that, if the Ministry of Health hopes to promote such regional centres in northern Ontario as the cancer treatment centre in Sudbury, it would be wise to look at the travel requirements in terms of distances so that indeed residents in northern Ontario will be encouraged to utilize those services in northern Ontario.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr F. Wilson: I would first like to pay tribute to the former occupant of this seat in this House, Larry South, who personifies the title of gentleman. Mr South takes his honoured place in a long line of distinguished members from Frontenac-Addington that continues to this day.

My reason for standing before you today, Mr Speaker, is to draw attention to the plight of a segment of my constituency and of Ontario's workforce not protected by any organization or even by the minimal, but soon-to-be-improved, Employment Standards Act of the province.

The workers of whom I speak are the small retail store owners and managers presently under contract to large mall landlords. This segment of the workforce, virtually unprotected by legislation or regulation, finds itself, due to contract obligations made in better economic times, forced to compromise religious, moral and family commitments in order to meet the greedy expectations of mall landlords. Many of them have been forced against their will to remain open for extended and abnormal hours which include Sunday and other traditional holidays. This is done for no other reason than to glean the last penny of possible profit to satisfy the greed of mall landlords.

I therefore ask this government, formed by the traditional and true party of the working people, to take the necessary steps to relieve the pressure on small retail store owners and managers by giving them, in regulation or legislation as soon as is possible, the option given to all other workers in the province, that is, to decide for themselves whether they wish to open on Sunday.

I beseech the small retail store owners and managers who hear my voice to make known to their elected representatives their views on this matter.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe we have concurred that we have unanimous consent among all three parties to ask for unanimous consent on two issues, the death of Bill Stewart, a former member of this Legislature who was Minister of Agriculture and Food for some 14 years, and the commencement of International Human Rights Day and Week.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent for the statements to be made?

Agreed to.

WILLIAM STEWART

Mr Villeneuve: It is indeed a sad day to report on the passing of a friend of everyone, who sat in this Legislature for some 18 years, Bill Stewart. He was known by his constituents, and indeed by everyone in this province. He was first elected in a by-election for the riding of Middlesex North on 5 September 1957 and for the next 18 years served with a great deal of dedication both his constituents and the province of Ontario.

He was very instrumental in bringing forth the Ontario Milk Marketing Board to stabilize the milk industry by uniting the province's 48 milk markets under a single marketing board, which first saw the light of day in 1965, and this was done in co-operation with the federal government.

Mr Stewart was above crass politics and worked with whoever, whenever, to better the farmers, the rural residents of Ontario, and by so doing, made Ontario a better place for everyone, and in particular for consumers, who enjoy and take for granted the clean food that our farmers produce.

Another major step was the formation of the Ontario Food Council in 1974. Mr Stewart was very instrumental in bringing that to the fore. As a matter of fact, the ministry changed names from the Ministry of Agriculture to the Ministry of Agriculture and Food during his stay as minister, which shows the concern he had for everyone here in the province of Ontario.

He also authored and helped the Agricultural Research Institute of Ontario, the crop insurance program, the agricultural rehabilitation and development program, better known to most of us as ARDA, the meat inspection for small plants and 50% cuts in farm taxes. The farm tax rebate came to the fore about the end of his tenure. He continued to defend the agricultural industry up until his death. He served as a volunteer on many organizations.

Bill Stewart, the farmer from Denfield, will not soon be forgotten. His hard work and dedication will benefit Ontario agriculture, Ontario farmers and Ontario consumers for many years in the future.

1350

Mr Nixon: It is very sad indeed to hear the news of Bill Stewart's death. As far as I personally was concerned, he was a close friend and I had the greatest admiration for his capabilities in this House and as a minister.

He was appointed to the cabinet by John Robarts in the autumn of 1961, just at the time I became the Liberal nominee for election in a by-election in the then riding of Brant, I believe it was called. It was his duty as a newly appointed cabinet minister to see that the Progressive Conservative Party did well in those by-elections. So my first contact with him was, I suppose, what the honourable member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry would say, in politics. I do not think Bill Stewart ever hesitated to be a politician. He was one of the best I ever had anything to do with. Fortunately, he began with a failure, because I was elected.

We had a very interesting time over the years of his ministry. There is no doubt he was an extremely capable and effective Minister of Agriculture and Food. The honourable member who has already spoken has recounted his specific achievements, and as a dairy producer myself I of course was intensely interested in the supply management that led to the Ontario Milk Marketing Board and the Milk Commission of Ontario, and I have always, of course, had a continuing interest in these matters.

Bill Stewart was an excellent speaker in this House. It seems to go with the Ministry of Agriculture and Food. They always have a special responsibility to convey government policy and the indications of the inadequacies of alternative policies to the farmers themselves. The farmers traditionally come to Toronto in the wintertime for major conventions, where their views are examined carefully. They have a chance to talk to their political ministers and it is always an extremely interesting function. Bill Stewart could probably do that as well -- let us put it that way -- as anybody I have ever heard.

I think the most important thing, however, was that he was effective in this House and understood its function. He argued passionately for the policies that he himself had brought forward and on behalf of the policies of the government of which he was a member. He had the total confidence of the members of the House, and I would say of the farmers in this province. His initiatives in this regard are still seen to be providing leadership right across the country and even beyond.

After he left active politics, his role in the community continued in a very effective way. He became chancellor of the University of Guelph. He wrote a very interesting book about his political career and accomplishments and the political process, which I certainly recommend to anyone who has not got too much to do in other preparations for their work.

I join with other members in expressing our appreciation for a very effective life, well led. He was a man who understood the political process and in many respects was one of the best political practitioners and one of the best ministers of agriculture we have had in this province. Over the years I have also come to know his wife and family and naturally our sympathy goes out to them.

Hon Mr Buchanan: It is with great sadness that we too note the passing of Bill Stewart last Saturday. It was a very untimely passing. We had attempted to arrange a meeting with him to talk about some issues facing agriculture today and it is rather unfortunate that I did not personally have that opportunity to meet with this great man.

To all who knew him and his career as a politician, as Minister of Agriculture and Food and as a respected and admired member of the Ontario agricultural community, he was an honourable man who served his province well. Mr Stewart had many friends in the agricultural community and indeed is fondly remembered by the staff at the Ministry of Agriculture and Food who were fortunate to have worked under his leadership as a minister between 1961 and 1975.

Many of his accomplishments have been mentioned here today and I will not repeat them, but after leaving politics Mr Stewart was continually called upon by many groups seeking to make agriculture and food a dynamic and progressive contributor to Ontario's economy.

Mr Stewart's lifelong devotion to the pursuit of agricultural excellence was recognized when he was appointed chancellor of the University of Guelph. In 1988 Mr Stewart was presented with a Ministry of Agriculture and Food Centennial Award in recognition of his service to farmers and the farming community.

On behalf of the farmers of Ontario and the government of Ontario, I wish to express sincerest condolences to the Stewart family on their great loss.

The Speaker: I will ensure that the kind remarks and tributes, as recorded in Hansard, are sent to the family of Mr Stewart.

INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS DAY

Mr Cousens: I would like to comment on behalf of our party on International Human Rights Day and International Human Rights Week. It is an international event of great importance. With today marking the 42nd anniversary of the signing of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we mark a milestone in human history. For the first time an effort was made to define human rights across the broad spectrum of individual nations.

How fortunate we are in Ontario where the walls that once divided people through race, culture, nationality, religion, colour and language are breaking down. Our schools are often a microcosm of how the world should be. Young people have friends of different backgrounds. They value each other for who they are and what they are and do not concentrate on each other's differences, but enjoy what they have in common. During the 1990s more and more of us will be exposed to diverse peoples and hopefully, like our children, will appreciate the things we have in common.

Thomas Watson Sr, the founder of IBM, made respect for the individual one of the guiding principles of that company, and to this day IBM is renowned for the way people are treated. Respect and human rights go together. Each one of us in stores and schools, business and politics needs to show respect for each other. We begin to make human rights a meaningful statement in our society when we practise Watson's motto of showing respect for the individual in all we do.

Our multicultural society promotes understanding of the different peoples who make up our communities, and by knowing more about one another's background we gain a mutual respect for one another.

With human rights also goes responsibility. There are enough takers in the world who know their rights. It is refreshing that when someone else's personal rights are being denied or tampered with, someone will rise to the challenge of defending and supporting that weaker person. Last week a woman was swarmed by a group of young teenagers, robbed and beaten while others walked by unconcerned, uninvolved and seemingly uninterested. How can this be in a society such as ours?

As we think of human rights, I genuinely hope that we can all give a more caring concern that respects others and responds to their needs in a positive way when their freedoms and rights are threatened.

Human rights are an international issue. As we consider the needs of Jews in the Soviet Union, blacks in South Africa, minority groups in Iraq, repression in China, let us in Canada live in harmony with one another. International human rights are an ideal goal that must be endorsed and supported. Let us educate our society on the need. Let us set an example for the world.

1400

Mr Curling: Today I had the opportunity to share a platform with the Premier, the Minister of Citizenship, the chief commissioner of human rights and my colleague the member for Markham. It was in recognition of two things: It was the 42nd anniversary of the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the member countries of the United Nations and it was also to unveil the equality poster for human rights. I was very proud to be there.

What it does is it offers a vision, this declaration, for a world without injustice, without discrimination, without cruelty, and confirms our faith in the dignity and worth of the human spirit.

Each of us has the right to the opportunity to live our lives with the dignity that is inherent in all humanity, without exception. The province of Ontario has shown leadership in this cause in the past and we must continue to demonstrate that leadership.

Many human rights violations happen right here in Canada -- in Ontario, in Toronto, in our homes. Often we think of human rights violation as beyond the boundaries of Canada. We must ensure that our senior citizens are able to live out their lives in safety and dignity. We owe it to the people who built this province to ensure that they have proper health care and other services they need.

It also means giving them the opportunity to continue to contribute in the workforce. The ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to mandatory retirement begs the question of a province to look again at the Human Rights Code concerning this issue.

We must work to end hunger. That does not mean government support for food banks. It means having a decent level of support for people on social assistance. We must also create a society that helps people turn welfare cheques into paycheques.

Society still does not treat women, disabled people and visible minorities with equality. Ontario can only achieve its potential if we can make certain that each individual in this great province has the opportunity to fulfil his or her aspirations.

We in this province still wrestle in order to end illiteracy. The year 1990 was declared the International Year of Literacy in recognition that literacy is also a basic human right.

Also, there is the treatment of the refugees in our province, not giving them the opportunity to work and also to assert themselves immediately in a country that demonstrates freedom.

Every individual has the right to expect that we will achieve these goals. It is up to us as members of the Ontario Legislature to meet their expectations.

Hon Ms Ziemba: I am very pleased to be speaking on behalf of the government today on International Human Rights Day. As a government, we are very pleased that in our throne speech we again addressed the need to make sure that we break down those areas of discrimination, that we make sure people in our society have every access to all the freedoms that we evoke, hold and cherish.

International Human Rights Day is a very important day. As the honourable members have mentioned, this is a non-partisan day. It is a day when we want to make sure that all our citizens, whether in Ontario, Canada or the world at large can participate fully in all the benefits of society.

Today we are very pleased that we stood outside as a non-partisan group and celebrated International Human Rights Day by unfolding and showing a poster. We were very pleased that we all could make sure that we share those same beliefs.

As Minister of Citizenship, and as what I call my enlarged ministry, my ministry of equity, we will make sure that groups such as our native people, women, visible minorities, members of the disabled community and our seniors, will no longer face discrimination because of sexism, colour, race, age or whatever. We are committed to making sure that everyone in Ontario has a place in Ontario and that there is a place for everyone in Ontario.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS / NOMINATIONS AUX POSTES GOUVERNEMENTAUX

Hon Mr Rae: I appreciate the opportunity to make a statement. I have said that my government's first challenge is to win the trust and respect of the people of Ontario, and I have said that our integrity will be measured by the way this government is run and our relations with the people we serve.

I am pleased to be able to tell the members today that this government is implementing new measures to ensure greater fairness in appointments to government agencies, boards and commissions.

This government will provide complete public access to all information on such appointments. There are approximately 5,000 positions, most of which are part-time. If the public is to be properly served, it is crucial that they be filled by women and men who are representative of the abundance of talent and the varied experiences that we have here in Ontario.

That is why this government is compiling detailed lists of each and every government appointment to every single agency, board and commission. When these lists are complete they will be distributed to public libraries across Ontario. Every resident of every community in the province will be able to find not only a description of the appointment but information about qualifications needed to hold the position, how much it pays and when to apply.

We hope to have this system in place by May 1991.

Nous voulons que le processus de nomination soit ouvert et clair pour tout le monde. Pour que le public ait confiance en ce processus, il doit être empreint d'équilibre et de perspective.

C'est pourquoi nous sommes en train de préparer une formule de demande normalisée qui va être à la disposition de tout membre du public intéressé à siéger à un organisme, un conseil ou une commission. C'est également pourquoi nous allons rappeler aux résidents de l'Ontario, par le biais d'une campagne annuelle de publicité, les postes qui sont vacants.

The time has come to strip away the secrecy and mystique which have always surrounded government appointments. The process must be open to everybody. It must be understood by everybody.

Obviously this government has its own policies and goals. We have a job to do and we will recruit and appoint the men and women we believe can assist us in meeting our agenda. But partisan affiliation should neither automatically qualify nor disqualify any applicant. Women and men who have not thought of doing so in the past will, I hope, put themselves forward as candidates, and we will carry out an effective program of recruitment to ensure that we make the most out of this province's great strength: the rich cultural and racial diversity of the people who make up Ontario.

We will establish an appointments secretariat, which will receive and record all applications, and we will ask an all-party committee of the Legislature to scrutinize the candidates we have selected.

I would like to take the opportunity today to advise my colleagues in the House that we are seeking applicants for a number of positions. They include the chair of the Social Assistance Review Board, members of the Social Assistance Review Board, an employment equity commissioner, and the chair of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, to name just a few. We are also establishing an all-party committee -- whose decision, I might add, will be final -- to choose a new privacy commissioner.

This government realizes that everyone will not always agree with its final selection for some appointments. Universal approval of choices is simply too much to hope for. But the public has a right to see appointments made by a fair process, a process the women and men of Ontario can trust.

By ensuring public access to all details of appointments and by peeling away some of the secrecy surrounding the process, I believe we can ensure fairer selection of the best possible candidates.

RESPONSES

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS

Mr Nixon: I am surprised that the Premier has put this forward in this particular tone. The release of information about public appointments has been public in this province, certainly for the last five years, and I can well recall as House leader that it was my duty to table the information, which was then distributed to the library on a regular basis.

As a matter of fact, the book that was originally tabled five years ago -- giving the names of the officers in all the agencies, boards and commissions, the people who presently held the jobs, what the pay was and when the vacancies would occur -- was thicker even than the Premier's briefing book, and therefore it was very complete indeed. So there is nothing new about making this information public, and the idea that somehow it was a mystery is really a mystery in the mind of the Premier and some of his supporters and really to no one else.

The idea, also, that it was distributed around the province is an excellent one, and this information, as I say, went to the library and was available to any individual in the province who wanted to undertake an application.

The honourable members would recall that there was an office reporting to the Premier that would examine reasonably carefully the people who were applying for offices. I can remember hearing from Frank Miller before he was appointed; from Bob Elgie, and he was appointed; from Mr Martel, and he was appointed. There was Ross McClellan himself, who was appointed on the basis of merit only, and Donald MacDonald, just as ones who came to my mind as my friends and I listened to the Premier bring forward his particular view in this regard.

1410

I am quite concerned, when I read the Premier's comments, that some of the people in the province might misunderstand what he has in mind. He says: "We will establish an appointments secretariat" -- I understand that Carol Phillips, who is well connected and highly trusted and has extensive experience, will be associated with that -- "which will receive and record...applications. We will ask an all-party committee...to scrutinize the candidates we have selected." I can only presume that this is the royal "we," and that the government of the day, probably with the approval of the Premier, will put forward names to some sort of committee, which will then scrutinize. I do not know whether he thinks his friends in the back rows are not going to be busy enough, but obviously they will not have any appointment powers except for the one he specifically referred to on the last page, where he interpolated that an all-party committee would have the final selection on a new privacy commissioner.

I am very glad of that. I accept that. It is generally understood that where an office is associated directly with this House, it should be decided by the members of this House. I believe this is appropriate. But the only new thing here is for the Premier to come up to speed a little on this particular one. The rest of it is old stuff masquerading in the New Democrats' clothes.

We felt, as a government going back five years, that we opened it up as well. I simply want to reiterate that all the details in these appointments were known to all the citizens and that they were carefully scrutinized. The people who were appointed were appointed on the basis of their abilities. If some of them happened to be Liberal, the reason is exactly the same as the reason the Premier puts in his statement, that is: "Obviously, this government has its own policies and goals. We have a job to do and we will recruit and appoint the men and women we believe can assist us in meeting our agenda."

What could make more sense than that? That is the truth in the Premier's statement. It really means that things will be done as they have been in the past, with a little more democratic socialist pizzazz. We look forward to examining that.

Mr Eves: The Premier's statement is sort of like a good news and bad news story. The good news is: "We're going to do something slightly different from what has been done in the past." The bad news is: "We're going to make the final decision anyway."

The government can go through this window dressing exercise of having a legislative committee "scrutinize" the lists which the government presents to the committee for scrutiny, but I do not see in here any power of the legislative committee to make the final decision with respect to those appointments.

I guess the question I would have for the Premier and the government is: Who is going to make that final decision? The appointments secretariat, the legislative committee, the cabinet minister or the Premier of Ontario?

I think I know the answer to that question and I think that the Premier does as well.

Why would the Premier differentiate in his press release today by talking about why the government is seeking applicants for the position of chair and members of the Social Assistance Review Board, an employment equity commissioner and chair of the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario? I presume all will be subject to the scrutiny process, not the selection process.

He goes on to say that an all-party committee will choose a new privacy commissioner. If it is good enough for the new privacy commissioner, why is it not good enough for all the other appointments it wants to make? Why can the all-party committee not choose those people as well?

I think the Premier would do well to look back at an old recommendation of a previous standing committee on the Legislative Assembly, which recommended in its recommendation 20, dealing with the tabling of proposed appointments, that a standing committee of the Legislature review the nominees and recommend alternatives where appropriate on the basis of merit. Will this committee to which the Premier is going to send these scrutiny candidates have the power to select these candidates? Will it have the power to recommend and choose alternatives if it does not think the names he has submitted are appropriate or have the merit to assume these positions? If he is here today in this House announcing those changes, then I think indeed he would be announcing a significant new era in political appointments in Ontario.

