The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Daigeler: Today I will do something I have not done before and probably will not be doing again for a long time. I will congratulate and thank an NDP cabinet minister.

Before the Premier and the government backbenchers get carried away with enthusiasm, I should say that my thanks would have come much earlier had the former Minister of Education listened to me in May. It was then that the member for London Centre decided to freeze the capital announcements for the Carleton school boards. This uncalled-for delay was supposedly put in place to let the Ottawa boards find an end to their long-standing accommodation quarrels.

As expected, when Larry Taman released his one-man commission report on October 9, he made one short suggestion: Release immediately the capital funds held back for the Carleton public and separate boards. My thanks go to the former minister for implementing the Taman recommendation and for authorizing an elementary school in my own neighbourhood of Barrhaven. Barrhaven parents have long been waiting for this good news. As I said, though, in a press release on October 10, late funding for Barrhaven is better than no funding.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Harnick: The city of Mississauga has proposed presenting a private member's bill that would replace public library boards with committees of municipal councils that would include citizen representation. The city of Mississauga wishes to implement the above change in order to make its elected representatives more accountable for the library system. But while the proposed changes may work in Mississauga, they should not be imposed universally. Mississauga is not asking this for any other municipality.

The governance of public libraries in this province falls under the jurisdiction of the Public Libraries Act, 1984. The act ensures that a library board is fiscally accountable to the municipality. The proposed bill would allow Mississauga to have control over priorities and spending, but libraries and all cultural institutions must be guaranteed an arm's-length relationship from their political masters.

Libraries must be guaranteed intellectual freedom. The residents of North York do not want politicians determining the priorities and the use of resources for the North York Public Library. Existing legislation guarantees the separation of cultural institutions from elected officials while creating a balance between citizen participation and fiscal control by the municipality.

The city of Mississauga's proposed bill would have the effect of eroding a specific and important principle of public policy for the province, and therefore I ask the government on behalf of the North York Public Library to support the existing legislation.

SURVIVORS PSYCHIATRIC ADVOCACY NETWORK

Mr Drainville: I would like to focus the attention of the House for a moment on a group of courageous men and women in my community who are working to improve the lives of many people in Victoria-Haliburton. I am referring to the organization called Survivors Psychiatric Advocacy Network, or to use their acronym, SPAN.

Founded by Fred James, Doug Mitchel and Dayle MacCharles, it is the first time this government has funded a group of psychiatric survivors to design, develop and run their own programs. The funding of $103,000 was provided by the Ministry of Health through the anti-recession funding program. Services provided by the group include an advocacy network, one-on-one counselling for people who have an ongoing crisis, a 24-hour crisis phone, as well as training and information to professionals and volunteers who work with the psychiatric survivor community.

I think the most important role the organization plays is the empowerment of a group of people who have been marginalized by our society. SPAN has formed self-support groups which are controlled and run by those suffering from a psychiatric illness. SPAN is also encouraging psychiatric survivors to get on the boards of organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association and the local hospital to ensure their programs and services will truly help.

The work of SPAN is the type of effort we need to encourage. It is empowering people to work with the system in order to create solutions that meet the real needs of people receiving assistance.

CHILD CARE

Mr Sola: The Peel lunch and after-school program was founded in 1975 with the mandate to provide high-quality, affordable and accessible child care in communities where there is a demonstrated need.

At its annual meeting last night at the Meadowvale Delta Inn in Mississauga, the board of directors reported another successful season of operation. Despite the additional burden the recession has placed on PLASP, it remains responsive to the child care needs of Peel. This it accomplished while maintaining program quality, expanding services, controlling costs to maintain affordable fees, improving communications and recruiting, and developing and retaining staff.

Co-operation between the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Peel Board of Education is essential for the success of PLASP. They should be congratulated for this and should serve as a model of good relations for the rest of the province.

Another essential ingredient in the success of PLASP is the collaboration of the cities of Mississauga and Brampton and the town of Caledon, and provincial support through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Particularly noteworthy is PLASP's budget. Total revenues of almost $6.7 million were financed 88% by program fees, 11% by provincial grants and 1% by interest and fund-raising, resulting in a surplus of $8,600.

On behalf of the 5,555 kids and 4,415 families enrolled in the program, congratulations to the board of directors, management, staff and volunteers for a job well done.

COMPENSATION TO SHEEP FARMERS

Mr B. Murdoch: Sheep farmers in my riding are growing quickly more confused with the Ministry of Natural Resources policy, or non-policy, on hunter compensation for coyotes that kill their flocks. No one can get a straight answer on this issue from either my local office in Owen Sound or the minister's office in Toronto.

On the one hand, we learn that compensation will be paid to anyone who fills out a form swearing that his or her sheep are being threatened and that certain hunters have been given permission to kill the coyotes within the vicinity of the endangered sheep. On the other hand, we hear that in order to collect compensation, a hunter must present proof of a kill. In other words, he or she must watch a coyote come on to the land and wait until the wolf has attacked a sheep before he can kill it, so that he can give evidence the coyote was doing harm.

This is ridiculous. If this is the case, I can only feel this government has sunk to its lowest level yet in terms of policy decisions. I would ask that the minister and the local office get together on this matter and decide which program is in place, and advise sheep farmers in Bruce and in Grey as soon as possible in order to end this confusion. I realize the wolf has been at most farmers' doors for a very long time, but is this government honestly thinking of now letting it loose in the sheep pen?

1340

COAT DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM

Mr Hope: There is a coverup going on in my riding of Chatham-Kent and I am going to expose it today. It started yesterday and is being carried out by the Chatham Police Association, the United Way, the Salvation Army and several area dry cleaners. To be precise, it is called Operation Coverup. It is a mission to make sure everyone in Kent county will be warm this winter through a coat distribution program.

Over the past few weeks, Kent county residents have been urged through the media to take their used coats to a host of local dry cleaners. In turn, the neighbourhood dry cleaners clean the coats free of charge before giving them to the Salvation Army for distribution. Through Friday, donated coats will be distributed at the Salvation Army Citadel Church on Victoria Avenue. Distribution will be held from noon till 6 pm each day to make the free coats available to every needy person.

This is the sixth straight year the good people of Kent county have participated in this program. Last year, almost 2,000 coats were donated to the residents of my riding. This October we are hoping for an even bigger success. Once again the residents of Chatham-Kent and Kent county have done a great job.

The leader of the third party, who I understand is looking for a new leather coat, ought to stop by. They may even have a coat for him.

COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM

Mr Mahoney: As the Premier and all members of all parties will know, we were visited this morning by a community action group, actually called the Community Action Team, from my home town of Sault Ste Marie. I would like to congratulate them for the wonderful work they have done in putting together an extremely positive report, which I know they presented to the Premier and to the Conservative Party as well as to our caucus.

I would particularly like to note that in their final recommendation or request, they state: "We are not here today asking government to do those things that the community should be doing. We are doing our part, the company and its employees are doing their part and we need government to do its part."

This is a volunteer group with a membership of approximately 10,000 people in Sault Ste Marie and Wawa. It really addresses a very critical problem in that if Algoma Steel were to close, they would lose 10,000 jobs, a 20,000 population reduction would be in effect, and they would lose local tax revenues of $20 million and a payroll of $300 million, an extremely important issue for the people in Sault Ste Marie and Wawa. There would be additional jobs lost in all parts of the province as a result of the lost revenue.