Really, all this is, as the interim leader of the official opposition has stated, is so much window dressing to say that we are going to allow a committee to look at candidates we select and after we have gone through that process, we will choose, "we" being the royal "we," I presume, meaning the Premier: "I will choose who I think is best in the long run in any event."

ORAL QUESTIONS

EMPLOYMENT ADJUSTMENT

Mr Nixon: I have a question of the Minister of Labour on a matter that has concerned us once or twice already this session. The honourable minister would be concerned, as are we all, with the Statistics Canada announcement last week indicating that the unemployment rate in Ontario is now 7.6% and that bankruptcies are up 112% year over year.

Members may recall that it was more than a month ago that the Premier, in a ringing endorsement of his friend Victor Rice's move to Buffalo, indicated that there would be a new program designed to protect workers' pay and severance, particularly following bankruptcy, and that it would be retroactive to 1 October, that magic day.

Another magic day was last Thursday, the last day in which legislation could be introduced into this House for passage in 1990. We have not seen the legislation, therefore we will not see it now until well into the spring for enactment, whenever the House moves in that direction.

I would ask the minister if he is not concerned that there are these many hundreds of people, probably thousands, who are subject to the difficulties of the present recession, who were counting on the protection announced by the Premier a month ago, and nothing has happened. Can he explain why nothing has happened and what protection is available for these people?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the Leader of the Opposition will understand that when we bring in the legislation there are serious costs involved. We have to discuss exactly how encompassing the legislation is. We are not going to bring in legislation that cannot be enforced. For that reason we are proceeding with caution, but the member will see it shortly.

Mr Nixon: Members will recall that when the Premier made this enthusiastic announcement associated with Varity's move to Buffalo, there was a wide variety of assistance that was going to be made available to the workers. I have a feeling that the Treasurer may have got hold of that list and realized that the cost of meeting those requirements would be unbearable and that the Minister of Labour once again is simply watching the world go by without bringing forward the legislation that, according to the press release at the time, he was committed to.

Is the Minister of Labour aware that the Treasurer's commitment of job creation funding for southwestern Ontario boils down to $6.9 million for southwestern Ontario for this winter? Is that the best he can do, and in his normal conservatism, which is now bubbling to the surface, is he allowing the Treasurer to actually veto all of these progressive ideas that the honourable Minister of Labour and his Premier announced with such enthusiasm just a month ago?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: If there is a veto, I can assure the Leader of the Opposition that I am not aware of it. We are proceeding with our plans for the legislation and the member will see it in due course.

Mr Offer: In an Agenda for People and indeed in the throne speech, plant closure justification was specifically promised. The last day for the introduction and debate and passage of legislation has passed. New legislation cannot now be debated and passed until, at the very earliest, the spring session. If there are to be public hearings throughout the province, the very earliest they can take place is next summer. We have a recession now.

The minister made very specific promises six months ago. More than 15,000 permanent job losses have occurred due to plant closures so far this year. Why do the workers have to wait until this spring at the very earliest or most likely until the end of the upcoming summer until we see the plans the minister was able to make so specifically while in opposition and cannot share with this House while in government? When are the workers going to see the minister's plans?

1420

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The member will know that this is an issue that has been on the table since back in 1982, I guess, certainly since his government came in during 1985, and I can assure him that he will see legislation in this area shortly.

[Applause]

Mr Nixon: If the NDP members are conditioned to applaud an answer like that, I guess they are pretty well ingrained in party politics here. We expect something better than that from the minister.

FOOD BANKS

Mr Nixon: I would like to put a question to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Following her announcement late last week of $1 million in support of food banks, she would be aware that Social Assistance Review Committee recommendation 268 -- and I am extremely familiar with the SARC recommendations, having lived with them for many months -- states that, "The Ontario government should not provide formalized funding to food banks," and that the task force on food banks said that, "No amount of money given directly to food banks will reduce the numbers of people who come to their doors."

Can the minister not recall that she stated to the House on 22 November that the "government intends to respond to the needs of food banks, not by funding them," and can she explain her reversal in policy and what the impact will be if we optimistically look at what is facing us in the next few weeks?

Hon Mrs Akande: I thank the member for the question. Yes, indeed, I am aware of the recommendation from SARC, though not as able as the member to remember them by number. However, I also recall it was this party that was particularly interested in the fact -- and I recognize it -- that there was an emergency and that this emergency had been spoken about frequently by the food banks.

Also in consultation with them I learned that although many of them did not want us to fund the food banks because they thought it would be a negative move, there were others, who also made themselves very loudly and plainly heard, who required such emergency funding. Then, within the context of the emergency, we decided to do something which would allow the food banks that did not wish our funding to use the money in a way that would help them; that is, to help people to direct themselves to get social assistance, unemployment insurance, people who they said previously had difficulty accessing the system because they did not know how, and would also allow others who had seen that they needed the money to use it in their way.

Yes, indeed, within the context of an emergency, one alters one's plans.

Mr Nixon: I suppose one of the disappointing things about going into government is that even though you change your mind, with what the honourable member has just told us was good reason, still it is sometimes misunderstood, presumably by people who are knowledgeable in the field.

The food banks' representatives are reported to have said after a meeting with the minister that "temporary support measures described in her announcement on Friday would not provide meaningful solutions to the problems of poverty." If that is true, and certainly NDP policy has been based on this sort of good advice, why did she change her mind? Is there a change in the level of emergency between 22 November and last Friday, 7 December? What happened? Did the level of irrationality among her colleagues increase to the point where it was irresistible?

Hon Mrs Akande: Yes, it was one of the points that was mentioned so frequently by the member, that in fact the emergency was mounting. But let me say first of all, very clearly, that it is not this government's expectation or its intention to solve the food bank issue with an emergency fund. We have already begun to move towards solving the questions of poverty. That train has left. Did the member miss it? It started when we increased social assistance; it started when we increased the increase; it started when we increased the shelter costs so that people would not have to decide whether to pay rent or go to the food banks; it started when we insisted that men pick up the cost of supporting their children. Oh, yes, indeed that train has left.

Mrs McLeod: Nobody missed the train, as little as was offered: the 2% solution was barely enough, as people involved in the field recognize, to cover the additional costs.

We find it rather astounding that, with some very specific emergency responses recommended by the task force on food banks, the minister seems to have shifted the responsibility for dealing with the emergency situation to the community itself. If in fact the government is committed to long-term reforms to dealing with poverty, let me remind the minister of a number of the issues in which she has made some previous commitments which would begin to address this issue.

We need to see 10,000 new child care spaces and 10,000 subsidized child care spaces that were promised in each of the first two years of an Agenda for People. We need to know that municipalities such as Metropolitan Toronto will not be left on their own to provide the kind of training that is needed to assist those on social assistance. We need to support literacy programs, we need to use existing emergency programs to assist recipients to deal with the unexpected emergencies that drive them to the food banks. We need to implement programs such as direct deposit of social assistance cheques so that recipients are not spending as much as $40 and $50 a month just to cash their cheques. If the government is committed to long-term reform, can we ask once again when we will see those specific plans to deal with this pervasive problem of poverty?

Hon Mrs Akande: Thanks to the member for a reminder of so many of those initiatives which we have begun. We have in fact begun to work interministerially again to design skills programs that will address the needs of people who have to go back to work and that will make sure that people are receiving skills training in the areas they need to in order to apply for and to have the kinds of jobs that are available to them. We have also begun to look at that whole business of direct deposit, and we will be quite willing to report on this and many other initiatives as soon we have completed.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. On Friday, discussions on the Uruguay round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade collapsed in Brussels because of a failure to reach agreement on agricultural subsidies within the European Community. The response of the international negotiators and economists to GATT was that this was guaranteed to plunge the world into a war of regional trading blocs.

The government has failed to show any sign of economic leadership. What I want to know is what plans the government has following the collapse of GATT to guarantee access for Ontario growers and manufacturers to the European market.

Hon Mr Pilkey: It was indeed a pleasure to represent this province at what was to be the final round of the GATT talks in Brussels, Belgium. I am pleased to advise the member that notwithstanding the fact that an agreement was not achieved in those final rounds, primarily because of a disagreement between the United States and the EC, these talks will be continued, hopefully in Geneva, Switzerland, likely in February 1990.

Ontario was well represented through its trade delegations and also had the benefit of the company of the Minister of Agriculture and Food, who played a very key and important role in those particular talks. We also had the benefit of the International Trade Advisory Committee, from private sector representatives known well to many members of the House opposite, who joined hand in glove with us in an effort to maintain Ontario's position so that we might continue the prosperity we need and require to enjoy if we are to maintain the 35% of exports that we have in this particular province.

We will again be meeting with federal trade minister John Crosbie in the near future prior to proceeding to Geneva to again ensure that Canada and Ontario have a strong voice at those talks so we can ensure that our manufacturing and business concerns continue to prosper in a very fruitful way.

1430

Mr Stockwell: It is very obvious why the Leader of the Opposition was not on the train; there were no seats left after their ministers had taken them up.

It is obvious that the government does not have any plans whatsoever for revitalizing Ontario trade in the face of increasing protectionism. To go to the GATT discussions in Brussels without a contingency plan is at best naïve and at worst irresponsible. Considering the reaction of the Canadian economists to the GATT failure was, "Thank goodness we have guaranteed access to the US market," can the minister please tell the members of the House exactly what plans his government has to further capitalize on the free trade agreement during this period in which we need it the most?

Hon Mr Pilkey: It was suggested by one of my colleagues that perhaps the appropriate response to his question is that the member opposite should have some faith in the Mulroney government.

I can assure the House that the Ontario delegation and the ITAC group met frequently in Brussels. We were very together in trying to assert ourselves as advocates for this province, to assure ourselves that this province and the people and the workers of this province continue to do well in our trading relationships, whether it be with the European Community, whether it be in the Pacific Rim or whether it be with the United States of America. These talks regrettably deteriorated to a circumstance that Canada could not alter and, as I indicated before, a very basic and real disagreement between the EC and the United States.

It is my impression that talks are going to have to be held at the very highest level of government between Kohl, Mitterrand and Bush, at a minimum, to help break this impasse. If that is not done, I think it is rather fruitless for the trade ministers such as myself and those from other nations to proceed to Geneva without there being some direct intervention by those authorities, because quite frankly those countries are not prepared to come to the table for any meaningful dialogue or discussion to break down the subsidies, that are quite unnecessary and harmful, that are impacting negatively on trade today.

Mr Stockwell: This government is quite happy, day after day, to stand up and blame others for the recession that we now face. What they do not seem to realize is that we are responsible for our own economic destiny.

The United States is currently establishing free trade negotiations with Mexico and is looking towards expanding these arrangements into other South American states. As the world moves into a smaller number of very powerful trading blocs, Canada is still busy fighting within itself for trade between the provinces.

Can the minister tell the members of this House what plans he has -- if he has any plans; apparently not -- for dismantling the system of interprovincial trade barriers? Will Ontario take a leadership role in the issue and unilaterally remove the barriers, or is he simply going to sit before this House and continue to blame senior levels of government and senior levels of government throughout the world? What is the minister's plan?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The honourable member references the national government. As I recall listening to the national debate, or what there was of it, from Mr Mulroney in the FTA, we were going to be led to some great promised land and certainly not be left with this circumstance of rising and mounting unemployment, the likes of which we have not seen in the past decade. The member might check with his colleague in Ottawa who was reported in the Toronto Star on the weekend as throwing up his hands and saying that he cannot do anything about these mounting unemployment rates, interest rates and so on.

I can assure the honourable member that this province, through its trade delegations, will continue to work with the sectors of Ontario to help promote them, to try to advantage them, to try to put them in the very best position to trade not only with the United States of America through the free trade agreement but also with the European Community, which quite frankly is developing a market in 1992 much larger than even the Americans have.

I do not know if that responds to the question. I hope it does. I suggest to the member who asked the question as well that he perhaps consider going to Brussels, and not taking the train but the buses. I am sure he will enjoy the trip.

Mr Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food: Given the breakdown of the GATT negotiations and talks that he attended last week, can he tell us what measures he and his government will take to assist Ontario agriculture to try to negate the very heavy subsidies that are being paid by the United States and the European Community?

Hon Mr Buchanan: First of all, I would like to clarify the language of the question. It is not necessarily a breakdown. The terminology used was an "adjournment" of the talks to a date in the new year. So we expect to continue the talks in the new year.

In the meantime, in Ontario we are going to consult with farm leaders, we are going to consult with the food group, and meetings have been set up for next week and the following week to consult with the agricultural community to address what sorts of strategy we can put in place.

Further to that, we have called for a meeting of the agriculture ministers across the country. There was a meeting scheduled in February. I have asked that this meeting be moved forward so that we can readdress this issue, come up with a plan and go back to the negotiations with a plan that we can implement to assist the farmers of Ontario.

Mr Villeneuve: Farmers are going broke left, right and centre. They are taking a very large reduction again this year in realized net farm income. Consultation should be at an end. The minister should know there is a major problem just to get people to survive, just to break even. Two weeks ago the Premier acknowledged to the Ontario Federation of Agriculture, for instance, that yes, Ontario needs a strong voice for agriculture, but there has not been any approval of that strong voice, which is badly needed. We need a safety net and the federal government is working on that. I hope and I think I understand that this government is also supportive of that.

In 1991, the crop income will not be any better than it was in 1990, and in 1990 it was at a 15-year low. What can we expect from the minister as encouragement to Ontario agriculture over the winter months as it prepares to go and plant a crop in 1991?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am sure the member is aware that we have been talking to farm groups and we have been looking at safety nets. At the meeting that was held in Winnipeg a month ago with our federal counterpart, we have come to agreement on some safety net proposals. The member would also be interested to know, I am sure, that while we were in Brussels we did spend a considerable amount of time discussing safety nets with our federal counterpart. I hope that by next week the final details will be ironed out so that we can announce that the safety net plan is going to be put in place to assist farmers in the very near future.

Mr Villeneuve: Regarding what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology said in reply to an earlier question, I want to quote from a press release from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. It says as follows: "Canada's offer is solid and balanced, addressing the three key areas of market access, internal support and export subsidies. In particular, I am very pleased by the federal government's stance in support of a strengthened article XI" of the GATT.

I am pleased to see that one member of the government understands a little bit what is happening. I am not sure about the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology with his previous answer. However, agriculture's returns are 14.3% less this year than they were last year. The year before they were 17.8% less than they were the previous year. If this kind of wage loss was being taken by any other sector of the economy, this government would come to the rescue immediately. In view of those statistics, what does the minister plan on doing?

1440

Hon Mr Buchanan: As I mentioned earlier, we are planning to proceed with the safety nets. We would like to speed them up to make sure they are in place for next year.

Further to that, I would like the member to know that if we do not bring in the safety net program as a national program, there is a very great danger that the western provinces may gain all the money that is available from the federal government for support. I have argued very strongly that we have national plans to support agriculture in this country and it has been accepted by the federal government. Mr Mazankowski now supports the concept of national programs so that Ontario will get its fair share of federal tax dollars to go to support agriculture in this country.

MANDATORY RETIREMENT

Mr Curling: My question is for the Minister of Citizenship, who has responsibility for human rights and race relations. As this House has already acknowledged, on this day we pay tribute to the importance of human rights and human dignity for people in all walks of life.

The government has made a strong commitment to senior citizens in Ontario. As I am sure the minister is aware, the Supreme Court of Canada, in a decision handed down last Thursday, upheld the validity of mandatory retirement policies.

The minister will also be aware that mandatory retirement legislation impacts most adversely on elderly women and the poor. In addition, as the minister may know, other Canadian jurisdictions such as Manitoba, New Brunswick, Quebec and Alberta, as well as the federal government, have all abolished mandatory retirement. Given the government's strong commitment to individual rights, can the minister outline what her government intends to do to protect the rights of seniors adversely impacted by this decision?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank the member very much for the question, because I too have those same concerns, as he well understands. Having heard the result of the court action, we were very concerned and we have instigated some talks between our own ministries to address this. We will be addressing it, though, in several different ways, as the Minister of Community and Social Services has already said, with the various different programs that we have in place and with the moratorium on rent controls as well.

I think it is a very broad issue. It is not just the issue of whether we want people to go back to work; we also have to take a look at whether people have the right to retire and to live in dignity in their retirement. But I do share the member's concerns, and we will be talking to the Attorney General and other ministries as well. I thank the member very much for his concern.

Mr Mahoney: I am not quite sure if the answer was stating a moratorium on a decision, or interministerial dialogue, or exactly what it is the minister just said. It seems to be more of the same old thing.

Given the government's previously stated commitments to individual rights, I find it quite surprising that the minister and her leader have failed to address the issue of mandatory retirement since the Supreme Court delivered its decision last week. Is it purely coincidental that her government refuses to set out its policy initiatives in this area since labour has come down strongly in favour of the Supreme Court ruling favouring mandatory retirement? Can the minister tell us whether the Canadian Labour Congress has decided this issue for the government, or will the minister tell us that the government will act to protect our senior citizens?

Hon Ms Ziemba: I thank the member for his question. No. We are taking our time to look at this issue because it is a much broader issue, as I said. Yes, we do believe in the rights of people.

Mr Mahoney: Not for the seniors, it isn't.

Hon Ms Ziemba: No, it is a broad issue because the seniors do have a right to retire, if they want, in dignity. It is also an issue of pensions. We are very concerned that people should not have to work because they cannot live on their pensions, and that has certainly been the problem in the past.

Mr Mahoney: You don't understand the issue.

Hon Ms Ziemba: Yes, we do understand the issue, and we are concerned about it. We will be making sure that we sit down and discuss and look at the issue in its broad terms to make sure that the Attorney General and I will be speaking about this.

ENERGY EFFICIENCY

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. I assume the minister supports the goal set by her government of increased conservation and energy efficiency. As she will know, Ontario Hydro has several financial assistance programs to help apartment building owners defray the costs of retrofitting apartment buildings to make them more energy efficient. Does she believe the energy saved through these programs will be a major part of her government's energy conservation program?

Hon Mrs Carter: While that is of course one part of our conservation plans, it is very far from being the only part, as the member is well aware, because these plans are very far-reaching indeed.

Mr Tilson: I gather the answer there is that we are not sure, but I do have a supplementary question for the minister.

Ontario Hydro is encouraging apartment building owners to individually meter their units. Their brochures, which I have before me, indicate that individual metering can reduce energy consumption by 30%. Hydro provides a forgivable loan of $300 per unit for up to 75% of the cost of installing individual meters.

The owners of a town house complex in Kitchener heeded Ontario Hydro's advice and installed individual meters in 51 units at a cost of $2,500 per unit. Now they are caught in the Minister of Housing's freeze and they cannot recover the remaining $2,200 per unit they spent. Clearly, there is no longer any economic incentive to do this type of work that has been put forward by the Ministry of Energy. The efforts of the Ministry of Energy in the field of energy conservation are being undermined by the Minister of Housing. I think the minister will agree with that. Does the minister not think that the Minister of Housing's rent control policies are putting her energy conservation goals in jeopardy as there is now no incentive for apartment building owners to undertake energy efficiency projects?

Hon Mrs Carter: If the problem that the member opposite is outlining is indeed happening, then we will look into it with our colleague the Minister of Housing and see what the situation really is.

ST PATRICK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

Mr Sutherland: My question is directed to the Minister of Education. Last week, St. Patrick elementary school in the city of Woodstock in my riding was closed and the students were sent home after unusually high levels of methane gas were detected. Since that time, the city has had some wells drilled to siphon off some of the extra gas. The school has reopened today and the students have gone back. However, there are still some parents concerned about the safety of their students who have refused to send their children back to the school.

My question to the minister is, what assurances can she give that her ministry will ensure that the safety of the students and staff at St. Patrick elementary school will be looked after?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I appreciate the concern that the member has expressed and certainly the ministry was quite concerned as well to hear about the problem at St. Patrick school. The ministry's regional office in London continues to monitor the situation.

The action that was taken was not only to dig the wells with the pipes but also to install electric blowers. We have had assurances from both the city engineering department and the medical officer of health that in fact the levels are safe and will continue to be monitored. This is a really serious problem, because the school was built next to a landfill site and we all know that these are serious issues when that happens.

Mr Sutherland: Is the ministry willing to do any of its own monitoring of the situation and of the methane gas levels?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I am not entirely sure of the answer to the question, because my understanding of it was that this was the responsibility of the municipal government in terms of the engineering department and the medical officer of health. However, I will ascertain and inform the member of that as soon as possible.

1450

USER FEES

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health and it really flows out of the announcement made last week in Quebec around health care. Will the minister indicate to the House whether or not her government at any time during its life is considering any form of user fee in the health care system in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member refers to the Quebec report. We have not received a copy of that report yet, but I am looking forward to getting it and studying it. The recommendation which is made in the Quebec report for service charges for people who go for non-emergency service to emergency centres at hospitals is certainly not something that is under consideration by this government.

Mr Phillips: I do not think that the minister has answered the question. I said, is the government at any time during its life considering any form of user fee and will she indicate whether she has ruled that out or not?

I would ask the minister if she might be more specific in her answer. She has talked merely about the emergency fee. What we are interested in is whether or not the government will consider any form of user fee during the life of her government. I think it is extremely important to the health care system of Ontario that we know the answer to this. I would like to know whether her government has or has not ruled out user fees in the health care system in Ontario.

Hon Mrs Gigantes: The member is aware that there are some charges within the health service system in Ontario for items which are not covered under OHIP. We have no plans currently to impose other charges.

ECONOMIC POLICY

Mr Stockwell: My question is to the Treasurer. On 6 December there was a communiqué released from the meeting of provincial finance ministers. That communiqué called for an end to the spending habits that we have found ourselves in for the past number of years, those spending habits leading I think in some degree to the recession that we are in.

We all know that out-of-control spending causes a higher debt, that higher debts increase the interest rates etc.

Interest rates are a concern that small business, farmers and so on have today. Why is it that the Treasurer opposed the signing of this communiqué and what is it specifically in it that causes him some concerns, or is he opposed from his political perspective?

Hon Mr Laughren: I appreciate the opportunity to explain and report on the meeting of the finance ministers. I should make it perfectly clear that what I objected to in the communiqué was not the fact that the provincial finance ministers wanted to control expenditures at a time of rising deficits all across Canada, but rather that the communique expressed what to me was almost a fixation or a singleminded interest in controlling expenditures as opposed to taking even any kind of serious look at the whole question of revenue possibilities in the various jurisdictions.

For those reasons I felt that I could not in all honesty sign and be part of a communiqué that concentrated solely on expenditure control the same week that I had been on my feet in this place announcing a $700-million antirecession package. I thought that would have been inconsistent on my part.

Mr Stockwell: The past five years were very good years. We saw increased spending in Ontario: $17.2 billion more, or nearly 60%, since the 1985-86 fiscal year. Since 1985-86, Ontario government spending has increased at an average annual rate of nearly 10% and, over the 1984-85 to 1989-90 period, Ontario government program expenditures increased at an average annual rate of 9.6%, compared with a 6.4% average rate for provinces and a 3.6% average rate for the federal government.

The concern is that this kind of spending took place during a very big economy, a boom economy. In fact, we spent at unprecedented levels. The commitment that I think the taxpayers would like to hear from the Treasurer is if we have to spend during the boom years, and the Treasurer is discussing expenditure increases during the bad years, when is the time not to spend? When is that crucial time in fact to pay the debts? When is that crucial time to give the taxpayers a break on the revenue side or the taxpaying side?

It seems to me we spend in the good years and we spend in the bad years. When are the years that we stop spending and pay those debts so our children are not burdened with them from years ago?

Hon Mr Laughren: I am sure that the critic, the member for Etobicoke West, is not implying in his question that I or we had any responsibility for spending in good times, although we do look forward to that opportunity in the years to come.

I would say to my critic, the member for Etobicoke West, that it seems to me it is not appropriate at a time of a recession -- and keep in mind that Ontario, although I hate to use this expression, is leading the way in recession in this country, as a matter of fact in North America. So I think it would be completely inappropriate for me to agree to any kind of communiqué that said we should be singleminded about expenditure controls. We simply cannot do that.

It would be hypocritical on my part to say yes, I think the federal government should put a cap on expenditures at the same time that those finance ministers were asking for the federal government to reconsider its cap on certain transfers to the provinces. For those reasons, I felt that I could not be part of that communiqué.

CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORP CUTBACKS

Mr Lessard: In the city of Windsor, Mayor John Millson has established a task force to deal with the incredible loss of local programming as a result of the cutbacks at CBC. I think this initiative clearly demonstrates that the people in the city of Windsor are not prepared to just lie down and play dead with respect to this issue. As much as I would like to make a speech about my feelings about this loss, I know that this is not the appropriate place to do that.

There are several options that are being pursued by this task force, one of which relates to the possible involvement of TVOntario. My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I would like to know if he can advise this House whether he is prepared to recommend that TVOntario provide this vital and much-needed service in the city of Windsor with respect to local news programming, or whether he is able to do that.

Hon Mr Marchese: I share the distress that the member is feeling and I share the distress and the outrage that Windsor is feeling. I wish that I could immediately fill the communications gap that has been caused by the federal government on the CBC broadcasting.

As the members know, TVO is an agency of the ministry -- it makes its own programming and allocation decisions -- but TVO is limited to educational broadcasting and is not in a position to operate programming locally. Its only programming centre is in Toronto and it only broadcasts across Ontario. It cannot be a substitute for the CBC.

There are two things that prevent it from being able to do what the member asks and what Windsor would like, and those are that the educational broadcasting agreement does not allow it and its physical structures do not allow it to do the kind of programming that he suggests. I think that asking for TVO to pick up on the CBC cutbacks is like asking GO Transit to pick up on the Via cutbacks.

Our outrage needs to be properly directed against the federal government. This is a national issue that needs a national answer, and we need to focus our energies on reversing this national disaster.

1500

Mr Lessard: In light of the answer that the minister has given, I wonder if the minister can advise the House as to what he is prepared to do, if anything, with respect to this issue.

Hon Mr Marchese: Again, I am not optimistic that the federal government or the Minister of Communications is going to regain his sanity and do the right thing on this matter. However, there are several things that I am doing that probably will not solve it, but we have written to Mr Masse stating our outrage and expressing to him our desire that he restore the funding to the CBC; we are writing to Mr Colville, the chair of the CRTC, calling for public hearings on the review of the CBC licence, and we have written to Mr Veilleux to express to him our concerns.

In addition, I am getting in touch with all of the counterparts, the ministers of all the provinces, so that hopefully we can meet, and if we cannot meet, to discuss what we can do together in terms of taking a position nationally against the CBC cutbacks.

Mr Sorbara: I am glad that in the face of the worst CBC cutbacks in history, the Minister of Culture and Communications is prepared to express his concerns.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Sorbara: My question is to the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues. Last Thursday in this House we were listening to some very moving speeches by members commemorating the lives of the 14 young women who were murdered at the École Polytechnique in Montreal. On that very day in Hamilton a jury acquitted one Guy Ellul of the murder of his wife.

In that case, the evidence showed that Mr Ellul stabbed his estranged wife some 21 times. Some of those wounds were as deep as six inches. The evidence also established that prior to this incident, the accused had spoken publicly about killing his wife and his children, and indeed committing suicide, if his wife were to leave him.

My question to the minister responsible for women's issues is this: In light of the very grave concern, not only in the community of Hamilton but right across the province and indeed around the country, about this verdict, and in light of the minister's responsibility to speak on behalf of women throughout the province of Ontario -- and not to suggest at all that in this House we ought to convict a man who has recently been acquitted -- what is the minister prepared to do in light of the fact that men and women from Hamilton are outraged at this decision and look to this government for some direction?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: In sharing the member's great concern, I believe that the question would most appropriately be answered by the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Hampton: Without commenting any further on the specifics of the case, I can tell the member that in the ordinary course this kind of decision would be reviewed by senior crown law officers at the Ministry of the Attorney General to consider whether an appeal should go forward, and that will be happening in the ordinary matter of course very soon.

Mr Sorbara: I accept the fact that the minister responsible for women's issues wants to refer the question to the Attorney General. There was no doubt in my mind when I got up to ask the question that in the normal course of things the crown law officers would be reviewing the address to the jury and the transcripts of the trial to determine whether or not there was a basis for appeal.

I directed the question to the minister responsible for women's issues because I was referring to a different matter. It was but three weeks ago that the minister responsible for women's issues, in the face of a lobby from the Ontario Association of Interval and Transition Houses, said that this new government was going to make a real difference on the issue of violence against women.

So my question to the Attorney General, to whom the question has now been referred, is this: What plans does he have to make sure that some different dynamic comes from this government to send out a different message about violence against women in this province from the message we get from this jury in Hamilton?

Hon Mr Hampton: I do not need to speak for the minister responsible for women's issues. I think it is very plain on the record that the minister responsible for women's issues has advocated strongly on this issue, has made wife assault an issue which is very clearly before the public, has made it a permanent program of this government, has dedicated more funds to that program and has been very proactive indeed in terms of informing the public that this cannot and should not happen again.

ANTI-DRUG STRATEGIES

Mr Carr: My question is for the Solicitor General. Over the past week I had the opportunity to spend some time with police officers to educate myself and to consult about some of the problems of crime facing this province. In fact, I had a bit of an opportunity last week to spend some time in the Premier's own riding, up in 31 Division, and watch while drug deals were being made.

Having seen at first hand what the men and women of our police forces face daily, and due to the fact that there was no mention of a strategy in either An Agenda for People or in the throne speech, my question is this: Is the Solicitor General planning to introduce an anti-drug strategy for this province and, if so, when might this House expect it?

Hon Mr Farnan: For the member's information, there is already an anti-drug strategy. It is operative. We will in fact be reporting on the advisory committee to the minister. This report will come into the House, I would think, within the next week. Not only is the strategy in place; it is operable, functioning and doing very well indeed.

Mr Carr: Up to 90% of the crimes, as I found out in my experience of being out there, are drug related, and while the number of incidents of crimes is staggering, what is really shocking is the way in which the police are handcuffed in doing their job.

The previous government, in the Black report, focused on education as a method of eradicating this terrible problem. While we support that focus, I would also like to know if the Solicitor General will include education and treatment in the strategy that he is putting together. I will ask him today if he will make a commitment to ensure that the police have the tools to get the job done. Will the Solicitor General make that commitment to this House today?

Hon Mr Farnan: Education is indeed very significantly part of the present strategy. Indeed, the education programs are being put in place within our school system between grades 3 and 10 and being expanded from grades 1 to 3 by 1991. So prevention and education are very, very significant.

I want to point out that the three aspects of the anti-drug strategy include prevention, education, treatment and enforcement. But the member should realize that the emphasis has to be not simply on one aspect of these areas. Enforcement is there. We have in place special anti-drug units. We have special training taking place, where our police services personnel receive special training, and we shall continue to expand that. Specialized training will continue, prevention and education, treatment and enforcement. It has to be a composite approach, not a single approach. We will continue along those lines.

COMMUNITY COLLEGES

Mr Hansen: My question is for the Minister of Colleges and Universities. On 20 July 1990, the Vision 2000 report was released by the minister's predecessor in the Liberal government. The report had over 40 proposed initiatives for the Ontario colleges of applied arts and technology. Among the key recommendations were the restructuring of the colleges to include programs to focus on the development of generic skills; a comprehensive review of a system-wide curriculum, standards and accreditation of programs, and encouragement of accessibility for the underrepresented groups.

A deadline of 30 November 1990 was established for comment on the report by educators and other interested parties. Can the minister tell the House if that deadline was adhered to?

Hon Mr Allen: I appreciate the member's concern for the colleges of this province and for this very creative report that has been received, not by me but by a previous minister, and indeed inaugurated by the member for Fort William. This has been an unusually effective, perhaps the best consultative process this province has ever seen in terms of the consultation of stakeholders, and indeed a process in which many members of this House participated very helpfully, because they too were consulted.

This document contains many creative proposals. It is true there was a deadline of 30 November. Some of the colleges had a bit of a problem responding to the full range of the report within that confined period of time, so I have extended the deadline until 31 December and I am awaiting those recommendations until we take full action on the report.

1510

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr Daigeler: I am rather pleased that the member just asked the question that I was going to ask today as well. For that very same purpose I brought along a copy of the report. I am very pleased that the minister appreciates the work of the previous Minister of Colleges and Universities, the member for Fort William. When I met with the students and with representatives of the college community, as the minister has said, they were very appreciative of the process that led to this report and in fact they were also very appreciative of the recommendations that have been put forward.

In light of the minister's support for this project, I would also like to ask him about his plans for the training efforts of the business community. Many of the recommendations relate to the need to further develop a training culture in this province. I would like to ask the minister whether he shares my conviction about the development of a training culture, especially by businesses with up to now only 31% of businesses providing training. Is he prepared to implement those recommendations of the Vision 2000 project as quickly as possible that relate to the training efforts of the business community?

Hon Mr Allen: This report is not going to sit on the shelf and this minister is not going to sit on the fence. It is really interesting that the gentleman opposite is asking me to implement it before the stakeholders have all had an opportunity to tell me specifically what they want done about this very complex and far-reaching report.

I have already in fact sat down to consult about methods and possibilities of moving ahead from this point. Certainly I have had my close consultation with the head of the Council of Regents, who masterminded this document and its results in a very effective way. I will be looking to an implementation process that follows very much that good model. I will not be looking for mechanical quick fixes. I will be looking for a process that effectively, over the next few years, puts in place the major recommendations that come from this report, and not least of all those that pertain to skills and the training dimension of that document.

Mr Daigeler: The minister has acknowledged that the consultation process was very excellent and that it was very far-ranging. He has now had four months to study those recommendations. I do not see the need to have another whole round of consultations in order to implement at least the final recommendation of this report, which was to set up a committee that will move forward and do the very work that he is just spelling out. That recommendation can be put into place now and I hope he will do that before Christmas.

However, my specific question, which the minister did not answer, was, what is his view of the fact that only 31% of businesses in this country are providing training and how is he planning to encourage our business community to provide training, this so important educational responsibility which is presently not fulfilled by the business community?

Hon Mr Allen: That was a great many words about not very much, in the sense that I am currently --

Mr Scott: It's a matter in which you used to have exclusive expertise, as I remember.

Hon Mr Allen: That is right. I have had two whole months, of course, to examine the whole front of skills training and the whole front of the college system, and also to get myself involved in negotiations with the federal government around OTAB, the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board, a provincial and federal training board. I have already had one sit-down with that minister. We are preparing for negotiations. Surely the member is not suggesting that I should jump the gun on the whole implementation process around Vision 2000 and around the negotiations for establishing a training culture in Ontario. Give us a little break, as my fellow minister in the Housing ministry said to somebody else last week.

TRITIUM

Mr Jordan: My question is for the Minister of Energy. We are having a difficult time understanding the government's policy on nuclear energy. First, one of the government's favourite words, "review," was just put into place to study Ontario Hydro's demand-supply plan. The minister said she would review the plan and then decide if nuclear power has a future in Ontario.

Before they were on the government side of the House, the New Democrats strongly opposed the sale of tritium for peaceful purposes. They did not even want it transported along the highways of this province. What is the current government's policy on the sale of tritium?

Hon Mrs Carter: Our policy on tritium is under review at the moment. This is a matter which does concern us. We are looking into it very profoundly and we shall have a policy in the very near future. At the moment, things are proceeding as under the policy of the previous government.

PÉTITION

ÉTABLISSEMENT D'UN ÉDIFICE À LOGEMENTS SUBVENTIONNÉS

M. Villeneuve : Hier après-midi, j'ai eu l'occasion de visiter le village d'Embrun, où on m'a présenté une pétition destinée au ministre du Logement, par le comité des aînés de Crysler, signée par 165 personnes de la région. La pétition se lit comme suit :

«Dû à un urgent besoin, nous, les aînés de Crysler, supplions la Société de logement de l'Ontario : l'établissement d'un édifice à logements subventionnés pour les personnes âgées dans notre communauté.»

Cette pétition est signée par 165 gens de l'âge d'or de la région de Crysler ; il y en avait plus de 200 à la réunion hier après-midi.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COMMITTEE ON THE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PREMIER ACT, 1990

Mr Henderson moved first reading of Bill 21, An Act to establish a Committee respecting the direct election of the Premier.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Henderson: The purpose of this bill is to establish a committee to develop a plan under which the Premier of Ontario would be elected by direct election by all Ontario electors. The committee will be composed of members of the assembly, academics, a government lawyer and the chair of the Ontario Law Reform Commission.