I would like to say that I consider this to be a totally non-partisan issue. I am quite prepared to work with the government, and hope that it will see fit to find a way to help this very progressive, positive group called the Community Action Team from Sault Ste Marie.

BREWING INDUSTRY

Mrs Witmer: My statement is for the Treasurer. In June of this year, I raised the issue of the serious repercussions of the phased-back ad valorem rate to small brewers in Ontario. At that time, the Treasurer indicated that this was a matter which he took very seriously and that he would "take a careful look at it."

In late summer, the Treasurer had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the small brewers of Ontario to discuss the ad valorem tax issue. Since that time, the brewers have had no response from the Treasurer. These small breweries have been paying the increased tax since June 15 of this year and it has caused them considerable economic hardship.

The small brewers would like to be allowed to return to the reduced rate until the review of this issue is completed by the Treasurer. They are also quite anxious to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible, as they are unable to make any future business decisions or provide increased employment opportunities until they receive a response.

I would like to urge the Treasurer to provide assistance to this important local industry by giving it a temporary respite from the increased ad valorem tax until he has completed his review of this matter, and I would encourage him to make a decision at the earliest possible time.

RECYCLING

Mr Sutherland: Environmental concerns are one of the main issues facing us as a society today. As a government we are actively promoting the 3Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle.

Today I would like to take the opportunity to commend the University of Western Ontario for its recently expanded recycling program. The university's green plan is the result of a co-operative effort between the UWO administration, students, employee groups and affiliated colleges.

The campus recycling committee is composed of representatives from faculty, staff associations, students, residence operations, food services and occupational health and safety. A major portion of the program's funding comes from the students themselves. Last year the students on the main campus and at its affiliated colleges approved a $5 levy that goes directly into the green plan.

The green plan includes the recycling of fine paper, newsprint, beverage cans, clear glass, cardboard and computer paper. Under this plan all newsprint, glass and cans are being recycled on the main campus and at the affiliated colleges, and for the first time, cardboard from the UWO bookstore is also being recycled. In the first month the program collected almost 17,000 kilograms of recyclable material.

The University of Western Ontario's green plan is an important step in the right direction for our environment and one that I urge other institutions and businesses to consider as a blueprint. Once again I congratulate everyone, particularly the students, at the University of Western Ontario for a job well done.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mr Conway: My question is for the Treasurer and it concerns the budgetary policy of the government. Like many people in the Legislature and across Ontario, I have read with real interest in the last few days the Treasurer's reported inventory-taking of the capital assets of the province of Ontario. It is plain that a bad budget gets worse as we approach the end of the second quarter, the beginning of the third quarter, and it is increasingly clear that my good friend the member for Nickel Belt and his colleagues, good people all, just do not know what they are doing.

I was struck this morning to read in the press that the Treasurer is now acknowledging that, quoting the Treasurer from this morning's press: "Everyone knows that we're struggling with our expenditures, which are going up, and our revenues are not going up. Maybe there's an alternative to reductions in programs, namely the disposition of some assets."

Does the Treasurer honestly believe that the only substantive way to deal with the budgetary problem that he and his colleagues have written for themselves is to sell off the crown assets?

Hon Mr Rae: That's not what he said. Let him have it; both barrels.

Mr Sorbara: Why don't you sell Howard? He's disposable. He's a liability.

Hon Mr Cooke: We would sell you if we thought we could get anything for you.

Hon Mr Laughren: Do those answers satisfy the member? It is completely inaccurate to even imply that I was inferring that the way to meet our expenditure problems was the disposition of assets. I did not say that was the only way we could stay within our expenditure forecast. That is simply not the case. What I did say was that we should look at the entire allocations of government, which I gather had not been done ever, despite the efforts of the former government, good fellows and persons all. They simply had not done that, and we are doing that. I think it would be irresponsible for us not to look simply at program expenditures but to also look and see if there are some assets which are not strategic assets and see whether the disposition of those assets would go some way to helping us solve our problems.

1350

Mr Conway: I want to say to the Treasurer that no government in the history of Ontario has ever brought to this Legislature a budget and a four-year fiscal plan that contemplates annual deficits in the range of $10 billion. His budgetary difficulties are real. Everyone out there has been telling him that for the last number of months, and now, 13 months into his term, he is awakening to the reality that there are real difficulties, even if he hopes to bring the plan on target at a $9.7-billion deficit for this fiscal year.

Would the Treasurer not agree that his real problem has to do with the program spending, and that contributing to that real problem is the decision made by his government this year to increase the Ontario public service wage bill year over year by 14.5%, to settle with the doctors at a cost of nearly half a billion dollars and, just 10 days ago, to announce that the teachers' pension fund will require another $215 billion, to name but three examples that speak to the unwillingness or the inability of the NDP government to control spending? Selling off the garage surely is not going to help the Treasurer pay the grocery bills.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, it is true that no other government has brought in a deficit of $9.7 billion, but I remind the member opposite that no other government has been faced with the recession we have been faced with at this time. I am getting a little weary of members of the Liberal caucus standing in their place and saying that we should be spending more money on programs and then during question period having them tell us we are spending too much on programs. I wish they would make up their minds over there.

As far as being critical of this government for laying out our three-year program of expenditures and revenues beyond this year is concerned, I only wish the former government had had the courage and the integrity to do the same thing.

Mr Conway: Ten days ago the Treasurer, with a midcourse correction -- because he is now understanding what people out there have been telling him and his colleagues for weeks and months: that there is a real problem and it lies on the expenditure side -- had a chance to show what he was prepared to do around tough decisions, particularly on the expenditure side. He did virtually nothing in this fiscal year. He deferred most of the pain to next year.

I want to ask a final supplementary of the Treasurer, who is clearly casting about for some kind of remedy for his budgetary problem. Members of this government are travelling around telling farmers in communities like the Niagara Peninsula that the NDP government is not going to allow the farmers of this province to sell off portions of their farm to raise revenues to allow them to stay in the beleaguered business of agriculture. Will the Treasurer commit to this House that he is prepared to live by the same advice, that he does not intend to start selling off the farm, selling off the family garage, to pay the grocery bills and that he will get serious about meaningful restraint on the expenditure side, particularly on major programs like public sector spending?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, I tried to say as clearly as I could that any disposition of assets would not be strategic assets; they would be assets that we conclude are no longer appropriately held by the crown in this province. Second, it really does wear a little thin hearing my good friend the member for Renfrew North, the same member who, with his cabinet colleagues, got us into some real messes, along with the third party, whether it was Suncor, whether it was the domed stadium --

Mr Bradley: Not pointing a finger, says Bob Rae.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I am not suggesting that we do not have difficulties in the middle of the severest recession in this province in 50 years. It would be ridiculous to imply that we do not have expenditure problems, because we are determined to continue to fund essential services in health care and education and social services. We are determined to do that. If the member wants to stand in his place and tell us that he wants us to start cutting those essential services, he should do so, but he should not pretend he can have it both ways.

Mr Conway: Settling electoral accounts with public servants and teachers and doctors is not my view of taking a responsible approach to budgetary planning in the heart of this recession. If I ever thought I would see Floyd Laughren pursuing a Thatcherite/Mulroneyite plan to sell off crown assets, I would have thought I had died and gone to another place.

The Speaker: To whom is your second question directed?

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Conway: My second question is for my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food. A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture and Food stood in his place and to his credit announced a $35-million farm relief program for the beleaguered farm community of this province. My calculations suggest that the $35-million program will provide an average of roughly $600 per farmer in Ontario, and for that we are appreciative and thankful.