Many different models of democracy are alive and well somewhere in the globe. Wisely, many jurisdictions canvass the global options in the course of refining the model of government best suited --

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke-Humber, a brief explanation is all that is in order. You have already addressed the basic principle of the bill in the first three sentences. That is all we need to hear.

Mr Henderson: I would like to say a word or two about the nature of the committee.

The Speaker: No, I am sorry. I have to rule it out of order.

1520

DEAF PERSONS' RIGHTS ACT, 1990

Mr Abel moved first reading of Bill 22, An Act to provide for certain Rights for Deaf Persons.

Motion agreed to.

Mr Abel: The purpose of this bill is to ensure that deaf people are not discriminated against when accompanied by hearing-ear dogs being used as guide dogs. This bill will extend to deaf people with guide dogs the same rights now enjoyed by blind people with their guide dogs under the Blind Persons' Rights Act.

COMMITTEE ON THE DIRECT ELECTION OF THE PREMIER ACT, 1990

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I noted with some concern that you cut off the member for Etobicoke-Humber when he introduced his bill. Members are able to make brief statements. He had delivered only two or three lines on the principle of the bill. I think it is very usual to allow at least some leeway, particularly when government ministers introduce their bills and have some things to say about their legislation. I see no reason why the member for Etobicoke-Humber could not also have explained his bill just a little bit more fully.

I appreciate that you want things to move along, but from my point of view, to allow a gentleman two or three sentences is hardly sufficient time to provide for first reading and is quite unusual.

The Speaker: To the member for Bruce, I appreciate the point you have raised. The member will also recognize that it is common practice, not from the point of expediency but simply common practice in our procedure, to read only a few lines that introduce the principle of the bill and not introduce anything which could be construed to be argumentative.

It was on that basis alone that I listened intently to the member for Etobicoke-Humber. Once he got beyond the first three sentences, he was then starting to present his arguments on the background information to the bill. I listened equally carefully to the member for Wentworth North, who presented the bill with simply the first lines of principle introduced.

I think all members are mindful of our common practice on how we introduce bills. The first reading is not an opportunity to present anything other than the principle, simply stated.

Mr Elston: I appreciate what you are saying, Mr Speaker, but I really think we will be keeping a good record, then, of the ministers of the crown when they deliver their first readings as well. I know they are also entitled to make statements and they generally do make statements, and they usually go on for quite some time. It is a bit of a concern that the private member is being restricted to two or three lines after doing a lot of work in preparing his legislation.

The Speaker: The member for Bruce knows full well the Speaker's point of view with respect to private members and the importance of their bills. This may be a mistake on my part, but I am going to allow the member for Etobicoke-Humber to test the chair; Christmas spirit.

Mr Henderson: Mr Speaker, perhaps I may just say on the point of order that I did say, after you made your initial comments, that I wanted only a sentence or two further on the nature of the committee, which is not argumentative. If you will bear with me, it will be exactly two or three brief sentences.

The committee will be directed to consider constitutional and other legal implications of the change in the method of choosing the Premier. It will also be directed to prepare all necessary draft legislation to implement the plan. It will have 18 months to complete its work.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1990 / LOI DE 1990 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 1, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mrs Sullivan: On Thursday last I was speaking to some of the issues involved in Bill 1 and its implementation, particularly those relating to compliance requirements of the goods and services tax, which as we know is a costly, time-consuming, administrative nightmare for most vendors, with the additional compliance and administrative costs associated with the introduction of the new retail sales tax on a different base than is used for the federal GST, and with the different bases for the collection of the tax.

We know from experience in other jurisdictions of some of the singularly striking administrative and compliance costs. In the United Kingdom several studies have been done on its value added tax, which is a tax similar to that the federal government will be introducing. Those studies have shown that the costs of the tax place an extremely strong burden on the vendors. Once again, that burden is particularly complicated when the retail sales tax at the provincial level is placed on the good or the service before rather than after the end price is calculated.

The GST has for some time been clearly recognized as a blow to the province. We have heard, certainly in the House, that the action that has been included in Bill 1 will cost the provincial Treasury $500 million. It seems to me that there may be some underestimation of what that cost is. I have, to refresh my memory, an article that appeared in the Toronto Star in October 1989, where provincial finance ministers were warning at that time that their treasuries stood to lose billions of dollars under the federal sales tax as a result of the changes made by Ottawa.

I would like to quote from that article. This is from 17 October 1989. It says, "'The report drafted last week by provincial deputy finance ministers warns that inflation created by the tax will cut provincial sales tax revenues as consumers' real incomes and spendings are reduced,' said the official, 'but more importantly, it will force increased provincial spending for items such as civil service salaries and social programs.'"

That is significant. I wonder if the minister and the Treasurer are willing to direct information to the House, are willing to speak to us openly about whether those kinds of calculations have also been taken into account in their fiscal and economic planning. We have heard about the $500 million in lost income as a direct result of placing the retail sales tax on the product before the GST rather than after, and we wonder what other prices and increases, what other costs to the province are hidden from us and have not been adequately expressed.

As we proceed in the debate and hear from the minister, I would also like to know more about the impact of this activity on the ISTA, the interprovincial sales tax arrangement. The ISTA is intended to minimize multiple application of provincial sales tax on vehicles which are operated by Canadian carriers in more than one province. We have not heard any word about this at this point. We understand that there will be different methods of application of retail sales taxes in various provinces. Ontario seems to be out of whack in comparison to the other provinces, and of course this kind of interprovincial arrangement is something that can cause significant difficulty when Ontario is out of step.

Under the ISTA a sales tax must be paid to each province where the carrier operates. The system has been devised for carriers to pay tax on a pro rata basis to the various participating provinces based on the percentage of the distance in those provinces. If we look at the goods and services tax, we will see that there are indeed significant implications of the goods and services tax relating to freight services, with inbound and outbound international freight services, with the exception of postage stamps to be zero-rated. Indeed, the RST may apply in some of those situations, GST may be applied on certain aspects of freight services, and I think we need considerable explanation from the minister on how these interprovincial matters will be dealt with.

1530

As well, the ISTA carriers include distances travelled in the United States, as they are calculating their distribution percentages for their interprovincial vehicles. I think these are matters of some concern and will certainly be matters of significant impact when it comes to the administration of the tax, which will be no small matter for the province.

We know that the two kinds of costs associated with collecting a goods and services tax, or in fact any other kind of sales tax, are the administrative costs, which are largely paid by the revenue department that implements the tax, and then the compliance costs, those costs associated with collecting, remitting and accounting for the implementation of the tax, and those costs are paid for largely by the taxpayers. I think it would be very useful for the minister to provide us with additional details of some of the administrative costs the Ministry of Revenue is expected to bear, first as a result of the GST and, second, as a result of this particular change in the method of collection of the retail sales tax.

I wanted to move on to a section of the bill that has a significant impact on our tourism industry. We certainly know that tourism accounts for a major part of the economy in Ontario. Millions of dollars are directly involved in the tourism-hospitality-convention business, and that industry has significant impact on our heritage conservation, on our environmental conservation activities in various parts of the province.

We know that at a time such as the one we are now in, of significant economic downturn, one of the first areas to feel the brunt of that downturn, to be involved in a slump and to react to the slump is of course the tourism and hospitality business. We see it in cancelled or unbooked conventions, we see it in less frequent business travel, we see it in less frequent utilization of restaurants, and the clear requirement for the whole hospitality industry to significantly pull in its horns and alter its marketing strategy. Indeed, I was struck when I was looking recently at the bankruptcy statements in Ontario to see the incredible number of operations in the tourism-hospitality industry that had entered bankruptcy proceedings recently.

One of the things that has been of singular use to the travel and tourism industry for many years has been the retail sales tax exemptions which were introduced specifically to promote tourism, hospitality, conventions in the province, and the tourism industry generally. They apply to goods which are exported from the country, and there is a rebate for non-resident transient accommodation applied to hotel and other accommodation.

If I could just review: Before 1982, the retail sales tax was not collected from the person who was purchasing goods for export. The vendor supplied the detail to the minister, and that continued until 1984 when a refund program was introduced. In 1978, the retail sales tax on transient accommodation was temporarily removed, and by 1984 a refund program was introduced. That refund program was extended indefinitely in the 1985 budget. I believe the Treasurer, in including the extension of the refund program in the 1985 budget, made that taxation policy very clear, very open and aboveboard. It was visible, it was understood, as were any changes to it.

But I am quite concerned as I read the provisions of the bill which allow the minister to bring about changes in the regulations to those rebates without the public scrutiny available through the Legislature and with no guarantee that the tourism industry, the hospitality industry, the convention industry will be consulted in any way. I think in one discussion, in response to remarks of a previous member, I raised that. I hope the minister will respond to that, and I hope the Minister of Tourism and Recreation, whom I see in the House, will also be pressing the Minister of Revenue for detail about those consultations, which are singularly important for the industry he speaks for and represents in this House.

Another issue on which I think it would be useful for the House to hear from the Minister of Revenue relating to this bill relates to the fact that under the previous government we had made it very clear that it was not our policy, and there was a great commitment that there would not be an expansion of the base to which the retail sales tax would apply to bring it further into conjunction with the goods and services tax. We have not heard a similar commitment from this government. We see Bill 1 as a first step in paralleling, and I think it is not only in the interest of this House but also of people throughout the province to know: How far will the paralleling go? Where is this government going to take us in reaching out and embracing the goods and services tax, on which its tax revolt has been remarkably subdued?

We see very much the possibility that ultimately, and in fact probably in the very near future, the goods and services tax will be buried in the total price of a product or service; that is, we will see a tax-included price for most of the goods we buy. That will certainly be the first step the federal government had intended to introduce.

There have been slight changes in that program at this point, but we believe that will come back. In that case, I suggest that this bill, Bill 1, will have absolutely no meaning, or our vendors will be required to do calculations that are above and beyond the call of necessity in order to comply with this particular bill. In fact, the minister will have to revert back to the original position, which was to place the retail sales tax on the final price of the product after federal taxes of whatever ilk or stripe.

As I conclude my remarks, I want to indicate that although it is an extremely unfair, regressive tax, we have seen a great deal of information coming from the federal government relating to the application of the goods and services tax. Some has provided additional confusion. We have seen, for example, that many accountancy firms and legal firms have different opinions of where that tax will in fact apply, where products will be exempt, where products will be zero-rated and so on. But what we have not seen are the implications of this tax change for our retail sales tax vendors, for our retailers and for our consumers on the compliance and the administrative complexities of changes that this bill brings about.

That is something we would like to see. I would like to hear from the minister what kinds of communications programs are planned, what the cost of those programs will be, and when they will be implemented, or if these are simply matters once again under study or pause.

1540

Mrs Caplan: Maybe there's a moratorium.

Mrs Sullivan: There possibly would be a moratorium.

[Interruption]

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Would you please remove this man from the gallery.

Mrs Sullivan: As I conclude my remarks, I do want to remind the members of the House of matters we raised at the very beginning of this particular debate. We believe the goods and services tax is an unfair, regressive tax that we do not support, and we have been surprised that the government which has indicated it will lead a tax revolt against that tax has in fact made as its Bill 1, its first piece of legislation, the harmonizing of the retail sales tax in Ontario with the federal goods and services tax. It has indicated that it clearly expects the goods and services tax to be implemented and it has given up the fight to keep it away.

That concludes my remarks for today. I am looking forward to hearing the response of the Minister of Revenue, particularly on some of the difficult matters in regard to compliance, administration and the interprovincial tax matters I have raised, and the impact on the tourism industry.

Mr Bradley: I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate on Bill 1, which deals with synchronization of the provincial tax with the federal tax, a tax which the people of this province and the people of this country have clearly indicated they do not want and do not support, despite the very heavy advertising of the federal government at this time, using taxpayers' funds to promote that particular tax which will extract from the Ontario economy and indeed from the Canadian economy a good deal of money from those who very often are the least able to afford it.

I watched with interest the procedure last Thursday as the government brought forward its first bill. There were many who I think did not recognize how one gets a bill through the Legislative Assembly. I know the government wants this bill and a number of other bills passed before it recesses for Christmas and into the new year. What we saw was an endless stream of interventions.

Hon Mr Wildman: We appreciate a full debate.

Mr Bradley: I am sure there will be a full debate, but what we had on Thursday, and I had hoped to conclude my remarks on Thursday, was an endless stream of interventions by members of the government, backbenchers who wanted to avail the preceding speakers of their wisdom, to ask questions, of course, as is their right, and to indicate what instant experts they are on virtually everything said in the House, having been in the Legislative Assembly some two weeks, able to make pronouncements with the kind of expertise that it usually takes two, three or four years for members to accumulate.

We must recognize that how we get a bill through the House is to ensure that we do not have an endless stream of pointless questions being directed to members, or cheap shots at members for the television audience which watches the continuous televising of this House. I would hope we will be able to conclude the debate in that manner, that is, getting the bill through and having any members who wish to speak make their speeches without those unnecessary interventions.

All of this, of course, in dealing with this bill, relates to the fact that the Premier has stated he would like the Ontario Legislature to be a kinder, gentler place. If it is indeed to be a kinder, gentler place, then we must recognize that it requires both sides of the House to ensure that that is the case. I have certainly given an undertaking to members of the government that I am prepared to make it as kind and as gentle a place as it was during the last session of the Ontario Legislature, when the NDP formed the official opposition and the Liberal Party was the government. I will ensure that I will follow the practices that were followed by the opposition on that occasion, and I am sure that those with memories will know what those days were like.

Mrs Caplan: Weren't they kind and gentle?

Mr Bradley: The member for Oriole says that in fact they were kind and gentle.

Mrs Caplan: No, I asked, "Weren't they kind and gentle?"

Mr Bradley: She asks the question. I should ignore interjections, as the Speaker would properly suggest to me, but the fact is that it was neither a kind nor gentle place. The legislation that was put forward was subjected, as it should be, to scrutiny by members of the opposition, but some of the inflammatory language which was used, some of the tactics which were used are those which the Premier would like not used now. It is very much like the kids who are shoving in the schoolyard and one kid has shoved the other kid 25 times and then suggests: "We shouldn't do this any more. We should end this practice now that I've had my 25 shoves." I can assure members that a passive opposition we will not be when there is a call for the kind of intervention that is necessary to draw to the attention of the public of this province some of the deficiencies which may be forthcoming from this government.

There was another procedure we had to follow when the government wanted to get its bills through, of course. It was very uncomfortable for members of the governing party to keep their silence, but the members of the previous government were compelled when they wanted to get bills through, even though they wanted to make an intervention and felt perhaps that one of the speakers on the other side was being provocative, in the interests of getting the bill through and not having the House sit on Christmas Eve, they held their tongues, and that is very difficult.

Mrs Caplan: Kinder and gentler.

Mr Bradley: The member for Oriole says "kinder and gentler" on that occasion. Looking at the goods and services tax itself, the legislation, the present government appears to be acquiescing to that tax at this time, certainly giving up the fight that we all had anticipated would be carried forward by the Premier and his many assistants. We recognize that the GST itself is going to have a rather devastating effect on Ontario. I think few people would suggest that that is not the case, particularly those of us who sit in this House.

Some would say we have a rather parochial view of the implications of the GST and that indeed it would affect other provinces as well, but I think there is an understanding that Ontario, being the business centre──whether people like it or not it is the business-industrial centre of this country -- just as free trade has had a devastating effect on Ontario, particularly in my part of the province where hundreds and now thousands of jobs have been lost as a result partially of the pressures created by and the opportunities created for our American friends. The free trade agreement was passed by Parliament and ultimately endorsed by the United States and by Canada.

We really see a shift of the burden from those in the corporate sector to those who have to consume products. It is a consumption tax we are dealing with this time, and whether one is rich or one is poor one has to pay that tax. There is a recognition that from time to time there will be cheques coming to certain individuals, but certainly they are not going to be coming to everyone and the time that that cheque arrives might not be opportune to compensate for the fact that we have it.

I think there is a recognition that we have to hire at the federal level a virtual army of civil servants to implement and administer this particular tax, and that will be an additional cost to the taxpayers of Canada at a time when everyone seems to be talking about simplifying things. Certainly the government in Ottawa said a number of years ago that it wanted to make it a simpler situation for taxation and that one of the reasons we have this bill is to attempt to synchronize and make things simpler. It remains to be seen whether that will be the case or not.

1550

Virtually every personal expenditure of individuals in this province will be subject to that tax. It is not only annoying, it is disruptive to small business particularly and, of course, to those who consume from small business.

When we think of people even having to get a haircut and paying that tax, we recognize what the calculations are going to do, the annoyance of dealing with an additional amount of money. At a time when it is becoming a very competitive business, we have the administration of that particular tax and the fact that many and various businesses will not just raise their prices the additional amount of that tax but will round it off to an even higher rate. So people will be paying more not only in terms of the tax but in terms of the price to be paid for the service, for the particular good that is being purchased.

It is estimated that the GST will shift the manufacturers sales tax burdens to the consumers to the tune of some $4 billion in this country. The result will be a $4-billion reduction in real disposable income when we take into account the GST.

It is estimated that the GST will add some $8 billion to $9 billion to consumer costs. We can expect that the reduction in real disposable income will lead to reduced spending and consumption in such things as housing, so we can see that it permeates virtually all of our business undertakings in this province. From the smallest business to the largest business, those undertakings are being affected by the GST.

This is why we would have been hopeful that instead of acquiescing to the GST, we would have seen the crusade that was promised by the new Premier and members of the government to stop the GST. Apparently the only people who are interested in stopping it at the present time, or at least taking direct action to stop it, are the Liberal members of the Senate who are attempting to block it at this time. Whether or not they will be successful one does not know, but that appears to be the only place where there is a real crusade going on against the GST at the present time. Others appear to have put their tail between their legs and headed off in another direction.

The reason we are concerned about it, of course, is the impact of the GST on such areas as housing. We think we recognize there is always a challenge in housing in a quickly developing society, in an area where the population is increasing quite rapidly compared to other areas. We think of the Metropolitan Toronto area, for instance. The impact of the GST on housing, even with the rebate which is suggested, will bring about an increased cost for that housing.

The GST increases the cost of legal fees and real estate commissions, so we can anticipate resale costs will increase in the future as well. This is a basic item that people want. This is not a luxury we are talking about when we talk about a home. We are talking about something that we hope would be a basic right in our country that people would be entitled to, having worked towards it, that it would be affordable and decent housing and not taxed out of reach of people through a tax such as the GST.

It is estimated that the real growth in Ontario directly as a result of the GST, never mind the other economic forces that are confronting us in this province, will drop by some 0.3% in the first year, that the consumer price index will rise in Ontario by at least 1.5%, that the unemployment rate will rise and that employees justifiably will be out seeking even greater increases in their paycheques to compensate for the fact that they will have to pay the GST.

We will see such groups as sports organizations -- and I have been and continue to be very much involved in sports in my own community and to a certain extent in the province -- and many people within the sports community are extremely concerned, as in other areas of volunteer activity, about the fact that the GST is going to apply to them and that it is going to be difficult once again to get those volunteers to come forward. People work mighty hard, and for nothing, in sports organizations and other volunteer organizations. When they find that government intervention is to take money away from them, to get its hands on some of the money, to make their job more difficult, some people are inclined to throw up their hands and say, "Well, if the government is this interested in intervening, perhaps it should run it." Fortunately I think we have enough people out there who are willing to continue this volunteer aspect, but they are mighty unhappy about the application of the GST to their area. I just choose that as one specific area.

I think we can anticipate that there will be the possibility that the Bank of Canada may raise interest rates sharply to combat inflation which would result from the GST. The governor of the Bank of Canada is preoccupied with inflation. Whether one agrees or disagrees with him, he is preoccupied with that and therefore he has raised the interest rates, the purpose of which, he says, is to combat inflation.

If we see more inflation generated by the GST, if we see those increases in prices as a result, if we see wages attempting to chase those prices, we anticipate that the governor of the Bank of Canada then would be interested in raising interest rates once again. That has already had a devastating effect on Ontario and certainly much of Canada. That is an ill-conceived policy, in our view, though I see that Sinclair Stevens, a former minister of the crown, has suggested that one of the reasons we have high interest rates is an unwritten part of the agreement on free trade with the United States, that unwritten part being that we will keep our dollar high, and keep interest rates high as a result, in order that we do not gain an advantage in our dealings with the United States.

Just one figure I would mention to members of the House who may not be aware is that when I visited a pulp and paper company in Thunder Bay at one time to look at the operation, I asked, "What is the effect of one cent on the dollar, when the dollar goes up one cent as compared to the American dollar?" It was suggested that it was a $17-million cost to that company and of course ultimately to jobs in this particular province.

We see that devastating effect of the GST. We see that it is a tax which is very much opposed by people in our country. Some people are saying that they do not want any taxes raised, they want government to cut. Others are saying, "We would like you to establish priorities and, if there are taxes to be increased, those taxes should be fairly assessed on people instead of ramming through the GST."

I could go into some of the details of this -- the former Attorney General would want me to -- but I will be a bit restrained because I would like to get to what I see as the action of this government related to the GST. I well recall during the election campaign and previous to that, because I have had the privilege of sitting in this House for some 13 years. I have had the opportunity to listen to the gentleman who is now the Premier of Ontario. Indeed he made some compelling arguments in opposition. In some cases the government of the day was prepared to accept them and in some cases it was not.

Listening to some of these compelling arguments, for instance, I was convinced that Consumers' Gas should not fall into foreign hands. I remember, I think it was back in March, the Premier of Ontario saying on that occasion that the government of the day should never allow this to happen. And there were a lot of people out there who were among the Waffle division of the NDP in years gone by who, I think, looked to an NDP government to be economically nationalistic and to protect us from foreign intervention in terms of increased foreign ownership of something as basic as energy in this province.

But of course when faced with the so-called realities of office, the Premier decided that he would take another course of action and allow Consumers' Gas to fall into foreign hands. Those of us who were hopeful that he would lead the crusade against that when he became Premier, when he had the power, when he had the opportunity, were somewhat disappointed that he did not do so.

Looking at what had happened, we remembered as well the Varity Corp, the fact that there was a danger that it might go to the United States after all the federal and provincial money that was provided. Now, I had heard the Premier and members of the present government say in years gone by, or at least in months gone by, that in fact this should not be allowed to happen. I thought they were making compelling arguments, just as they did with Consumers' Gas. I agreed with that compelling argument, and certainly had the previous government stayed in power I would have advocated that. Unfortunately, we found out that Varity was allowed to go to the United States. A long list of excuses is there. Some of the people who were most vociferous in wanting to retain Varity in Canada, in not letting it off the hook, were there beside the Premier to apologize for this government, to rationalize this.

1600

I hope those whose voices were loud in many places in the province in condemning previous governments, be they Conservative a number of years ago or Liberal now, are not going to be muted today, are not simply going to turn themselves into apologists for the NDP. I know many people, for instance in the labour union movement, who simply will reject that particular role of being apologists for the NDP. They are not going to be people who pointed the finger at a Liberal government provincially and a Conservative government federally and then let the NDP off the hook. I am sure that will not happen, although I did hear a couple of people beside Premier Bob, as we like calling him, suggesting that he did the only thing he could with Varity Corp. But I know too many people out there who are people of principle and will not do that, will not allow the government off the hook.

So I am looking forward to that. This is where it gets me to in this particular debate, the fact that I was looking forward to a crusade against the GST, and the very first thing the government did instead was acquiesce. It said, "Brian, you've got the GST in there." There were a lot of words and the Premier was full of sound and fury. I will not say what that was signifying, as Shakespeare said on one occasion. It looks like we all know what it was signifying. That is unfortunate, because I think we look for the Premier of the largest province, and one who had so much zeal in opposition in the federal House when he was the finance critic for the New Democratic Party and then in the provincial House when he assumed leadership here, indeed to be leading the crusade. But the signal that is sent out to the federal government by this bill being presented to the House is: "Look, folks, we've given up. Brian, it's all yours. We'll make some noise about it. We'll attack you in the paper" -- I see that the Premier attacked the Prime Minister in the paper -- "but really, when it comes down to action, we're prepared to play ball with you." And that is what happens when we pass this particular piece of legislation.

I had some quotes and I cannot find them. You never find these quotes when you want them. They are important to this debate, very relevant to this debate. I had some quotes from the present Attorney General and the Premier on the GST. I wish I could find them, but it is very difficult.

Mrs Caplan: I have them. Do you want them?

Mr Bradley: Perhaps the member for Oriole can help out and provide the quotes to me. She conveniently has them.

It says here, "For a government that says it would have nothing to do with the GST, this bill demonstrates that the government is going to considerable effort to harmonize its sales tax policy with the new GST." I agree with that statement that the member for Oriole has probably originated herself, but there is a quote here. It says, "This is quite incredible, given Mr Rae's comments on 22 August." I was listening very carefully to those comments, when he said, "We're committed to making taxes fairer by saying from the beginning that we will have nothing to do with the Mulroney tax," that being the GST.

He had this phrase that was quoted very often, and when you are a new government you get away with this without any other suggestions from others that you may be repeating yourself. What was it he said? It was the wrong tax on the wrong people at the wrong time. We saw that on so many different clips from one end of the province to the other, and yet today we see in the House a bill that shows acquiescence to Brian Mulroney.

The new Attorney General of Ontario, the member for Rainy River, said on 3 October -- this is even later than the August quote -- "Fighting the GST is a major priority of this government."

Finally, in An Agenda for People the Premier stated, "If necessary, Ontario should cut itself loose from the Mulroney tax program, building our own tax plan." I would like to know how this bill does that, because in fact it synchronizes --

Mrs Caplan: Harmonizes.

Mr Bradley: -- "harmonizes" is a word that is suggested to me──the provincial sales tax with the federal sales tax.

I am disappointed by that. I would have hoped that some of the fire and brimstone that was always in the NDP -- I had many friends in the NDP and still have many friends in the NDP, who are not necessarily members of the Legislature. Some of them are. By the time I am finished speaking I will probably have no friends in the Ontario Legislature on the other side of the House, but that is a consequence, I guess, of being in opposition. But many of my friends who are ardent New Democrats, some of them former teachers of mine, were disappointed, I think, when they saw this pattern of acquiescence to what some people would say is reality. That is what it is.

In effect, what some of us are saying is that the NDP is no different from any other party. Despite the sanctimony, despite the stated principles, the NDP in government is no different from any other party in government in terms of recognizing the realities of government. This is not a harsh criticism of it. It is stating reality. But I guess what was always hard to take was the sanctimony; the feeling out there when you would see Gerald Caplan or somebody on television giving the NDP point of view that somehow he was substantially different from another party in power. Some of the policies are different and I appreciate that and that makes for some reasonable debates, but their style of government is essentially consultation.

I remember the criticism of consultation, that, "Well, you people are setting up another task force," or "You're consulting for ever." I hear the same words over there. Some days it is difficult. If one were to put a blindfold on in this House, one might wonder if the government had in fact changed, because the only thing that seems to change are the faces making the statements. The statements are the same, the briefing books are the same. The minister reads an answer out of the briefing book that says what some other minister said.

I remember asking a question on gasoline prices, and members will recall that the Premier said "no gouging of the consumer with gasoline prices." I remember asking a question a number of years ago on this, when essentially the answer was the same. And other members asked, not of the Liberal government but even as far back as the Tory government. It is the same briefing book, the same answers. They say, "You must recognize that there's a two-month period where" and so on and, "Yes, we're monitoring," so the answers have not changed, unfortunately. We see the gouging taking place and we see no action, because when they get in power they recognize the ramifications of some of the actions that they were proposing while in opposition, in the good old days when they were in an election campaign.

I appreciate that the rhetoric over there remains fairly strong. The action, though, has abated rather considerably. There is this capitulation to Prime Minister Mulroney, who is the stated enemy of the government of Ontario according to the weekend newspapers, but of course the action is not there.

That reminds me of something else, because it fits in perfectly with this bill, and that is free trade. Something else I heard the Premier say during the election campaign subject to that, particularly after he won, was, "We are not going to implement those parts of the free trade agreement" -- FTA as they call it for short form -- "which are under provincial jurisdiction," stated with boldness. Of course there was acquiescent nodding by members of the caucus, no doubt. The public was thrilled by this. "Here is a man. He is going to fight the free trade agreement."

I well remember him standing not far from here in this Legislature, ridiculing the previous government, chastising the previous Premier, suggesting something that we never suggest in this House, suggesting that the Premier might be lying. I would not use that terminology because I believe in a kinder, gentler House to a certain extent. But that was what was used over here to the previous Premier over there.

I have suggested a number of flip-flops on the part of this government, but knowing that the rules of this House, for good reason, do not allow that terminology, I would not use that terminology. There must be a presumption in this House that all members are telling the truth, that while we may disagree with what a member is saying, he is telling the truth. But if I went back in Hansard and heard some of the questions and statements coming from the former Leader of the Opposition in this House, I would find something rather different. But I do not want to engage in that at the present time, except to remind members of that.

I remember a member of the cabinet, as I was going out and I was talking to another long-time NDP member, a fairly long-time NDP member, about this, this person said to me, "Well, he was lying," as though in the House, if we think a person is lying, we can use that terminology in the House.

1610

What happens is the debate tends to degenerate in the House when we have those kinds of accusations, so I am not going to suggest that the Premier, who has backtracked on all of these in fact, was trying to deceive the people of the province of Ontario.

I am sure when he made the statements he would like to have implemented them. I am sure in some cases he was not certain or was not sure he was going to be the Premier, so he took a little bit of the licence that politicians can take when they do not think they are going to win an election.

But what is galling is that the NDP was supposed to be different. If I listen again to Gerald Caplan and all the gurus of the NDP, they were different than others. The conclusion I have come to is that they are basically the same as the others, and that is a real condemnation for some members of the New Democratic Party to hear, that perhaps they are the same as the rest of the parties.

The free trade agreement: I can anticipate that the Premier will be throwing a monkey wrench into it and it will be dismantled as a result of his lack of co-operation in implementing it because that is what he said, and I can assume that is going to happen.

Some other things I would like to deal with here are of some importance. I dealt with gas prices. I do not know what that has to do with this bill, but I have dealt with gas prices.

The minister shakes her head, wondering whether this will ever end and whether we can get on to other bills. I used to wonder the same thing, sitting in a similar position over there, but we find out that it does continue.

One of the options open to the government in this recessionary period -- by the way, I do not think governments can be criticized for taking certain actions in a recessionary period. It is unfair of some to say: "Well, you're in a recession, therefore it doesn't matter. You still shouldn't run deficits or make huge expenditures."

That is quite all right. I think the Treasurer recognizes that he has to make some additional expenditures in a recessionary period and that the deficit is going to be a consequence of a recessionary period. That is certainly acceptable, and those who say it is not I think are simply not facing reality.

One of the things that could have been done instead of the measure being taken at the present time is that the government could have simply cut the provincial sales tax by one point. Everybody thinks that is 1%. It is not of course. It is substantially more in its impact, and that would have put into the hands of consumers in this province some $1.1 billion.

I think consumers could probably have made good use of those dollars and cents to ensure that in this province, particularly at this time of year when people are buying gifts, but particularly when they are trying to make some expenditures in a recession, they would have had a little more money, $1.1 billion worth, to keep this economy going in a difficult time.

One of the factors we have seen -- I do not know whether it affects this particular bill; it may have affected some of the other decisions, so it might affect this bill -- was that there seemed to be a change of tone once the Premier and the Treasurer went down to Wall Street on bended knees to plead with the barons of Wall Street, just as they have obviously had meetings with the barons of Bay Street.

"Indeed you don't have to worry about this government. It isn't a radical government," they would say. "It isn't a socialist government. We don't use socialist. It's a bad word. It's only a social democratic government. We are democratic socialists," sometimes they might say. They like saying "social democrats." That is much better. "Business need not fear the NDP." That was the message on Wall Street and on Bay Street.

I suspect, though this may only be conjecture on my part, that perhaps that has influenced the government decisions, that when faced with the realities of what the people on Bay Street had to say and the people on Wall Street had to say, they decided it is important to keep this triple A rating. It is important to keep them reasonably happy, reasonably assured. But I think there are probably some uneasy New Democrats out there who say, "Where is the reformist zeal of our party now that moderate Premier Bob has met with whoever it is who heads the crew down on Wall Street in the United States?"

We are a bit concerned obviously. Perhaps we will see some changes, perhaps we will not. We are very concerned as well on this side. Again, I want to talk about what was said when people were in opposition and what was a stated principle of the New Democratic Party.

Do members realize there are some people who say that the New Democratic Party is neither new nor democratic? Now I do not believe that myself. I think they are democratic but they are not new. They are new in government, but certainly many of their ideas are not new. When I listen to the ministers give answers to the questions, I recognize that they are not very new.

But what I am concerned about is that we give sweeping powers to the minister to make regulations. One of the criticisms that always emanates from the opposition -- whoever is in opposition -- is the concern that the government will not rule by legislation, which can be appropriately and in detail debated in this House, but rather that the government will rule by regulation, which can be debated in the standing committee on regulation and private bills of cabinet and in the cabinet itself and then posted on some wall as a fait accompli. I am very concerned about that when that happens in this province.

The Premier says we should be more democratic, we should be more open, so I am concerned that we should in fact be allowing for more debate within this House, more input by individual members, be they members of the back benches or the front benches; in other words, non-cabinet members who all have another job and another salary, which is quite nice, thank you. Those are the spoils of power. It must be nice to see that parliamentary assistants get -- how much more do they get than others?

An hon member: $10,000.

Mr Bradley: Some $10,000 or something like that. There are so many of them. One minister has three parliamentary assistants. We see those people -- I do not know where this is getting me to in this specific case, but we have a new person in the chair whom I want to congratulate. I congratulate the acting Speaker, the member for Perth, whom I have known for a number of years. I do not want her to be unpopular with her own caucus because of that, but I have known her for a number of years. I am very pleased to see her sitting in the chair governing my remarks here today. So I will be extra careful to keep my remarks relevant to the debate which is taking place this afternoon.

Anyway, I was watching this government take a step backwards in the democratic process. Regulations can be every bit as strong, every bit as influential as legislation. Legislation is essentially, as we know, a framework out there. It is very often general; it is not detailed. When I see that the minister can bring to cabinet, for its approval or disapproval, regulations which this House cannot debate, I am extremely concerned because so very often, for a couple of reasons -- I happen to believe in the democratic process very strongly, but another reason that I think is equally compelling is that the public and others outside of the public in the province of Ontario do not get a chance to have input into those regulations unless the government sees fit to ensure that this is the case. From time to time, governments have sent out regulations for some comment; very often it does not happen.

So when I hear in the throne speech that we are changing things around here, the way I watch it, things continue to be somewhat the same as they have been or, in this case, it is somewhat of a step backwards.

I know the member for Oriole is eager to get on today to make her --

Mr Scott: No.

Mrs Caplan: I am after him.

1620

Mr Bradley: Sorry. It is the member for St George-St David who is eager to get on at this time. I know that his constituents are eager to see him in action, making the arguments that he makes in such a compelling fashion, and I will yield the floor to him in due course, but I have appreciated this opportunity.

It is really nice to see the government members somewhat acquiescent today in recognition of the fact that they have to get a bill through. I do not want to say it is revenge, I do not want to say it is vengeance, but I so much remember our own members who had to sit through the same thing. Some pretty unfair remarks sometimes emanated from this side -- not in this case of course, but in days gone by -- and some unkind remarks. The duty and responsibility of the members of the government was to sit there acquiescently.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Haslam): You are straying.

Mr Bradley: Oh, the Speaker has suggested that I am straying from where I was. I might talk about the ramifications then, if I happen to be straying, of a couple of issues and how the GST and the passage of this bill might just affect these issues. The member who sits in the chair will be familiar with these.

One is the moving of the Ministry of Transportation to the city of St Catharines and how this tax, or the acquiescence to this tax, might affect that. As the member will know, there is great support for this in the city of St Catharines. I was certainly delighted when the former Minister of Government Services, the Honourable Chris Ward, made the announcement. The mayor of the great city of St Catharines, as he calls it, Mayor Joe McCaffery, and his council were delighted, the regional council was supportive, even the Thorold council, I believe, gave some support to that.

The member for Niagara Falls, I am sure, was equally enthusiastic to see the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation going to the falls. The member for Lincoln and the member for St Catharines-Brock, I am sure, are supportive of this particular happening.

I look forward to that move to the city of St Catharines because the GST and this tax put together with it, this synchronization that makes the GST easy, might well have an even more detrimental effect on the economy. Therefore, we will need those inflation-resistant jobs -- sorry, those recession-resistant jobs -- in the city of St Catharines to replace the hundreds of jobs, even now thousands of jobs, that are being lost in the industrial sector in the Niagara Peninsula.