Having regard to the fact that the government has just provided a $600 benefit to farmers, is the Minister of Agriculture and Food aware that as a result of the Bob Rae Ontario Hydro policy, a farmer in my community -- and there are several like my farmer in the county of Hastings -- with a hydro bill of $12,000 a year, is going to have an increase this year of some $1,500? What kind of relief is the Minister of Agriculture and Food going to provide to the thousands of beleaguered farmers in this province who are struggling in the midst of this recession with the government's hydro plan, which is to increase their essential electrical bills by nearly 50% over the next three years?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am not sure whether that is an agriculture question or an energy question or what category that falls into, but I will try to answer the member.

This government is committed to protecting and preserving the family farm. The $35 million we announced a couple of weeks ago was an emergency aid package. It was not a universal, general policy statement that was going to provide for the future of farming in Ontario. It was an emergency package. I do not think it is fair to divide the number of farms into the amount of aid and come up with a figure and say, "This is all you've done."

We have participated in the gross revenue insurance plan. We have announced we will participate in the net income stabilization account program. All those things have several millions attached to them. We announced last spring a $50-million interest assistance program. We will continue to provide the kind of assistance that agriculture in this province needs in order to continue to prosper and we will not be sidetracked by issues around Hydro. If I might add a comment on that part of the question, we are attempting to provide and pay for the expenses of previous administrations related to Hydro spending.

Mr Conway: I know how well the Minister of Agriculture and Food is working to address the concerns of farmers, and I appreciate that. I want to return to my main question. Having regard to the good work he has already accomplished in providing this relief package, I ask him on behalf of my farmer, who appreciates the $600 he will get this year: What does the minister plan to do about the fact that his government is imposing on my farmer this year an additional cost of $1,500 for his vital, essential and non-replaceable electric bill? What is the minister going to do to provide relief this year for that government-imposed increase in cost?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Again, this question is specifically related to energy conservation and hydro bills, which is tied up in energy. But I would say to the member that I am aware of what Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy are doing in terms of providing energy-efficient lightbulbs, for example, which will benefit the hog producers of this province in terms of cutting back on their consumption. There are things we can do in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to promote energy conservation in agricultural activities that I believe will help. Given the fact that there will be rate increases, we need to address this and work with the Ministry of Energy and its policies to make sure that farmers in this province can take advantage of any opportunity they have to conserve energy.

1400

Mr Conway: My farmer is struggling out there with a very difficult market. This year his bill for electricity, for which he has no alternative, is $12,000. The Premier's hydro plan seeks to increase and will increase that bill by more than $5,000 over the next three years. The Minister of Agriculture and Food well understands that in rural Ontario electricity is absolutely vital and that there is not much alternative for most farmers and for many people living in the rural part of the province. I simply want to ask again: What specific programs of relief has the Minister of Agriculture and Food got for my farmer and for those farmers in Hastings and everywhere else who are going to be stuck with a nearly 50% increase in this essential, and government, cost?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Unfortunately we cannot go back in time. If we could do something and go back to 1985, we could have cancelled Darlington and saved ourselves about $10 billion or $13 billion. That is where the fees are coming from. The rural people and farmers in this province were opposed, I believe, to Darlington at that time, yet the government of that day, which was elected on the promise to cancel Darlington, went ahead with it anyway. Now the farmers are going to have to help pay for it.

We are working on long-term interest programs. We are working on the long-term survival of agriculture and we will continue to work on that. Unfortunately the farmers are going to have to chip in to pay for those energy policies that were brought in in 1985, despite the promise of the government that was elected that it would cancel it.

ASSISTANCE TO DE HAVILLAND

Mr Harris: Could the Premier tell me if it is his or his government's intention that Ontario would assume an ownership position in de Havilland?

Hon Mr Rae: I do not like having to give this kind of answer, but I have to give it to the member in these circumstances. All I can say to the honourable member is that there are intensive discussions under way between our government and the government of Canada. I have spoken to the Prime Minister personally about this issue on several occasions and officials have been talking on a regular basis. There have been discussions with a number of other companies, as well as the Boeing company, with respect to the future of de Havilland.

I am sure he will appreciate that in negotiations of this kind, it simply is not possible for us to conduct these negotiations in public. There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account and a number of factors that we are taking into account. We have asked for a very significant assessment of the company. We have been engaged in some ongoing discussions with everyone, but absolutely no decisions have been made with regard to the conclusion of any negotiations and no negotiations of any kind have been concluded.

Mr Harris: I appreciate that and I understand we are dealing with the private sector. We are also dealing, though, with a substantial potential involvement of the public sector and the taxpayers of this province in effect being either subsidizers or potential shareholders. I think with such quotes as "We're not going to walk away from it" and "If it takes an Ontario ownership position to meet the Canadian content rules, Ontario will be there," the Premier would appreciate that the public and the shareholders in this province are correct to assume that we may be willing or unwilling shareholders in an ownership position in this company.

The federal government owned this company and lost money every time an aircraft rolled off the line. Boeing, one of the largest and most efficient aircraft companies, with expertise far in excess, I suggest, of the Premier's cabinet -- I do not say that derogatorily -- far in excess of any ability anybody in this House, including me and my caucus, might have, has not been able to operate this company without every aircraft rolling off losing money.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his supplementary.

Mr Harris: Surely it would not be untoward, if the Premier has some information, some economic studies that demonstrate that somehow or other this company can be operated in a way different from the feds and from Boeing so that when an aircraft rolls off the line it could make a profit, there is no harm in making that information public. We want to get private sector investors.

The Speaker: Would the leader conclude his question.

Mr Harris: Does the Premier have any economic analysis or study that suggests there is a way Boeing has not found and the feds could not find that he can own this company or somebody else can own it --

The Speaker: Would the leader quickly conclude his question.

Mr Harris: -- and it will actually make a profit?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member there are a number of factors that have to be taken into account. I am not in any way avoiding his question. First of all, whenever the government makes a decision in this regard, it will obviously be a decision that will be announced here in the House. It will be discussed. The information will be made widely available, and there will no doubt be comments both for and against whatever the government decides to do. That level of accountability is one I accept entirely.

The aircraft industry in every part of the world is a heavily subsidized industry. That is true. It is true in Europe. It is true in the United States, only they do not call it subsidization; they call it military contracts. It is true in Quebec. It is true in every part of the world that has an aircraft industry. It has been subsidized by taxpayers in this province to some extent, but not to the extent it has been in other jurisdictions, either by us or by the feds.

The question we have to ask ourselves, and this is really the important question, is how critical is this industry -- not just this company, but this industry -- for the industrial future of Ontario? It is not just a matter of the jobs at de Havilland, which are significant in terms of engineering, research and development and new technologies being applied in manufacturing; it is a question of the thousands of jobs in the supply industry in this province which also depend on de Havilland.

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

Hon Mr Rae: These are all factors that have to be taken into account when we assess what is the wisest course for the Ontario government to follow with respect to de Havilland.

Mr Harris: I am really after information as much as anything. Obviously, the Premier has not said anything other than what we have heard, discussions that the vault is open. He is basically saying that I will not be part of the discussions and neither will the taxpayers, that, "You'll judge us afterwards," and we will judge him afterwards, which is our role, and I know the Premier understands that.

One thing that does concern me is that we seem to be prepared to take an ownership position in this company. When we have been dealing with Algoma Steel, when we have been dealing with Kapuskasing, when we have been dealing with some other areas -- areas of the economy that are important, significant to their communities -- before we committed any taxpayers' money, I believe we tried to look at, what are the factors why that steel mill has been losing money and is the new arrangement going to allow that mill to make a profit? Is the new arrangement going to allow Algoma Steel to make a profit and not be a further drain on the taxpayers? I know this is Bob White's baby and the big-paying union job. Everybody else has said, "We'll take a wage cut to allow this mill to come forward" --

The Speaker: Will the leader place his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: Has the Premier given any consideration, and has the union and has Bob White given any consideration to saying, "Maybe if taxpayers are going to throw in billions of dollars, we will have to participate by saying maybe $45,000 a year is enough, instead of $50,000, or $40,000 instead of $45,000"? Do you have any indication --

The Speaker: The question has been placed. Would the leader take his seat, please.

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps the leader of the third party would like to consider the questions we have to consider as a government. What is the impact going to be on 15,000, 20,000 or 25,000 jobs in southern Ontario? What is the position going to be with respect to strategic investments in research and development and in high technology? These are all the factors that have to be taken into account by any government that is seeking to lead this province. These are not issues that can go away or be ignored.

I say to him again that he can make all the attacks on trade unions he wants. I am talking about engineers; I am talking about scientists; I am talking about people who are working in all walks of life in the skilled trades in southern Ontario. The question we have to ask ourselves as a province is, after all is said and done, do we want to have an industry that is functioning and working well in this province and providing a degree of industrial leadership that is essential for us as we head into the 21st century?

Mr Harris: The question is, before $20,000-a-year cab drivers hike their taxes, surely we should ask if those directly involved are willing to contribute something. I think that is fair.

1410

MINISTRY CONFERENCES

Mr Harris: My question is to the Attorney General. On January 22 and 23 of this year, the financial and administrative services branch of his ministry travelled to the Old Stone Inn in Niagara Falls; 43 staff were treated to two days of what they bill as the deluxe seminar package, which includes American continental breakfast, two deluxe coffee breaks, lunch and dinner. Will the Attorney General tell us if he authorized this $10,000 spending spree?

Hon Mr Hampton: In the Ministry of the Attorney General, when staff have a retreat or a conference session, ordinarily I would not see that unless it surpasses a certain level of expenditure.

Mr Harris: Is there some secret about this level of expenditure the Attorney General cannot tell us? For two nights, $10,000 seems astronomical, but it gets worse. It seems the ministry staff had the taxpayers buying drinks all around. The Attorney General's staff ran up a bar tab of $2,500. They tossed back Courvoisier, lit up glasses of Sambuca, savoured Grand Marnier; in fact, $360 worth of Grand Marnier. You cannot help wondering how much work actually got done between the bottles of beer and the Baileys. Does the Attorney General have an explanation for $2,500 worth of booze while they were on this extravagant conference in Niagara Falls?

Hon Mr Hampton: If the allegations raised by the leader of the third party are indeed true, I am very interested to learn that and I will check into it.

Mr Harris: I raise this virtually every week. They are under a restraint program. They are cutting back in many areas we do not think they should be cutting back in, but this is obviously carrying on. Surely, with all the questions that have been asked, he would have been taking a look at this. Last year he spent over $500,000 on conferences and seminars. I would simply ask the Attorney General this: Can he tell us -- since I think he would have been interested; we keep bringing them up -- how much of that was on a bar tab?

Hon Mr Hampton: I do not know why the leader of the third party would be particularly interested in a bar tab, but let me point this out to him: When we became the government, there were certain policies of the former government that it is fair to say the civil service felt it would be appropriate for it to continue to follow. About halfway through the year we became aware of those and we have put an end to them.

In fact, since last spring, we have curtailed the number of conferences staff within the Ministry of the Attorney General are allowed to attend. We have requested that when those conferences are held, they be held as often as possible in government-owned buildings, and we have, by and large, constrained to a very great degree the expenditure that was going on at conferences under the former Liberal government. I am happy to tell the leader of the third party that if he asks this question again next year, he will receive quite a different answer.

ONTARIO HYDRO RECEPTION

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Energy and it is perhaps somewhat along the same line as the question of the leader of the third party.

I have in my hand a copy of an invoice issued by the Compri Hotel in Windsor. The invoice is for a reception held by Ontario Hydro on October 2 and 3. The invoice shows that on October 2, during a three-hour period, 870 drinks were served at a cost of $4,713.14. In addition, the cost of the food was $2,621. Hydro was even so thoughtful as to provide a sound system, at a cost of $274.25. The entire cost of the affair was $7,919.85.

The minister knows that Hydro's ratepayers are presently staring in the face of a 44% rate hike over the next three years. In addition, the Premier has decided to saddle ratepayers with a new chair of Hydro, a friend of the Premier's, who is insisting on a salary of $400,000-plus. How can the minister justify to Hydro's ratepayers spending $8,000 for music, food and booze?

Hon Mr Ferguson: I am not aware of the event that took place. I certainly will attempt to obtain further details on the matter and advise the member.

Mr McGuinty: The minister suggests that since he is not aware of it, he is somehow not responsible and therefore, by implication, not accountable. It does not matter whether we are talking about Marc Eliesen's salary or this particular booze-up. At the end of the day, Hydro is his baby. When a baby's diaper needs changing, you do not talk to the baby; you talk to the parents. The minister is claiming he has no control over Hydro's expenses. Can he have already forgotten that in the last four months he has ordered Hydro to spend $500 million at Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing? That is $500 million Hydro did not want to spend. If that is not control, I do not know what is.

Again, how can he justify adding the $8,000 cost of a three-hour booze-up to Hydro ratepayers' bills?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Maybe I was speaking too quickly when I replied to the question before. I advised the member that I did not have firsthand knowledge of the meeting or the event that took place. I certainly will try to obtain for the member the details of the meeting and the purpose of the event. When I have had an opportunity to do that, I will certainly relay the information to the member.

1420

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harnick: My question is of the Attorney General. While his ministry has been out quaffing cocktails and running up bar tabs, I notice that he has been running around the province talking about access to justice. Back in December 1990, the class actions legislation was delivered to this Legislature for first reading. We also had the Arbitration Act delivered here for first reading about a year ago. The Attorney General has already told me he cannot do anything to help the plight of Small Claims Court judges or the small claims courts. He has had the report about paralegals sitting on his desk now for about a year; I think it was published in September 1990.

When can we expect to see him doing something instead of just bringing this stuff here, leaving it after first reading and forgetting about it?

Hon Mr Hampton: I am actually quite pleased that the member has asked this question. There were a number of pieces of legislation we wanted to get through the House last spring, but as I remember it, I had to come here and listen to the leader of the third party list off the names of all the lakes in Ontario. Then when we were finished with the lakes, we had to listen to the names of the rivers. I remember having I think $1 million a week of taxpayers' money wasted while the leader of the third party wasted our legislative time and read off the names of the lakes and rivers of Ontario.

I would be quite pleased to bring forward legislation. The problem is that, this far in the fall already, we have been able to pass only two pieces of legislation. When the members of the third party decide that they want to come here and do some serious work, we will be more than happy to engage them with legislation that will keep them busy from sunup to sundown.

Mr Harnick: Let me just tell the Attorney General a couple of things: One, all the initiatives he started were brought here by the Liberal Party, none by him; two, the House leader of the New Democratic Party has never suggested that any of this legislation come back to this House for second reading. He should not try to fool us.