The other thing I was worried about this bill having an effect on was whether or not the Pelee Island ferry would be built at Port Weller Dry Docks in St Catharines. The member who sits in the chair used to live not far from the Welland Canal. She could look out her back window at the ships going by. I am sure she did not have time for that because she was busy in a number of other community activities, but she would know the importance of building the Pelee Island ferry at the Port Weller Dry Docks, which at one time was up over 800 people and now has 30 employees. It is the major shipbuilding centre in the province of Ontario and was a recipient of federal-provincial assistance to maintain its viability not all that long ago, just a couple of years ago.

The member would recognize the importance of having that also built at a union facility where we have a recognized trade union in existence. I know that my friends in the union would like to see this government proceed with --

An hon member: Give us names.

Mr Bradley: The member would like to know -- I have many friends in the trade union movement. Unlike some people who might have been born with a silver spoon in their mouths, I come from a working-class family. I was born in the city of Sudbury. My father worked in industry all of his life, he was a blue-collar worker all of his life. When he was unemployed, he was given no notice -- not the notice you have today -- no notice after 22 years of work in one plant. So I recognize very well the effects of the devastating recession that confronts us. He once worked at Port Weller Dry Docks as well.

Getting back to the specifics, I think it would be wonderful for the city of St Catharines if this government were to follow through on the previous government's commitment to build the Pelee Island ferry at Port Weller Dry Docks, to get people off the unemployment rolls and back on the employment rolls and to give a boost to the local economy.

I promised I would not be overly lengthy on this occasion. In fact, I really thought I was going to finish on Thursday if I had the chance. Unfortunately, we ran out of time on Thursday. But I do hope the members of the government, particularly the minister and members of the cabinet, take into consideration some of the advice that might be offered in my remarks and take into account some of the cautions that have been expressed about the course of action that is being followed. I am looking for a zealous, reform-minded, action-oriented government and I have not seen that yet but I am a very patient person, probably more patient than most people in the province of Ontario.

I thank the members for their indulgence.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: I would like to make a few comments on the statements of the member for St Catharines. I feel, like other members in this House, that he has brought forward some important points, concerns of his constituents, as others of us have brought forward concerns of our constituents. However much some members of the House may not think this is important legislation, people of Ontario think it is important legislation.

I too want to underline, as he has and other speakers have, that with the expansion of regulations for taxation that this bill proposes, we are taking a step backwards. We are moving in a direction that is not expected of this government, a government that has said and continues to say that it is open and that it is in the process of consultation with almost everybody in this province.

This regulation expansion comes at a time when the people of Ontario are asking everybody, from municipal councils to school boards and indeed to this House, to be more accountable. I do hope that on second thought many of the items that are being talked about, particularly those that affect the tourism industry, will no longer be considered to be just regulation points and that we will see legislation that affects the industries that are staple industries within many communities of this province brought to the House to be discussed and debated.

Mr Scott: First of all, before we attend to the details of Bill 1, and I intend to deal with it in a detailed but I hope reasonably succinct way, I think it is important that the new members might want to hear a story which I think informs this debate.

In the riding of St George-St David, there are, as some members may know, three fully formed, equally successful political parties. The NDP, the Conservatives and the Liberals have always had strong riding organizations there, and though the Conservatives seem to win most of the elections, the Liberals have won now three times and no doubt the New Democrats have it high on their priority list for whatever other elections they may decide to fight. In those organizations there are interesting community people. Having lived there all my adult life, I have got to know most of them.

The NDP executive particularly is an interesting group of individuals and there is one quite senior woman on the NDP executive, whom I will not embarrass by referring to her name unless anybody wants it, who saw me a day or two after the election. She was, as members can imagine, and I am sure as honourable members opposite were, elated at the election of the first NDP government in Ontario. She had devoted her life to this party and had worked hard for it in many elections.

She said she was pleased and I congratulated her. She said, "However, I'm worried." I said, "What?" I thought she would say that she was going to be worried that they had no experience in government and I was going to say, "Every new government has that; not to worry about it." But that is not what she said. She said, "I'm worried that the new government will try to keep its promises." I said, "Why?" and she said: "Have you read them? Some of them are so idiotic." I said to her: "Don't worry at all on that score. You may have other concerns, but I promise you that the new government will not even begin to keep its promises." When I see her next I will be able to tell her, of course, about the three flip-flops in three weeks that the Minister of Community and Social Services, who is here, has been forced to take at the hands of her leader in order to accord some legitimacy to the act of government.

1630

Now I was wrong to say -- this will bring me to Bill 1 -- that the NDP would not keep all its promises; clearly, it is keeping some. When we look at Bill 1, which is the discharge of a promise, the problem seems to be that they are keeping the foolish promises, not the sensible and important ones.

The promise about the way we would respond to poverty was a serious and important promise, and the NDP candidate in my riding was determined that money would not be given to perpetuate food banks. That was a promise they were going to keep, and frankly I was with the NDP when it made that promise. That promise it has now decided to abandon, and this promise in Bill 1 it has decided to keep. So my friend on the NDP executive has a major problem in front of her. They are keeping some of their promises, but the wrong ones.

What is this bill? This bill, when all is said and done, is the tax revolt that the new Premier of the province promised us and nine million Ontarians. This is the tax revolt. This, my friends, is the battlefield. This is the war. This is what Bob Rae -- I am not allowed to mention his name -- this is what what's-his-name is doing by way of discharging his promise that there would be a tax revolt.

What are there -- 20 or 25 government members in the House and two ministers? I am elated that the Minister of Community and Social Services is here because I will be able to direct some remarks to her in the course of my references to Bill 1, and there is the Minister of Revenue.

The others are probably out driving around in their cars. I do not know if parliamentary assistants have cars. Oh, we have another minister. Another minister has popped up. That is three. We have three. Where the other 24 are at this moment in the course of the debate, I do not know. Now I see that we have some ministers-in-waiting, so I can address my remarks at least to them.

But this is the tax revolt. When I first came to the House five years ago, I was only in opposition for two or three weeks and so I have not learnt my role as an opposition member, just as some of my new friends opposite have perhaps not learnt their roles as members, but during opposition I was able to see an effective and powerful opposition work. I took a model, and my model is the honourable member for Welland-Thorold. He was the paratypical opposition member. He spoke all night. He got thrown out of the House at every turn by calling people liars and insulting them, and he spoke at inordinate length. I will not do any of the other things he did, but I am going to have to insist, subject to the Speaker's ruling, on my right to speak fully confronting a bill of this type. The member for Welland-Thorold is my model, and if anybody wants to phone in they can start phoning.

As I said, this is the tax revolt. When I came to the House five years ago and we formed the government after a couple of weeks, the now Premier of the province was sitting right where the honourable member for Oriole is and he introduced me to the technique of parliamentary debate. He accused me of being a hypocrite. He accused the Premier, I believe, of lying, and that was the level of debate that went on consistently for five years. Now, of course, when I dare to repeat that the Minister of Health, in a contemptuous act, told the Alzheimer's clinic to fund itself, I am told by cabinet ministers, "We want a kinder, gentler House."

In other words, in the vernacular, the NDP in opposition could pitch, but it cannot catch, and that is the problem that they as new members are going to have to deal with. Some of them seem to have been hit; I have no doubt about that.

Getting back to Bill 1, this is the tax revolt that we were promised, this and one other thing. What is the other thing that the government has done in its tax revolt? It has joined with the province of Alberta in, I believe, an Alberta or Saskatchewan court -- they did not want to do it here; it would be too aggressive -- in pursuing a piece of really quite hopeless litigation. That is the whole tax revolt.

I remember when our Premier, David Peterson, got up and said he was going to fight against free trade. He did not succeed in that fight, but he stood against free trade all across Canada. He convened, for example, two first ministers' meetings. The first meeting we went to was at Halifax. He called it. The present Premier thought he might have a first ministers' meeting. He got one Premier to support him, and according to his statement the other day he has not even called some of the others yet.

Is that what this tax revolt is all about? Why are we not having a first ministers' conference? Why is the Premier of the day dealing with Bill 1, and not convening a meeting, here in Ontario if necessary, of the other premiers? Is it that if he calls a meeting they will not come? And what does that say about the vitality of the tax revolt of which Bill 1 is the only apparent symbol?

The fact of the matter is that the promise to conduct a tax revolt was either meaningless or simply could not be performed. I would not say it was fraudulent because that word is unparliamentary, but it was certainly most unfortunate to lead people on the street -- my fellow citizens -- to believe that the government was serious about doing something that it has not indicated the slightest intention of following through on.

What is in Bill 1? What is in Bill 1 is the reflection of another promise, that they would not permit their government to impose the sales tax on top of the GST. I have no trouble with that as a promise, and God knows it was an attractive promise. Why was it an attractive promise? It was an attractive promise because they thought they could persuade people that they would not be taxed on tax. That is not what is going to happen and everybody knows it. This bill costs half a billion dollars. Is the budget of the province going down by half a billion dollars? No, it is going up. Where is that money going to come from? It is going to come from substantially the people who consume goods by paying tax and by paying sales tax.

If the people out there took the Premier's promise to mean -- as I know many of them did -- that he was going to save tax for our citizens by a bill like this, that was a promise it is unworthy to keep in this particular way. When the members opposite and I go back to our constituency offices, we will not be able to say to our friends and neighbours when we come in that the NDP has kept that promise. We will say: "Well, yes, the promise didn't actually mean what you people thought it meant. It isn't going to save any tax at all. It just meant that your money was going to be taken out of a different pocket than the one it was being taken out of before." Maybe that promise got a lot of votes for a lot of people -- I do not know -- but I would not be very comfortable getting votes on the basis of a promise that is as meaningless as that.

If people out there think, as they do, that the government is going to save them tax, they are going to be rudely awakened. Probably the government will develop a tax in its fair tax system that they will not even notice. Then it will be able to get by and assert that it has kept its promise. I am not holding my breath for that day.

The reality is that the lady in my constituency was right. The government made some important promises in the campaign that I support. I think the promises that were made around community and social services were important promises which the public took seriously. The fact that they have abandoned or flip-flopped on three of them, in an exercise of gymnastics that has not been seen in this House in the six years I have been here, will be an embarrassment. The fact that the Minister of Health now, having promised lavish funding, tells the Alzheimer's clinic in Ottawa that it had better fund itself in an act of arrogance that is very difficult to imagine so early in the term of a government, and that is another example.

1640

My neighbour and friend was right. They have made some promises that are stupid; they have made some promises that are great. Why are they simply keeping the stupid ones? We can do without that. We want the promises that were important and critical and that are meaningful for Ontario citizens to be kept.

As I say, Bill 1 is the first step -- I bet the only step -- in the tax revolt. This is it. Twenty NDPers came to the tax revolt, two cabinet ministers, no Premier, and I promise that it will be all over after today. This is not only the tax revolt; this is not only the battle; this is the whole war and it is being conducted in a place where the Premier of the province knows it will have no public national impact at all.

Mr Stockwell: It's also the victory party.

Mr Scott: It may be the victory party, except that they are not going to win the tax revolt as the honourable member perfectly well knows. Again, it was a shoddy promise because it persuaded people out there whom I and other members represent that something was going to happen. It would have been fairer and more candid if they had said: "Nothing is going to happen. The GST is a federal matter and we cannot deal with it in the province." But they did not do that. They said that they were going to do something.

Mr Sorbara: That was the truth, though.

Mr Scott: No, that was the truth and everybody here knows that is the truth. As the member has said, I am sure that the Premier has already been asked in caucus, "Well, Mr Premier, how's the tax revolt coming along this week?" and that he said: "Well, we have a practical problem with this tax revolt. We can't do it." They say, "But Premier" -- many of them may be on a first name basis with him -- "Bob, Bob, but we promised that we would have a tax revolt." "Well, yes, but we're going to have a dramatic event."

The Premier and I were in a dramatic event in honour of the Stratford Festival at the Royal Alexandra Theatre, and I know nobody who knows his lines better and no one who can get away with more in the form of drama than he can. He said: "Because we haven't got the power to do what we said we would do, instead of simply facing up to that reality and telling people, we will pretend we're doing something and the way we're going to pretend is Bill 1. That's going to be the battle. That's going to be the war and then when Bill 1 is passed, we will be able to say to everybody, 'Well, if you look at Hansard, you'll see that we fought the great fight.'"

Look, this is the tax revolt. When was it that a government member last spoke in favour of this bill? They are just going through the paces. They probably have allocations of how many people have to be here every day. They should do their Christmas cards, no better time, but I do not get the sense that any of them are active in a revolt. I think they are going through their paces.

I have been a government member, and as the honourable member for St Catharines says, "The new members" -- we were new five years ago -- "will learn." What they are learning, I have no doubt now from those proponents of a kinder, gentler government, is that the job -- they are discharging it very nicely so far -- of backbenchers as their government envisages it is to applaud. When the applause slackened for a moment today, I could see a rustle, ministers on the front benches saying: "They're not applauding the way they did in the first week. What's wrong here?" Then the whip galvanized into action, "Applaud."

That is what they do. Their understanding is that they only applaud the ministers. They do not applaud us, nor would we expect it, and of course they rarely applaud each other because they know perfectly well that a question presented by a back-bench government member -- I know that this is how their system works -- is not presented to the minister; it is presented by the minister to the back-bench member. Yes, that is exactly what happens.

I heard a member the other day who obviously had not written his question, and the reason I know that he had not written it is that he accidentally -- this is no criticism -- mispronounced a word. It was not a word that he would have chosen to use and I saw the vexed look on the minister's face: "This member is not to be trusted to ask a question of a minister. When we are driving around in our cars all day, we expect these questions to be read properly in a good firm voice."

The members are learning, and I want to congratulate them, as we have to learn our new roles. But I ask them to go back to their caucus, assuming there is some debate there -- there is none here -- and say to the Premier, "Premier, can we really tell the people who sent us here, who are good people, honourable people, honest people, that this is the tax revolt and that when Bill 1 is passed we have discharged the obligation we solemnly undertook?" I think the Premier has to answer that question not for us, because we are in opposition, and not really even for themselves, but for the people who watch television and who watch this, who consciously made a choice in many ridings to elect them and me and our other colleagues. It is an important issue that affects the credibility of the government.

The Speaker is retiring. They have not seen anything yet. The honourable member for Oriole will be up next.

I want to tell my honourable friends opposite that I am pro-government, in this sense: I believe governments need to succeed. I believe the cynicism about politicians in this country and in this province is real, and I believe that cynicism has created a distrust and downgrading of politicians who perform.

I strongly affirm an important and critical role to government. The key to that is credibility, and it is frankly upsetting that the first bill introduced by the new government in the new assembly after the election should be a bill that amounts to such a cruel deception of the people who listened in good faith to those promises, and in particular to this one, that the Premier would lead a tax revolt.

What the Premier is doing now is trying to figure out a way to get half a billion dollars out of the other pocket to replace the half a billion dollars he has given up. He is going to succeed in that.

When the members go home, they can probably answer the other questions their constituents ask them: what it is like, how much the rents are in Toronto, what the Minister of Housing is up to, all the rest of it. But it seems to me they are going to have a tough time at the end of the day with this one, the tax revolt, and frankly I am glad that they will be answering that question and not me, because I think it is going to be very difficult.

I think the people of Ontario are mature enough that they can understand the circumstances in which this government finds itself. It finds itself a party that did not expect to be elected as the government. There is no shame in that; they should be proud of it and I am sure they are.

The government found that in the course of getting there, it had made some promises that turned out to be either unfair or silly. The honourable member who is the Treasurer faced up to that reality, because he made a promise years ago that he was going to nationalize Inco. He stood up and he said, "I'm not going to be able to keep that promise." I admired him for that. He was not prepared to deceive any of his electors into thinking that he was going to do something that he clearly was not going to do. The Treasurer is in that sense an honourable politician.

I think the tax revolt on the GST is a promise that was silly to make because the government cannot keep it. It is a federal responsibility. The government wanted to make it, of course, in this bill because it saw how offended people were at the GST. It was simply saying, "Boy, if we can start a battle against the GST, hundreds of ordinary people out there who do not understand about the Constitution and the division of powers will say: 'That's my ticket. Those are my boys and girls. I'm voting for them. They're starting a tax revolt on the GST.'"

People came around to me in my constituency when I was running and said, "Are you going to do what Carolann Wright is going to do, start a tax revolt on the GST?" I used to have to say: "I would love to tell you that, but I can't. It can't be done." The reality is that this government will not be able to do it, and whether the members will sleep better having tried with this little bill to pull the wool over everybody's eyes that this is their revolt, their battle, their war, I do not know; that is for them to say.

1650

Frankly, I think the Treasurer was right. I am more comfortable with the answer I gave to my constituents: "I'm sorry, that's a federal matter. I can't, even if I want to, affect whether the Parliament of Canada passes the GST or not."

We will, over the next four and a half years, have other examples of efforts like Bill 1 -- I must refer to it periodically, Mr Speaker, or I know you will be on me. This government will have other opportunities to try and keep other promises it has made. But do remember what my NDP constituent said to me: "Some of those promises are idiotic, some of them are unworkable, and some of them are quite sensible." The government should not try to keep the promises that are idiotic or unworkable, and it should not try to pretend that it has kept them, as it is doing today. Face up to it, like the Treasurer, and say, "That promise we can't keep," because that is the way, it seems to me, that the credibility of our profession is going to be advanced, when we tell people the truth.

What is happening today with Bill 1 is a charade. There is nothing bad in the bill -- I probably am going to vote for it -- but the bill is not what it pretends to be. When the government members go back to their constituencies, they will be given a kit -- we have all been there -- "Achievements of the Government," and when you look under "R" it will say, "revolt, tax -- Bill 1 signalled the government's tax revolt," and they will hand this out to their constituents, who will say: "Oh my God, they really are terrific. They've started the tax revolt." When they get back to their caucus, each of them will chuckle a little at how naïve he thinks they were. When they begin to do that, that is the essential weakness which makes it necessary from time to time to change governments, when they begin to say things like, "Fund it yourself." Those are the things that little by little destroy the credibility of our profession.

What do you say to the patients in an Alzheimer's clinic who need money to carry the clinic forward in Ottawa? Everybody has friends or relatives who are victims of Alzheimer's. Everybody understands that the taxpayer has a limit to the amount of tax he can produce. Everybody understands that governments have to make choices, that there are 100 wonderful things you want to do and you can only do one. But the fact is, to say, "Fund it yourself," seems to me -- it may have been a little joke -- to exhibit a fundamental flaw, the same kind of flaw that is found in this bill.