We have a problem in our civil courts. We know that 40,000 cases have already been tossed out of our criminal courts. We now have a problem with our civil courts. I understand that before the court merger we used to be able to have a motion brought before a master within two or three days. I understand that we now have to wait three months until a master is available to listen to a motion. Nevertheless, the Attorney General persists in trying to phase out masters. Will he hire more masters and let them do their job or hire judges and let them do the job of the masters? Please, will he do something? He should not sit there any longer.

Hon Mr Hampton: Once again, I am pleased to hear from the member opposite because it appears his memory of events of the last year may be somewhat different from everyone else's in the province. When we became the government, we became aware that there was a backlog in the courts.

Mr Scott: What do you mean "became aware" of a backlog? Give me a break.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, it appears I have offended the former Attorney General. I will sit down.

The Speaker: Has the Attorney General completed his response? New question. The member for Peterborough.

Interjection.

The Speaker: To the Attorney General, I did ask if you had a further response and you seemed immobilized.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member for St George-St David erupted again.

The Speaker: Does the Attorney General have a brief response?

Hon Mr Hampton: Let's be very clear on something. When we became the government we discovered that there was a backlog in the court system which the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged stretched back to when the third party was the government of the province. That is how serious the problem was. It took considerable resources for us, considerable dedication and hard work by judges, crown attorneys and everyone involved in the criminal justice system to deal with that problem in a way that we minimized the effect upon the people of the province. Following that, we brought forward what I think is the most progressive family support legislation in North America.

Mr Harnick: What are you going to do about the masters? Have you ever been in a master's court?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Maybe the critic for the third party does not think these issues are important. I happen to believe the people of Ontario think they are very important.

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Ms Carter: My question is for the Minister of Energy. The minister and the chairman of Ontario Hydro have said that the large increase in electricity rates next year, as well as paying for Darlington, is needed to restore Hydro's generation and transmission facilities to proper working order. Could the minister tell us more about the performance of Ontario's nuclear plants and how far this falls short of target?

Hon Mr Ferguson: It is generally well known and widely accepted that nuclear generating facilities ought to be operating at around 80% efficiency. That clearly is not the case. In 1990, for example, the nuclear industry operated at an average efficiency rate of 62%. I have asked Ontario Hydro to pay particular attention to the question of operational efficiency and reliability of the system. I think members of the House are well aware that if the system is not operating in a reliable fashion, the additional power obviously has to be purchased. That cost is of course passed on to the consumer. Unfortunately, it appears that the question of the reliability of the nuclear generating stations was not adequately addressed prior to the construction of the facilities.

Ms Carter: Could the minister say what the cost has been to Hydro of the poor nuclear performance, how much is being spent now and how much expenditure has been planned for the future on repairs to nuclear plants?

Hon Mr Ferguson: The cost is projected at approximately $100 million to $125 million. There are also current major repairs taking place. The retubing of Pickering is going to cost an additional $485 million. The upgrades at Pickering A will cost about $170 million and the rehabilitation of Bruce A will cost around $854 million, so I think it is in the interests of everybody in this province that our number one goal has to be getting the plants up and operating efficiently.

The second point I would like to make is that in the past we have had one individual attempting to do three jobs. In fact, one individual cannot do three jobs. One cannot do the day-to-day operation in keeping the lights on at Hydro as well as looking at long-range planning and forecasting for Ontario Hydro. We now have two individuals in place who we believe will be able to fulfil the mandate and the responsibilities the position so richly deserves.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Bradley: I have a question of the Premier. On at least two different occasions his government has sent the Ontario Provincial Police to interrogate members of the opposition who have come into possession of information which, in a democratic system, is of great interest to the public we all serve. The government has sent the OPP to investigate the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal member for Halton Centre because they have used information received from government sources to expose weaknesses in this administration.

Does the Premier intend to continue to use the OPP as a political police force to intimidate members of the opposition and public servants who are providing important information that he obviously wishes to hide from the public?

Hon Mr Rae: I will answer that question as directly as I can. The allegation the member has made, that we are somehow using the OPP in a political way, is without substance or foundation. It is a false allegation that he has made in the House.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the honourable member will at least give us some credit. The problem that the Treasury, not the Treasurer, had with the leaks of information is --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say this to the member if he will simply allow me to answer: What would the honourable member say or do in the event that there was a leak surrounding the budget? He would be the first to stand up in this House and insist on the head of the Treasurer on a platter. He would be the first to insist on that. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party would be the first to ask for it. This government has not asked the OPP to interview anyone.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mr Rae: It has not authorized or ordered the OPP to discuss an issue with any individual in this Legislature whatsoever. The allegation that we are asking the OPP to interview members of the opposition is utterly and totally false. It has no foundation whatsoever.

1430

Mr Bradley: The Premier's spin doctors do a job attempting to portray him as a civil libertarian, as a person who believes in open and democratic government. The performance of the Premier, when he was in opposition, as a civil libertarian and as one concerned about the government leads me to ask this question. If the Premier is to practise what he preached in opposition and what he portrayed to the people of this province when attempting to get elected to the position he is in now, will he guarantee that this harassment and intimidation of the opposition and public servants by his police force will cease?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me be very clear: If the member opposite is alleging that the Ontario Provincial Police is harassing or intimidating anyone, that is a very serious allegation. Let him stand up in the House and make that allegation with respect to the conduct of the provincial police. If he is making that allegation, let him make it, but to state that somehow we in this government are authorizing any harassment or any intimidation is unbecoming of a member with the experience of the member for St Catharines. He knows perfectly well that the problem this government has had to deal with is of a totally different dimension, and in no way have we ever authorized or asked for or suggested that anyone intimidate or harass anyone else, ever.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to speak directly to the response from the Premier. I was interviewed not on a question of tax matters, as the Premier indicated was the issue relating to the member for Bruce, but on a question relating to a document I had received through the Ministry of the Environment. That has absolutely nothing to do with tax matters. Indeed, in that case I had to ask for my own solicitor, because I was told by police that there may well be charges laid against me for participating in the receipt of this information. My privileges were violated, and no one can tell me this Premier does not have standards that will allow my privileges to be violated.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would simply ask, as I did last week, that you take a look again today at the transcript of the questions that have been asked by the House leader for the official opposition. I think you will see in it that he not only alleges harassment by the OPP of a member of his caucus, but he also alleges that the government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I know the member for Lanark-Renfrew is waiting to place his question. I ask members to come to order so I can hear the point raised by the government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: Not only did the House leader for the official opposition accuse the OPP of harassing them, but he accused the government, and specifically members of this government --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Oriole to please come to order.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I am only able to hear one point of order or privilege at a time.

Hon Mr Cooke: The House leader for the official opposition accused a member of the House, a member of this government, of directing the OPP to harass members of the opposition. Mr Speaker, that is clearly out of order and you have got to rule that they cannot continue this in this place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House again to come to order. To the government House leader and indeed to all members of the House, you may recall this matter was raised earlier. I reported to you at that time that I was taking it under advisement. I will be reporting back to the House as soon as possible.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: By the by, when the honourable House leader says, "You have got to rule," if you sense any intimidation in that, I would not be surprised or ashamed.

The point of order is this: In answering the honourable member for St Catharines' question, the Premier said he did not believe there was any evidence that any member had been harassed in his or her interrogation by the OPP. That was the point of order that was raised by the honourable member who spoke last.

The Premier has an obligation to this House and to the province, not simply to the members, to deal with what is going on. We beseech him to give some indication of what the government policy is when we are confronted by a police force that comes around to the chambers of members and interviews them about the extent to which they are getting government documents which disclose misconduct on the part of the government. Who is working for whom? We want to hear the Premier's response to this issue.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Halton Centre who raised a point of privilege with me, I will examine Hansard. I will be reporting back to the House both on your point of privilege and to the points of order raised by the government House leader and various other members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the member for St George-St David has come to order, then the patient member for Lanark-Renfrew can place his question.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the government House leader stood to make his point of order -- I am not talking about the point of privilege, which I think the member was quite proper in making -- there were about 14 minutes and 30 seconds left on the clock. He talked about a point of order that he had previously raised. I would ask you to consider putting that time back on the clock.

The Speaker: A variety of members rose, starting with the member for Halton Centre. The standing orders are quite clear that points of order and privilege may be raised during question period and the clock continues to run. That is why I have repeatedly asked members, if at all possible, to raise their points of order and privilege outside of oral question period.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Jordan: It was stated recently in this Legislature by a member of the government that Ontario Hydro is a monster out of control. My question is for the Minister of Energy. Conservation programs have become a major part of this monster. Could he tell the House today what conservation programs are available to the residential sector, the cost of those programs for 1990-91 and the kilowatt-hours saved?

Hon Mr Ferguson: I am a person and an individual, not a computer. I would be more than happy to supply all the information to the honourable member and I will get that to him as quickly as I possibly can. The ministry, as well as Hydro, operates a number of different and varied programs. I certainly would not be able to do all the programs justice by standing here today and giving a brief mention, but I will provide the information to the member as quickly as I possibly can.

Mr Jordan: A recent Toronto Star article reports on a family conducting a $12,000 project on their home, with Ontario Hydro paying about two thirds of the cost. The community of 6,000 in which this family lives is a project where ratepayers of this province are being asked to pay 100% of the insulation, 74% of the siding costs for the house and 50% of the new windows. They are also providing free energy audits at a cost of $125 to $150 each. One of the residents commented, "You'd have to be brain-dead not to accept this offer."

While the farmers and small businesses in Lanark-Renfrew are in desperate economic straits, why is the Minister of Energy forcing them to pay with a hidden tax for others to renovate their homes?

Hon Mr Ferguson: The member is referring to the community of Espanola. Ontario Hydro today is undertaking a comprehensive energy-efficient town program in Espanola, and we are trying out a number of different methods in this pilot project to determine what incentives will and will not work, not only in this community but in application across Ontario. Surely to goodness the member is not suggesting that we ought not to get involved in pilot projects in order to save energy across Ontario.

1440

HEALTH CLUBS

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Consumers in this province continue to have problems with health club memberships. Can the minister advise on what additional consumer protection measures are being considered with respect to the fitness industry?

Hon Ms Churley: I am glad the question was asked. Although the opposition is not really listening, I think they should, because I am sure a lot of their constituents are having these kinds of problems.

The Prepaid Services Act was specifically intended to try to minimize those kinds of consumer losses due to closures and to regulate the industry. I am in the process of enhancing that consumer protection in the new fair marketplace code. One of the things we will be looking at is extending the cancellation period from, I think it is five days now, to at least one week. We are also looking into ways to tighten the pre-sale agreements and the use of alternative facilities.

Mr Hansen: What advice and suggestions can the minister offer to consumers who are about to enter into agreements with fitness or health clubs?

Hon Ms Churley: There are a number of things consumers should consider, and this is very important. I will just name a few of them. They should read their contracts carefully, because sometimes that does not happen before signing. As I have mentioned before, a lot of contracts are not written in plain language and people get confused. They sign contracts and get themselves into a lot of trouble.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: People should not be pressured into signing those contracts unless they are sure that is what they really want to do. Also, they should try to pay on a monthly basis. There is often a lot of pressure to pay for up to one year. If they pay on a monthly basis --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Interesting activity. It appears the members would rather sit and watch the clock tick by, and that is fine.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If members insist on making noise and drowning out a response which the Speaker is obliged to hear, this clock will continue to run.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I am really shocked. I cannot tell you how shocked I am to see members of the opposition, and especially the former Attorney General, laughing at the fact that people are being given advice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response.

Hon Ms Churley: As I mentioned before, contracts are not written in plain language. Often people cannot understand them.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga West.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat for a moment. I asked the minister if she had a further response and then she sat down. Do you have a further response?

Interjections.

The Speaker: If there isn't something in the water, maybe there should be.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Mississauga West, you will get your question.

Mr Mahoney: And my supplementary?

The Speaker: No, but you will get a question. Will you wait?

I ask the members for some co-operation. Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I sat down because I thought you were indicating to me that I should sit down because of the noise.

The Speaker: Would you conclude?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I will.

One of the problems that happens, as I was saying, is that often people do not understand and are not really clear on what they are reading in the contract and therefore sign things that end up getting them into trouble. So people should make sure they have the right to rescind the agreement within five days of signing the contract. That has to be done by registered mail. It is important that they do that so that if the club has to close down, for whatever reasons, they can be reimbursed.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I do have a question, Mr Speaker. I point out to you, sir, that while there was a lot of heckling, there were three separate occasions when this minister was allowed to rise to re-answer a question.

The Speaker: Would the member please place his question.

Mr Mahoney: Subsequent to that, I am able to get a question in --

Interjections.

The Speaker: You will get the question; just wait a moment. I do not know which is worse, the levity or yelling at each other, but I would ask that members come to order. The member for Mississauga West is being allowed to place his question, to which there will be, I take it, a response. Could you please identify to whom you wish to address your question.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I would just again ask you to consider, sir, the length of time and the number of times ministers are allowed to re-answer, and then wind up not giving an answer. In any event, since you are not going to allow me a supplementary, I would ask for your indulgence so that I can at least get all the points out.

Mr Abel: Just ask the question.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I will.

The former government instituted a report which was referred to as the Ballinger-Hopcroft report, named after the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill Ballinger, and Grant Hopcroft, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Those two gentlemen were commissioned to do a study on what has commonly been referred to as disentanglement. Disentanglement deals with the money that is spent on municipal issues that are indeed supported by provincial transfer payments, etc. That report outlined a number of recommendations, and to the credit of this government, it adopted that report. They deleted Mr Ballinger's name from the title for some reason but, in any event, they adopted the report. The total cost of that report was $170,000 over three years.

My question has to deal with the latest commission instituted by this government, which is the John Sewell commission investigating planning in this province. This particular commission, complete with its fancy reports --

The Speaker: Briefly.

Mr Mahoney: I am getting there, but you will not allow me the supplementary.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

1450

Mr Mahoney: Considering the fact that our government spent $170,000 to study $10 billion --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Just a moment. Would the government benches come to order. The member for Mississauga West, I am sure, will very quickly place his question.

Mr Mahoney: I do not know why they get excited. They have not even heard the question.

Since the former government was able to study $10 billion in interrelated transfer payments, etc, between the municipalities and the province for $170,000 over three years with the AMO president and the then parliamentary assistant, why does this minister need $3 million to create a six-figure job for a party hack so that he can be chairman of a commission and spend $3 million of the taxpayers' money to go around and study what we already know is a problem? Why does he not use AMO? Why does he not use the municipalities and listen to some of the recommendations they would make to him about how to improve the planning process, instead of squandering $3 million to give John Sewell a $100,000-a-year job?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am not quite sure whether the question deals with disentanglement or the Planning Act. I found it interesting that the member who wanted to lecture the government benches about how long it took us to answer questions took about two and a half minutes to ask one. He wants to be leader of the official opposition. Give me a break.