There used to be a tradition -- and only the member for Renfrew North would be able to tell members about it, because he is the expert on the history of the House──that Bill 1 was a trivial or unimportant bill. The reason that tradition existed from the time of Cromwell was that when the Lieutenant Governor comes in and announces the government's business, a member gets up and introduces a small bill that has nothing to do with the government's business to show that the House of Commons or the Legislature was prepared to put the people's interest ahead of the government's interest or the crown's interest. That is why Bill 1 historically has been an unimportant or trivial bill. Now, that practice has been breached from time to time by other governments, and there is nothing unparliamentary in introducing this bill as Bill 1.

Mr Sorbara: Well, it is trivial.

Mr Scott: I am coming to that. The member has to leave my punch lines to me. The honourable member for York Centre should be in York Centre, but he makes the essential point. This is not a trivial bill, but it is a silly bill and it is being dressed up to be something it is not.

Frankly, I would prefer a government that took the hard decisions. I would prefer a government that said, in response to the request of the food banks: "We are not going to fund them. They don't want us to put money into that. They want us to put money into SARC, take that $1 million and put it into SARC." No, it was too easy just to slip them a little money at Christmas, irrespective of the fact that they did not want it, that they thought it was counterproductive and was not in the interests of the poorer parts of the community which are served by food banks.

That is the beginning of a little kind of corruption which is important. I hope the government members in their caucus will take the ministers aside -- because that is their job; if they do not do it, nobody else will -- and say: "Look, Minister of Revenue, this bill isn't what we're pretending it is at all. Let's face up to responsibility and realities. Look, Minister of Community and Social Services, we shouldn't be doing this. I know it's easy to do it and I know some people will applaud, but when the food banks don't want it done, we shouldn't do it. Look, Minister of Health, you don't deal with an Alzheimer's client in that way ever if you can be strong and resourceful and determined to take the tough decisions."

No government is perfect. In the early years, every government thinks it is very close to perfect as the Gallup poll reflects how well people think it is doing. Let me tell the government from experience. They do not think it is doing well. They know it has not done anything yet, and that is why it is high in the polls. The best trick in government is to take the tough decisions. They may not be popular, and the government may be defeated, but there are worse things than being defeated. What is worse than being defeated are little deceptions that are practised on the people who sent us here. They are intolerable.

I got into politics -- I will be coming to Bill 1 in a minute, Mr Speaker -- as perhaps many members opposite did, with no expectation that I would ever be elected. I simply ran because the party needed someone. The party had not won a poll in the riding for over 20 years and I ran. I knew it would all be over in six weeks. I was thunderstruck when, after 50 years of Conservatives, I was elected. Then I was doubly thunderstruck, because after 42 years of Conservative governments, we had a new one. I remember my mother -- she is dead now -- saying to me: "Never forget who sent you there and why they sent you. Don't practise the deceptions."

I will answer for my sins. I have answered for them already in some parts of the world and I will answer for them in a greater world. As one who is pro-government, as one who wants to see a government survive and do well because it bears on us all, bears on the profession we have undertaken, I am very nervous and uncomfortable at what I see going on now.

I understand dumping on the Prime Minister of Canada. I am no supporter of the Prime Minister of Canada; I think his economic policies are foolish and wrong. But I think the kind of speech that was apparently made last night is going to make working with the Prime Minister of Canada on the issues of national unity extremely difficult to undertake. The Premier of Ontario is not the only player in the field. If I were Mulroney and picked up the paper and saw "Rae at the University of Toronto," I would say: "Well, if he calls me and asks me to his conference, I don't think I'm coming. Who's that pipsqueak who talks like that?" I think the problems of national unity are real, and it behooves this government -- I know the caucus members will have it in mind -- to respect that there are other players. We may not agree with the other players. We may not even like the other players. When Mr Parizeau is elected, I certainly will not agree with him. I do not know him; I might even like him. But we are going to have to deal with him.

To indulge in that kind of histrionic exercise for the purpose of attracting an audience is, I think, irresponsible. That is what oppositions do and we can be criticized for it, but it is not what governments are expected to do.

1700

So I encourage the caucus, because there are only two ministers here and I will never get a chance to speak to them -- but they are all ministers in waiting, and as these ministers fall, for arrogance or stupid statements, they will take their places. So I get today the opportunity to speak to a future cabinet of the NDP. I say to them, do not allow these little deceptions to go any further. It simply is not the way to achieve credibility. I do not speak as one who has done it; I speak simply as one who observes the scene from here and in my constituency. Each of them and each of us has an important responsibility. Really, if we were being serious about our business here, we would take Bill 1 and say to the Premier and his cabinet colleagues: "If this is the tax revolt, it's hardly worth even talking about it. Let's do something new, stand up and say, 'That promise was foolishly made and can't be performed.'" I believe the people of Ontario would understand that. I believe they look for that kind of candour. With respect to Bill 1, it induces a kind of sadness in me that they are not going to get it just now from this government.

Mrs Caplan: As I rise to participate in this debate today, I would like to take this opportunity to reflect not only on this Bill 1 but on other Bill 1s, and on events I have experienced since I first entered this Legislature some five years ago. Some of the experiences I have had have been unique to members of this Legislature and others have been experienced by many before me.

I think back to a September night in 1984, when I was nominated as the Liberal candidate in the riding of Oriole. I was very proud of the confidence of the people of Oriole in selecting me to carry the Liberal banner. At that time, Bill Davis was Premier of Ontario and the Progressive Conservative Party had governed for more than 40 years. I remember that night very well, and I remember my speech and my remarks at that meeting. I said to those who attended that I was not running merely to be elected. I had goals and principles and values as a Liberal. There were many things I wanted to accomplish. I said there was much that needed to change in Ontario, and I wanted to be a part of that. I said that I believed that every member of this Legislature could make an important contribution to the democratic process and could make a difference no matter which side of the Legislature he sat on. I said that night that my goal was to join the Liberals as a member of the official opposition. I realized on 6 September 1990 that it had taken me six years to achieve that goal.

Much, of course, has happened over those years. I have had many opportunities, as I said, that I never expected to have. I have had opportunities to make a positive difference to the life and to the future of this province. I never dreamed that I would be so privileged. It has been an honour to serve. I am aware that only a few people have had the experiences and faced the challenges that I have faced. I am proud of my accomplishments and those of my colleagues and I am very grateful to have had the opportunity to serve the people of this province in government. I am most appreciative of the confidence and the support of my constituents in the riding of Oriole in 1985, 1987 and again in 1990. They are the ones who have allowed me to serve. I have never taken their trust for granted and I say today, as we are debating Bill 1 of this new government, that I never will.

My first speech in this House was on 13 June 1985, just after Bill 1 had been introduced by another new government in this province. I would like to share with members, because I think it is relevant at this time and relevant to this debate, some of what I said then, because I believe that it is even more relevant today than it was then, particularly as we debate this Bill 1.

I said then that we must not lose sight of the fact that our duty is to serve the people who send us here, those who give us this opportunity. I said in 1985 that they are cynical of what some politicians tell them at election time, what some politicians promise them in election campaigns and throne speeches and then what some politicians do to them rather than do for them. I said that night in 1985 that we must restore the public's faith, that we must move to lower that cynicism, that we must restore trust and confidence. I said then that I was honoured to serve as the new member for the riding of Oriole and that I would serve with vigour and with integrity.

I stand here today thinking of those words. I have served with vigour and with integrity, yet the public today is more cynical than ever. I ask myself why. I think not only of Bill 1, I think of the throne speech of this government. I think of its Agenda for People. I think of the throne speech in particular, which addressed the issues of integrity and cynicism.

Let's look at why the people of Ontario are more cynical today than ever before. What have our leaders done? The new Premier called Mr Peterson, the former Premier, a liar -- not only unparliamentary language, as we know, but untrue. I believe the member for York South knew that David Peterson was not a liar when he said it, but what impact did his accusations on the then Premier of this province have on the cynicism in this province? The member for Nipissing said during a televised leaders' debate during the recent election that he was the only honest politician. That, I think we all realized, was false, sad and a cynical comment that fuels further the public distrust. I remember some of my constituents laughing. That became the joke. In fact, it fuelled their distrust.

We then saw the New Democratic Party's advertisements during the campaign. They were not only negative, they were false.

It was revealing to hear recently, on Canadian television, US experts in negative political advertising who studied the NDP campaign. They said they could not have gotten away with that stuff even in the land, our neighbour to the south, often known as the land of smear and mudslinging.

How does name-calling and rhetoric restore the faith of the people who elect us? How does Bill 1 restore the faith of the people in this province in their government, which told them one thing during an election campaign and now has the opportunity to show them that it is going to do what it said it would do?

The throne speech, for example, said it was this government's job and commitment, and I quote, "It is our job to address that cynicism and to overcome it." Yet this government continues to back off promises that were made during that election campaign, and comments and statements have been made since then which I think just reinforce that cynicism, which is so clearly a cause for concern of not only myself but many people in this Legislature.

The Agenda for People: Some of my friends and colleagues, some of my constituents are beginning to realize that it was not An Agenda for People at all. It was an agenda for votes.

The Varity and Consumers' Gas decisions were the beginning. Bill 1 continues. That is portrayed as the tax revolt when in fact it harmonizes retail sales tax with the GST.

1710

We heard the minister stand in this House when the bill was introduced and when questions were asked of her -- in fact, she said at page 2409 of Hansard, 5 Dec 1990: "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." Then she said, "We also are doing Bill 1."

That same day in answer to a question the minister said, "We are by no means harmonizing," when in fact we know that this piece of legislation is paralleling or harmonizing the Ontario retail sales tax with the GST. This does absolutely nothing to lower and address the cynicism of the people of this province and of my constituents in the riding of Oriole. They saw the Varity decision, they saw the Consumers' Gas decision and they say, "Those were the beginnings." I actually had a constituent who said to me, "You go to that Legislature, Elinor, and you tell Premier Bob Rae that talk is cheap."

In fact, one of them said, "He should wash out his mouth with soap."

Mr Elston: Soap?

Mrs Caplan: Yes. Another said, "His halo has been for ever tarnished." They simply are looking at the actions of this new government as opposed to listening to the rhetoric, having read the words. I would say to the Premier and to this new government that if he is to create a sense of integrity in his government and in his party, he must start doing the right thing, doing what he said he was going to do or standing up, like my colleague the former Attorney General has just said before me, and saying very clearly to the people of this province: "We're not going to keep that promise. These are the reasons why. It was dumb. It was silly. We didn't mean it." If the Premier is not prepared to do that, they will expect that he will do what he said he was going to do.

I say to this new government, to its ministers and to the Premier that they must tell the truth. In order to restore the faith of the people we serve, we must learn from the past.

As I reminisce over the past five years in this Legislature, one of the most difficult and painful periods of my life personally was right here in this House and that was when my personal integrity was attacked. I was wrongly and unjustly accused. My colleagues on all sides of this House knew that I was innocent of any wrongdoing, and I was cleared. The Premier, the then Leader of the Opposition, the opposition NDP, chose to play partisan political games with the issue of integrity then. That did nothing to restore the faith of the people of this province in the then Leader of the Opposition. The actions of the Premier spoke louder than his words. Integrity is doing the right thing rather than the politically expedient thing.

We come now to Bill 1. I recall other Bill 1s. I remember when the government changed in 1985. In fact, we upheld the traditions of this House and Bill 1 was an unimportant, trivial piece of legislation.

I remember that in 1987 we decided to break with tradition and Bill 1 became a symbol of a new government, the first majority Liberal government in quite some time in this province. Our first Bill 1 was the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, not a trivial piece of legislation at all. It was a symbol and a signal that in fact we believed in the kind of protection of individual rights and individual privacies that our liberal principles have dictated to us.

So that bill was a significant signal to the people of this province of the actions of their new government. I was very proud of that. This Bill 1 of this new New Democratic government, the first one in the history of the province of Ontario, I see as neither trivial nor unimportant. That may sound contradictory: It is not trivial, but it is not unimportant. It is not a trivial piece of legislation because it is a tax bill. It is not unimportant because it says very, very clearly that the first priority of this new government is taxes. It says very clearly that the tax revolt that we heard about is not a revolt at all. In fact, I would say that some of the members of this New Democratic caucus probably find this revolt a little revolting, because in fact Bill 1 does nothing to send a message to Ottawa except the message that Ontario will harmonize, Ontario will bring in legislation which will parallel the goods and services tax and the government of Ontario is saying one thing to the people and doing something very, very different.

I would repeat those same quotes, because what did we hear from this new government? What were their comments before and then after the government was elected? On 22 August -- and this is very significant -- the Premier said, "We are committed to making taxes fairer by saying from the beginning that we will have nothing to do with the Mulroney tax, the GST." And what is the very first, the very beginning, the most important thing that this government is doing as Bill 1?

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mrs Caplan: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I said, that was the comment from the now Premier on 22 August. And what is the first thing that this new government does? Bill 1, to parallel and harmonize with the GST, that which they said they would have nothing to do with just a few months before.

After the election, on 3 October, what did the new Attorney General, the member for Rainy River, say? He is quoted as saying, "Fighting the GST is a major priority of this government." And so we see Bill 1 as the first piece of legislation. If this is an example of the major priority of this government and its fight against this most hated tax -- and it is hated. My constituents hate the GST. My constituents wanted to see the revolt that the Premier was talking about. My constituents were waiting to see what the new Attorney General was going to do and what the Minister of Revenue was going to do. My constituents are not only disappointed, my constituents feel that the credibility of this government has been threatened and compromised. And my constituents are not feeling less cynical; I say with sadness today that they are feeling more cynical.

My constituents have high expectations. They want good jobs. They want a decent place to live. They want safe and secure communities. They want the environment protected for future generations. They want their children educated and ready to meet the challenges of a rapidly changing, highly competitive world. They want good quality health and social services that meet their real and their changing needs. They want public transit, good roads, and they want the Sheppard subway built. They want fair taxation and good value for their hard-earned tax dollars. They demand equality of opportunity and fairness and freedom from discrimination, but they do not want the government to run everything. They want more control over their own lives. They are opposed to the goods and services tax. They expected this new NDP government to lead a tax revolt, and instead they got Bill 1.

I would say that they heard the Premier when he said that this is the wrong tax at the wrong time on the wrong people. They heard that over and over again. What happened to that commitment to fight? We heard, I think, so eloquently from my colleagues, the truth. The truth is that it was not possible for the provincial government to lead the kind of tax revolt that the former leader of the NDP, now the Premier of this province, promised the people of Ontario.

1720

I have some concerns about this legislation. I have some concerns about the fact that the minister can make regulations. We know that regulations do not allow for the kind of scrutiny in the legislative forum, but I would say that I believe on the whole that this piece of legislation is a realistic approach to the reality of the GST. There is very little that this provincial government or any provincial government could do to stop the GST if the federal government is determined to see it through.

I can say as well that my constituents expected more. As their representative in this Legislature, I made a commitment to them during this election campaign that I would serve in their interests at all times and I am pleased, proud and privileged that they have given me the opportunity to participate in this Legislature. As their representative, I will support the government when it achieves the objectives and the desires of the people of this province, when its principles are lived up to in a way which I believe is in the interests of the people of my province and of my constituency. I believe at this time that there are a number of priorities which are going unaddressed in this province. At a time of recession, to have the first bill from this new government as a tax bill I say is a shame as a signal to the people of the priorities of this new government.

As a member of the official opposition, I know that it is quite easy to be irresponsible and obstructionist. I have seen many examples of that over the past five years. My colleague the former Attorney General says he has decided who he is going to take lessons from. I have many to choose from. I have seen many examples, as I have said, of the kind of behaviour which I would consider as both irresponsible and obstructionist in this House. We have heard of the call for a kinder and gentler Legislature and I would suggest to some of the members of this new NDP caucus who believe their own rhetoric that they review some of those tapes and see some of that behaviour. I can see the gag order is on as well. The only thing they are permitted to do is applaud. I know. I am waiting. I suspect I will wait a long time.

I believe that it is easy to be irresponsible and ineffective. I think it is probably also easy to be irresponsible and effective. I think it is probably also quite easy to be ineffective and responsible. As I serve in opposition in this Legislature, I will strive to be responsible and effective in this House on behalf of my constituents in the riding of Oriole. I will strive to serve with dignity, to make my constituents and most especially my children proud of me. I will serve with vigour and integrity in the future as I have in the past.

But I want to share with members today as we discuss Bill 1, this first piece of legislation from this new government, that I do have a new goal. It is different from the one I set on that September night in 1984. It is that my Liberal colleagues and I, those who are here and many of those outstanding and dedicated men and women who have served before, will once again have the confidence of the people of Ontario and be given the opportunity to serve the people of Ontario in government.

Mr Daigeler: I must say, even though I had not planned to comment, I was really impressed and touched by the words that the member for Oriole used. I think that she has put forward in very eloquent terms and very sincere words what all of us are about in this House or should be about. She has obviously reflected on her remarks not only in the last few hours and she spoke from an experience of long political service and of long service to the public.

I think that all members of the House, especially the new members, would do well perhaps to re-read Hansard and look at the remarks that the member for Oriole made and write them into their scrapbook. I for one will certainly get myself a copy and from time to time re-read those remarks because I think they were very well chosen and very appropriate to the life of each member of this House. I just would like to congratulate the member for Oriole on her remarks.

Mr Cousens: Why they let the member for Nepean follow the member for Oriole is just beyond me, with the words that he uses such as "eloquent" and "scrapbook" in regard to the words we just heard from the former Minister of Health, who is now going on orating away and saying the very things that she would probably do if she were in power. I cannot believe the transformation of my dear good friend the member for Oriole. It is just amazing the flip and the flop. Today, I think she has misflipped, and it is a flop.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: No, they agree with me, and I agree with them for a change.

You cannot use some of the words I want to use in the Legislature because they are not allowed. The moment you say some of them are hypocrites, you are passing judgement, and I would not want to do that. That would be absolutely wrong and foul and mean-minded.

But there is something the matter with the way this Liberal was talking about what is going on in Ottawa. Look at what is happening in Ottawa. Everybody complains and complains, but the Liberals and the New Democrats in Ottawa wanted to get rid of the 13% federal sales tax and they wanted to have another tax in there. Then someone comes along who introduces it -- not just perfectly, but anyway introduces it -- and all they could do is beat him up. Here we see the member for Oriole beating up poor Brian Mulroney and beating up the poor Conservatives.

I will tell you, you cannot do it that way, Elinor. You have got to start having a little bit more --

The Deputy Speaker: Please refer to the member by the riding.