I also wonder why the critic does not even understand that the Hopcroft report was not completed by his government; it was not completed at all. It was not completed until about six months after we were in government.

Mr Mahoney: That is what I said. The minister can read Hansard.

Hon Mr Cooke: We had to wait for that report. In other words, the previous government --

Mr Mahoney: Why does the minister not listen to the question?

Hon Mr Cooke: Why does the member not listen to the answer? Mr Speaker, he does not want an answer.

The Speaker: No. It would appear so.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Mills: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: Like you, I am very fond of Ontario and our traditions, as is everybody here. I took exception during question period to a member who is not here -- I will not identify him -- who referred to the province of Ontario as a banana republic. I ask that you attend to that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: To the point of order: I did not hear the remark.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will members come to order. Indeed if the member was present in the chamber at the time when you raised it, I would of course ask the member to reconsider the remark and to withdraw, but you stated that the member in question is not in the chamber at this time. I will be pleased to take a look at Hansard as well.

Mr Huget: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I too have very great difficulty in accepting remarks made by a member of the third party, who is not in this House, who referred to the Ontario Provincial Police as brownshirts. That, to me, suggested that the police of this province should be compared with something out of Nazi Germany. I take great offence to those remarks, and I want that member to apologize to this House, to the people in this province and to the OPP.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That is not what the member said or interjected. At least the members opposite, if they had been here for a while, more than a few months, would have the class to know that if they are going to talk about another member -- speaking of parliamentary tradition over there -- common practice is to do it when the member is present. If the members opposite do not want to be described that way, they should not act that way.

An hon member: He is here now.

Mr Eves: He is here now; he was not here --

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I was not in the chamber when the member stood up and made those comments. I never referred to the provincial police; I said this government was treating this police force as its own brownshirts and that it was a banana republic and it was a Third World way to handle a situation. If that is the way they want to do business, those are the kinds of accusations they are going to get and I am not withdrawing my statement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a minute, relax, before we turn the heat up another notch.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the House to come to order.

Before we can conduct any more public business, we need the House to come to order.

To the honourable House leader of the third party, indeed on the point of order, it is practice that if any member of the House has a concern with respect to anything that has been said by another member to raise it immediately, if possible, and of course when the other member is in the chamber.

I realize members are torn between not raising a point during question period because the clock is ticking. If at the end of question period the member in question has left the chamber, then the other member is left at a disadvantage, and I fully realize that.

At the same time, I also realize that these contentious issues sometimes provide an atmosphere in which members say intemperate things, remarks which later they regret. It certainly does not elevate the public discussion in this chamber if members make references to places and times which are not part of the culture and history of our fine country. I would certainly ask all members to please temper their language.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As soon as the member says something -- and the member for Etobicoke West is now indicating again on the record that the government, and pointing to one of our members, sent the OPP into MPP's offices; he cannot do that.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: No. The member for Etobicoke West, if you would take your seat and just relax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment, please. There are often accusations made from both sides of the chamber and there is often a difference of opinion as to what is fact and what is not fact. It is not up to the Speaker to determine what is fact, but it is indeed up to the Speaker to determine if order can be maintained in the chamber.

I have also indicated to the government House leader as well as to others that I am examining the Hansard based on the concerns raised earlier, and I am most pleased to do so. I always enjoy reading Hansard in any event.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, on the point of order raised by the member for Sarnia: I did not hear the words either, but they may indeed have been said. I do not know. I think it should be brought to the attention of the House that the first person who ever used language like this in this House was E. B. Jolliffe, the leader of the NDP, the CCF at that time, who referred specifically to the Ontario Provincial Police as a Gestapo. If the government is getting a little of its own from the third party, it cannot really be surprised.

1500

Mr Kwinter: Mr Speaker, on the same point point of order and on the comments of the government House leader: It is a matter of fact that the police did call on opposition members. It is also a matter of fact that the police just do not call on members unless someone asks them to, so it was obviously asked by either a ministry or a minister. In either case it is the responsibility of the government. That is the point.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the point was raised that this government is suggesting we are accusing it of sending the police into our offices. I will be clear. That is the accusation that I am making. The government should make no mistake about it. If that is not the case, I would ask this government to come forward and prove it. Since to this point it has not done so, I can only assume its silence is an offer of guilt. That is why I make the charge.

Mr Huget: Mr Speaker, I still find references to Gestapo and brownshirts, whether made in this House today or in the past, offensive. I would ask those members respectfully to withdraw those remarks. I believe they do not serve any useful purpose whatsoever.

The Speaker: To the member for Sarnia, I say that indeed I agree those references are not suitable in our chamber. If there is a member in the House currently who made such a reference, I would ask the member to voluntarily withdraw the comment.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Those comments may have been made to characterize the way the government uses the police, not to describe the police. It is a characterization of the way this government uses the police force in this province and nothing more.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: I'm not ashamed of myself. It's you who used the police. How did they get there? Who sent them if it wasn't you? Who was it?

The Speaker: Order. Will the members come to order. The member for Willowdale and the member for Guelph, both of you just relax a bit.

Mr Fletcher: It was justified.

Mr Harnick: Tell that to the Leader of the Opposition, that it was justified.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, please come to order. I have already ruled on this. I have informed the House several times now that I am looking at Hansard and I will report back.

Mr Harnick: Hansard isn't going to help you to find out who sent the police in.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale is being asked quite firmly to come to order. I do believe it is time to move on with the public business, if members are ready to do so.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Mr Cooke moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet for not more than two hours on the morning of Thursday, October 24, 1991, to consider its draft report to the House relating to the closure of land registry offices.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mr Poirier: To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is a leader in human rights and expresses, under the Human Rights Code of Ontario, that all persons, regardless of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap, have equal treatment; and

"Whereas I am a member of the Church of Scientology, a religious body which is accepted and recognized around the world, with churches in 90 countries; and

"Whereas the ministers of our church have applied for many years without result to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to be licensed to solemnize marriages; and

"Whereas our ministers are licensed in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Yukon, and our ministers' applications have been supported by many faiths in Ontario, such as the Baptist Conference of Ontario and Quebec, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Seventh Day Adventist Church of Canada; and

"Whereas I have protested our discrimination by being married in front of the Legislative Assembly this afternoon and having my marriage solemnized by a minister of another faith,

"I, Tereasa Leann Buttnor, as a resident of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"1. To intervene and direct the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to license our ministers to solemnize marriages, so that no one else in our faith suffers the indignity of being denied legal marriage within our church.

"2. To investigate the office of the Deputy Registrar General for unwarranted discrimination based on religion or other criteria so other faiths will not be hampered by prejudice."

I have signed the document.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We the undersigned respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

It is signed by a number of good people from the Simcoe West provincial riding association. Once again, the Ontario PC Party goes to bat for Ontario police officers.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by 723 people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas grain and oilseed farmers in the province of Ontario are experiencing the most severe shortage of cash flow in the history of the industry;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has failed to provide sufficient cash flow assistance to farmers during the transition from old ad hoc programs to new safety net programs in order that they may meet their financial obligations;

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

"That the government of Ontario provide an immediate 1% contribution to NISA (net income stabilization account) for Ontario producers and waive the one-third producer premium deduction with the Ontario grain stabilization program and take other necessary measures to ensure the survival of the family farm in Ontario."

I too have affixed my signature to this petition.