Mr Cousens: I meant to, Mr Speaker.

She really should not do it that way and she should be a little bit more balanced in her view, and I am sure that if she stays in opposition a little longer, she will have much more balance.

Mr Scott: I have some comments to make on the speech, but before I make them, I really think the honourable members who are new will be fascinated to hear the honourable member for Markham say that something is beyond him. They will find that that is quite a common experience, and he will have many occasions over the next four and a half years to use those lines. We all sympathize with him and will do our best to help him, as I am sure new members will.

I just want to make this observation. Has it occurred to members sitting over there that the only person attracted so far to their tax revolt is a Conservative? What do they draw from that?

Ms Haslam: Smart.

Mr Scott: If Lady Perth thinks smart, she has a major problem. There is no question about that.

The reality is that if the only people who see any merit in the NDP tax revolt are members of the very party that has brought us the GST, does that tell the members opposite anything? Does that ring any bells? Does that encourage them to think again about this tax revolt? They are getting supporters all right. The Conservatives are supporting them, and Brian Mulroney must be just laughing all the way to the tax collector's office with the performance that is being put on with this Bill 1.

When the honourable member for Markham, who is a very good friend of mine, supports one of their initiatives, they have got a major problem.

1730

Mr Elston: I just want to rise and indicate that I agree fully with the comments made by the member for Oriole. I was distracted somewhat by the member for Markham and by several other of the Tories here just a little bit to my left --

Mr Cousens: We're to your right.

Mr Elston: -- although philosophically they are definitely to the right. Socially these people do not care. They do not care about the people of the province. They have their own crosses to bear, and we will let them go ahead.

It is really passing strange in this House that, when we speak about a tax which is about to afflict the people of this province in a way which is unimaginably cruel, the party here, which cherishes its tradition as being the party running against heavy tax impositions, has remained quiet and, I do not know, surprisingly quiet during this debate. They should have been standing, talking about how they would have the taxes of this province reduced. They would have been much better had they said, reasonably and up front to the people of Ontario, that this goods and services tax is a bad tax and that they would support the NDP in its tax revolt if there was a real tax revolt led by the NDP in this province.

Like the member for Oriole has said, there is a real lack of leadership in this province when it comes to bringing forth those good economic policies which would alleviate the disastrous effect that the GST will have for a lot of people in this province, and how men and women in this province suffer layoffs -- unlike in 1981 when they were seen to be temporary -- but when they will become permanent as places are moved from Perth county to Kentucky, from Windsor to the middle of Ohio, from Wingham to other places in New York state. When all of those things are happening, when there is a real need for a revolt which would reduce the incidence of tax in this province, there is no response from the NDP, and that is shameful.

Mr Ramsay: It is an honour to stand in my place and to follow the powerful, rational arguments of the member for Oriole, and also the tremendous eloquence of the member for St George-St David, which I must also say is certainly welded to an intellectual rigour and vigour that is not seen that frequently in this House.

I am to speak here to this document, and I think the people out there watching on television should see this document entitled, "Bill 1, Projet de loi 1". I think the people should realize that this is the charge, this is the crusade that this government has spoken to. This paper is the charge that is going to take on the GST for the people of Ontario.

All of us here have said this afternoon that this paper is totally inadequate in that charge. It is not going to be able to do that. What this relates to is very much the strategy that we have employed over here on this side of the House in the last couple of weeks in dealing with this new government that the people of Ontario duly elected on 6 September.

What we have done, day in and day out, is basically compared the Agenda for People that this party had set out as what it wanted to do if it was duly elected for the people of Ontario. What we see, as the member for Oriole has said, is that basically that was an agenda for the election. It certainly was not an agenda for government. It certainly is not an agenda for the people of Ontario because, day in and day out, we see this government reneging on that agenda. There are some very good ideas in there and there are some very impossible ideas in there. I think as this party has now assumed the responsibilities of government it has started to realize that there is much in this document, no matter how well intentioned, that is absolutely impossible to carry out.

I would say to the people in cabinet and the backbenchers who are here -- upper and lower benchers as they are now being referred to -- that they should get this over with. They should just say, "Well, you're right, we can't accomplish this and we've got a new agenda here now that we're in government." But no, they still say that they ran on this agenda and they are going to go forward with it.

Yet every day in question period and through other activities of the House, when we confront this government with this agenda, it ends up backing away from these promises. I think that that is a shame, especially when this Agenda for People admits that there is a recession here in Ontario. It knew in the summer -- in fact, we all knew this summer -- that Ontario was entering into a recession. This government is starting to approach that recession very, very slowly and quite inadequately for the acceleration of the downfall of this economy.

Keynesian theory would tell members, as many on this side of the House would agree, as this government is adopting, that a time of recession is a time to spend. I think it is very laudable for governments to embark upon capital works, as this government is intending to do, but these capital works cannot be and are not being put in place soon enough for our needs. They are not being initiated soon enough to help this economy and, more particularly, to help the people of our province, the families, the working men and women who depend on those breadwinners in those families to keep sustenance on the table.

There is one thing that this government could do and it relates very closely to Bill 1. There is one thing that they could do that would really kill two birds with one stone. They could help the people of Ontario alleviate the terrible burden that the federal GST is going to bring upon the people of Ontario and at the same time help Ontario on to recovery from this recession. That one thing was talked about by our party this summer during the election, and that is to lower the sales tax. That would be a good idea at this time. I think it would be an excellent idea.

If this government is complaining about the extra 7% on all goods and services that the federal government will be charging the people of Ontario and every citizen of this country, then would it not be timely to reduce the Ontario sales tax? It would not only help to alleviate that extra charge that everybody is going to have to bear that is going to further hurt the economy of this province, but at the same time it would help the economy because it would stimulate expenditures. It would stimulate consumer spending. Besides lowering the cost of goods for people in this province by doing that, people will also have more coin in the realm; they would have more coins in their pockets and they would be able to keep spending that and buy other things that they need for their families. This would certainly stimulate the economy.

Some would criticize that there are a lot of goods manufactured offshore, that somehow we would not get the benefit of that because if we are buying electronic goods produced in Pacific Rim countries, where is Ontario going to benefit from that? There is nothing wrong with being a little creative. You do not just have to do across-the-board cuts in a sales tax.

Like a previous government of this province years ago -- and I admit it was a Conservative government -- when it wanted to stimulate the Ontario economy, it removed or reduced at different times when it embarked upon this course the sales tax on automobiles that were manufactured in this province. That was an excellent idea. What that did was accelerate the sale and purchase of automobiles manufactured in this province, and of course what that did was keep the men and women on the assembly lines and in the parts factories of this province.

That would be an excellent idea, and I find myself in opposition wanting to be constructive. I am putting this idea forward for this government to consider. I think that the days when the role of opposition was to be truly and solely negative are over. I think in opposition we should be constructive and we should put forward ideas. I pass that idea along to this government as something that I think it should be considering. They would alleviate that burden, that extra 7% that everybody is going to be paying on the GST and they would be helping to stimulate the economy of Ontario, especially in southwestern Ontario where we are solely dependent, just about, besides agriculture, on the automobile industry.

It is a bit of a shame that so much of our economy is so dependent upon the automobile industry, and so as government we have to work towards helping to stimulate that. We would all like to see more energy-efficient automobiles such as we are building today on our roads and highways, and so I think that there would be an environmental impact to this also. I would ask that this government give that idea careful consideration.

1740

I have some doubts that this idea would be accepted. I have some doubts because I fear that this idea did come from that side; it was the Liberal government that put forward this idea during the election as a way to help alleviate the economy, as we all saw the recession coming. In fact, the leader of the New Democratic Party, now the Premier of this province, this summer railed very strongly against this. Again, this is why I fear that this positive idea put forward in the best interest of the province of Ontario will not be accepted. I hope it will be and I hope the Premier can forget that he felt we were buying votes and then, as he said later, renting votes. This is a constructive idea that would be very positive to help secure and rebuild an economy.

There is no crusade here in Bill 1. Bill 1 basically is a harmonization of our sales tax with the GST. That is something this party will not stand for.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Mahoney: Thank you, Mr Speaker, now that you have seen that there is no one else in the House at all.

I would like to compliment the member on his speech, but before I address that speech --

Mr Sorbara: You're here. Maybe it's because you're here.

Mr Mahoney: The member can stand up in a moment, if he would like.

I just want to pay tribute to the member for Niagara South, who has obviously cracked the whip so substantially in the NDP caucus that she has actually put the seals to sleep. I am really disappointed that has happened.

Here comes the Minister for Cowboy Boots again, just strutting in here.

Hon Mr Kormos: You bored these people to death.

Mr Mahoney: Why does he not have a seat? He should not hit himself in the back with the door on the way out.

I think the whip has done a marvellous job. She has settled the members down. We do not even hear the member for Oxford up chirping away too much. It is very disappointing.

I want to take the members opposite through a scenario that is happening to them right now. Picture this: You go to bed quietly at night. you climb into bed, you pull the comforter up and you just snuggle down to sleep. You wake up in the morning and you turn over and there is the member for Markham who climbed into bed with you.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know what you are saying has to do with the GST.

Mr Mahoney: Actually, I am not sure I know what anything these people are talking about has to do with the GST. The point of the matter is that at the same time as this member has climbed into bed with these folks, these folks have climbed into bed with Mr Mulroney, which is absolutely unbelievable.

We have heard people talk in this House about being a tax fighter. They even named a bus recently Taxfighter 1. Where is the tax fighter now? Instead, what they are doing is agreeing with the policies, and then he sends Robin. He calls himself Batman and he sends Robin into the House to fight his battles. I do not think he is succeeding at it.

Mr Grandmaître: I will be very short because I know my friend will want to take over.

When I look at Bill 1 and I look at the Minister of Revenue, I can just see her on the day when the Treasurer and the Premier of this province said: "Now deliver. You are the sacrificial lamb. You are the puppet of this government. Now deliver this piece of legislation." I know that the minister must have lost sleep that night. She did not? She should be ashamed of herself because the Premier, her leader, for weeks and weeks and even months in this House criticized the GST, not only the piggybacking of it but the GST, and now everybody is on the minister's side because she has received direct orders.

Mr Cousens: You're disturbing our sleep.

Mr Grandmaître: The member for Markham is disturbing me, Mr Speaker. Would you ask him to please sit down? As members know, the third party is supporting the GST in this province. They have lost control of their bus.

Mr Stockwell: Until it hits a Liberal, there's no skid marks.

Mr Grandmaître: This member is not even sitting in his seat. I think he should be moved. If he wants to disturb us, he should be sitting in his seat.

I have heard the leader of the government criticizing the former Liberal government for supporting -- we were supposed to be supporting the GST. In fact, we have been against the GST. But the leader of the government said that he would kill the GST and now he is supporting it.

I support my colleague who proposed a solution to the burden of the GST, the take-back, taking back a point on the retail sales tax. This would add $1.1 billion to the economy of this province. I think this would be a way to fight the loss of jobs, the close-downs and the bankruptcies that are taking place in this province. That is the way we have to fight GST and that is the way we have to fight taxation in this province, but now they are backing away. I sympathize with the Minister of Revenue, because she has no other way of excusing herself. She has to carry the can and the can is called GST.

I do not think the NDP was serious in August when it said that it would abolish the GST, that it would not cooperate with the federal government. So I suppose now they are in bed with the Prime Minister of Canada. I will not mention his name, because people might scrap my notes.

Mr Mahoney: His initials are Brian Mulroney.

Mr Grandmaître: The Prime Minister of Canada.

Le temps est limité, alors je veux simplement souligner le fait que, durant l'élection du mois de septembre, surtout au mois d'août, j'ai entendu à maintes reprises dans mon comté les étudiants de l'Université d'Ottawa qui critiquaient la candidate néo-démocrate qui, elle, répétait à pleine bouche tous les jours que son chef -- le premier ministre à venir -- était pour abolir la TPS parce que la TPS affecte surtout les étudiants et les étudiantes au niveau universitaire.

Alors, ce que nous avons entendu au mois de juillet et au mois d'août... Je n'emploierai pas le mot «mensonge» parce que c'est un mot qui n'est pas permis en Chambre, mais il a été souvent employé par le chef et les députés du Parti néo-démocrate. Je n'emploierai pas ce mot-là. Mais, par contre, je dois dire qu'on n'a pas toujours dit la vérité.

Aujourd'hui, on se sent coincé et on accepte volontairement l'application de la TPS en Ontario et partout au Canada.

Le premier ministre de l'Ontario recommande une rencontre avec ses neuf collègues et le premier ministre du Canada pour parler de l'économie. Il semblerait que le premier ministre a une solution aux problèmes auxquels l'Ontario fait face -- il devrait avoir une solution. Pour-tant, j'assiste tous les jours aux séances à la Chambre et j'écoute attentivement les paroles du premier ministre et jamais il n'a parlé d'un plan pour réduire le taux de chômage en Ontario. Alors, qu'est-ce qu'on a entendu au mois de juillet et au mois d'août au sujet de la TPS et de toutes les autres promesses électorales qu'ils ont faites ? Je n'emploierai pas les mots «c'étaient des mensonges», parce que ce n'est pas parlementaire, mais ce n'était pas la vérité.

We find ourselves today with the very difficult task of accepting Bill 1, a bill that will destroy thousands and thousands of families in Ontario, that will kill jobs in Ontario. The NDP government is accepting this, yet it is supposed to have a program to compensate people who have lost their jobs and also to assist small businessmen to get back on their feet. I think that over the next four years, we will hear these kinds of promises from that government but we will never see them in legislation. The GST and the NDP in Ontario are a disaster.

1750

Mr Sorbara: I, like my colleagues, am very pleased to have an opportunity to participate in the debate. I guess I regret that the members of the government party are not participating in the debate.

Mr Mahoney: Neither are the Tories.

Mr Sorbara: Nor, of course, are the Tories, as my friend the member for Mississauga West points out. It is interesting for all of us who have been here in the House for a little bit that the very first bill the NDP puts before this Legislature in its very first session of Parliament, the first time the NDP has formed the government in Ontario, is indeed a tax measure -- an interesting tax measure, given the rhetoric we heard from NDP members during the campaign. I could not be more eloquent on the question of tax revolt than my friend the member for St George-St David. What is most surprising to me is the docility of the government members.

I remember back in 1985 when our party was called upon to govern. As the member for St George-St David said, none of us expected it to happen. Most of us ran -- those of us who were not incumbents, certainly -- on the basis that there was a slim possibility that we would be

elected in our ridings or no possibility at all. Then lo and behold, on 2 May 1985 it turned out that we had almost enough members to form a government, 48 members, while the incumbent Tories had 50 members. Everyone, even those who were not sitting in the House at that time, remembers what happened.

There was a great deal of excitement around this place at that time. There was a sense that things really were going to change in Ontario after some 42 years. I think, Mr Speaker, you were here at that time. You recall the degree to which, in every corner of this building, in every office at Queen's Park, there was a sense of dramatic change. There was change. There were dramatic policies brought forward. I remember the first bill we brought forward when we were called upon to govern, 26 June 1985. We brought forward an historic bill, a bill finally to complete the funding of the separate school system in Ontario, a matter that had been a great debate during that election campaign, a matter that the previous Premier in Ontario, Bill Davis, had made a commitment on, to the surprise of most of his Tory caucus. The NDP seemed to be supporting it, but it was something for which our party had campaigned for a number of years. So we began with that bill, a very exciting time, I believe, for the province, for the government and, I think, for the people of Ontario.

I compare that with the first initiative brought forward by a New Democratic Party government -- a tax bill, really an insignificant tax bill, a bill that replaces a commitment to make a real difference on this terrible question of the GST.

The reason I raise that point is because I will confess that as a result of the realities of 6 September 1990 and the fact that our government was defeated and a new government elected, there was a real sense in the province once again -- you could feel it in the street when you talked to your constituents -- that my God, things were going to change, that the NDP was finally called upon to form a government in Ontario. This was dramatic. Here was this young, boyish-looking leader of a political party who was out to change the world. He was going to make a real difference on taxes. He was going to lead a tax revolt. He would make a difference. He was going to tax the corporations a minimum 8% of their income; absolutely that had to come in right away. On the question of the GST he would be the leader of the charge. It would be from him that the clarion call would come and we would defeat this dreaded GST.

I can imagine the surprise of my friend the Minister of Revenue when she was called upon to actually take up that position. It is interesting: there is a little article in the Sudbury Star. Just as the government members did not expect to form the government, the Minister of Revenue, the member for -- I guess it is Thunder Bay. No, I am sorry, it is the member for Sudbury.

Mr Mahoney: Port Arthur.

Mr Sorbara: The member for Port Arthur was interviewed by the Sudbury Star about her appointment to the cabinet, and the journalist Pauline Johnson asked her what it felt like to be in cabinet. She said: "Wonderful, great. This is something. I was so surprised. I thought my chances were slim of getting a cabinet position because there were so many northern representatives." She was surprised. She said as well that she did not know why the Premier chose her for that particular job, the job of Minister of Revenue. She said: "I guess he knows that I'm a very determined person and that I'm quick to learn. We had interviews with Bob Rae" -- I do not know who the "we" is, but she said, "We had interviews with Bob Rae."

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please refer to Bill 1?

Mr Sorbara: She said, "I guess he saw that I had the skills to do it and that he would support me." And there she is in cabinet.

I say to the Minister of Revenue as she introduces Bill 1, as I say to the other members of the government caucus, that it is not enough just to have been appointed to cabinet. To be appointed to cabinet is indeed a great honour and those of us who had the privilege to serve in an Ontario cabinet for five years feel to a person that there will never be any greater honour that could be bestowed on us.

But it is not enough to be appointed. The minister has to do something, she has to make a difference. She cannot just get a message from David Agnew's office that it is time to initiate the tax revolt with a bill. She has to fight for something. She has to be able to go to cabinet and say to the Premier and to her colleagues around the cabinet table: "This is not enough. We want to do more, because what we have in the bill simply does not respond to what we said during the election campaign."

It is not enough to sit there at a cabinet table and defer to the powers. That is not what our democratic system is all about. Our system has to do with fighting for the people who elected her, not simply responding to Ross McClellan. He has a very important job now -- he is running the Premier's office -- but he did not elect her. He did not go to the poll. He probably was not even up in her riding during the election campaign. I tell the Minister of Revenue that she won that riding by herself and with the ideas she brought to the people of Port Arthur during the election campaign.

On motion by Mr Sorbara, the debate was adjourned.

The House adjourned at 1800.