WAYNE LAROSE

Mr Dadamo: I have a petition from my riding today with 2,185 names. It is addressed the Legislature of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, do respectfully petition the chief coroner, Dr Young, the Solicitor General and any other parties concerned with this matter to provide answers by way of an inquest, which has been denied, into the death of Mr Wayne Larose, June 5, 1990.

"With due respect to the medical profession we, the undersigned, feel that due to a shortage in physicians, Mr Larose remained in hospital an unnecessary nine days before an attempt was made to correct his broken hip. This delay resulted in his death.

"We also feel that an official inquest should be requested of necessity, to relieve the family of all their questions surrounding the death of a very healthy husband, father and valuable citizen of the city of Windsor."

I would like to affix my name.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Marland: This is a petition. It reads:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Bob Rae has placed our heritage in danger; and

"Whereas we live in a constitutional monarchy; and

"Whereas a symbol of our national unity and identity has been removed;

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

"To immediately restore the name of Her Majesty the Queen to the oath of allegiance sworn by police officers."

There are several hundred names here and I am happy to add my name to them.

1510

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Hansen moved first reading of Bill 141, An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

M.Hansen propose la première lecture du projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 83, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Vote différé sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 83, Loi portant modification de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

1517

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for second reading of Bill 83, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de Mme Wark-Martyn pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 83, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour -- 63

Abel, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 37

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Curling, Daigeler, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Reprise du débat ajourné sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 84, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac.

Mr Tilson: I would like to make a few concluding remarks to the points I was putting forward yesterday with respect to Bill 84, which of course is the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1991.

As I indicated yesterday, from the 1985-86 period to now the tobacco tax has been increased four times, and yesterday I referred to a number of other provinces, other jurisdictions that have been doing similar increases with respect to their respective provincial tobacco taxes.

The 1991 budget increases for this province are expected to raise $220 million for the government in this fiscal year and $250 million in a full year. The reason I put these statistics forward is simply to ask what the government intends to do with this revenue. Is this strictly being put forward as a tax grab to pay for the massive expenditures being undertaken by this province, or is it being put forward to address other problems, such as cross-border shopping or the farming problems in the southwestern part of this province, specifically the tobacco tax and agricultural sector?

Is it with respect to health? Is it with respect to the smuggling issue that has been on the increase in the last number of years and that has certainly increased since the increases that were announced with the 1991 budget? Those are the specific areas in which I will be looking forward to asking the minister specifically what she intends to do, or what the government intends to do, with this tremendous increase in revenue that it is obtaining.

Is it going to be like the $5 tire tax, which was put forward initially to deal with an environmental issue -- "What are we going to do with all the tires that are being produced and discarded? Are we going to recycle them?" -- the severe problem that was raised then. Of course, it has become common knowledge that the revenue from the tire tax has not gone to the environment at all; it has gone into the general revenue of this province. Is that the intent of this government, to put the revenue from the tobacco tax into the general revenue?

I mentioned yesterday the problems occurring in the agricultural industry, specifically in the Delhi-Tillsonburg area, where the whole agricultural industry has had considerable problems in the last number of years. I would like to relate to the members of this House, many of whom I am sure are aware of them -- in case they are not aware, they should be -- the problems the Ontario tobacco industry has.

There are currently 1,200 growers in the Delhi-Tillsonburg area of Ontario; this number is down from 2,500 in the early 1980s. I do not think one can say this has been caused specifically by this tax, because this has been a gradual decline in the tobacco industry.

There are two main programs for assisting tobacco farmers. There is the alternative enterprise initiative, also known as the AEI, and the tobacco transition adjustment initiative. The AEI, as many members know, is a federal initiative which contains funds to be distributed to tobacco producers. The money is intended to increase the production of alternative crops in tobacco areas. The second program, the tobacco transition adjustment initiative, is renamed Redux. This is a joint federal-provincial program to help farmers move out of tobacco and into other areas of employment.

The subject I raised yesterday was whether the government has studied the effect of this specific amendment, this specific tax on tobacco, and the effect it is going to have in this area. Has it studied that? I would hope the minister would put forward the results of that study if indeed she has done that. I doubt very much that she has. My assumption, and I stand to be corrected, is that she is simply grabbing money to pay for other programs that have nothing to do with the tobacco industry and nothing to do with the other problems this amendment is creating.

As I indicated, Redux is a joint federal-provincial program to help farmers move out of the tobacco industry and into other areas of agriculture or employment. Redux, as I understand it, has to date put $54 million into the pockets of tobacco farmers who have taken land out of production. There is $14 million in federal funds in Redux. However, this money is currently frozen because the province has stopped funding the program.

Acknowledging that -- and I assume the government is going to acknowledge that -- the question is: Is any portion of the $220 million that is being raised by Bill 84, that specific money this year, going to be put into Redux? The federal government is doing its part. What is the province of Ontario going to do to assist the farmers in southwestern Ontario? Is it going to do anything? Is it just going to move on and spend the $220 million in its other programs that perhaps could be questionable in light of the devastating effect it is going to have in southwestern Ontario?

In response to the government's initiative to increase tobacco taxes in Ontario, it has been submitted, certainly by our side, that provincial money should be redirected to the Redux fund. Again, I challenge the minister to indicate today whether she intends to do that.

A further fact that I think should be considered before we further debate this bill is that, as the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board has pointed out, of the $31 billion in money collected through Ontario taxes, only $70 million has gone back into the industry. So they raised $31 billion -- not million -- and $70 million has gone back into the industry. What has happened to the rest of it? It is perhaps like other provinces, but why cannot this province be different?

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum in the House?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

1531

The Acting Speaker: I have been advised by the Clerk that a quorum is now present.

Mr Tilson: The fact I was putting forward again emphasizes that I do not expect that very much of this money, this tremendous amount of revenue, the $250 million, is going to be put towards any of the other problem areas this bill has created.

I have indicated that the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board has put forward statistics that of the $31 billion in tax money that has been collected for tobacco taxes, only $70 million has gone back into the industry. That has been the attitude of this government and, I would submit, the previous government as well, as to how to address the problem in the southwestern portion of Ontario. It has nothing to do with the health issue, which I propose to get into, or the cross-border shopping issue, which I propose to get into further. It has nothing to do with that. What are they doing to help the farmers in southwestern Ontario? The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board has indicated that the future of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's crop transition team, established to help farmers out of tobacco into other crops, is simply now in a state of limbo since the NDP has taken office.

I think it is time, if they are going to pass this bill, to give some indication as to how they are going to help the farmers in southwestern Ontario. They should not just take the money and put it into perhaps some of their other programs that are costing the taxpayers of this province a tremendous amount of grief.

The tobacco industry now employs some 20,000 people the province. That is currently. The support sector for tobacco farmers are the equipment manufacturers and the processors here in Ontario. These are not elsewhere; these are industries here in Ontario. We have had information, as I understand it, that a number of these companies have gone out of business in the past number of years, taking jobs out of an already depressed region. I think this government has to look not only at the agricultural section of this industry but at the equipment manufacturers, the processors, the whole process of curing in Ontario. All these people are being affected by this bill. I assume that when the minister sat down with the Treasurer and decided what to do as to how to raise money, in making the decision to put forward this bill she looked at that and how she will be addressing that problem.

Further, with respect to the farm income crisis, our party has had several emergency debates in this House, and all of it is relevant. Certainly this government has not put the emphasis on agriculture it should. There was an announcement made on October 1 that $35 million in provincial funds would be directed towards the farm crisis. The Minister of Agriculture and Food announced that. He announced an additional $11 million to the $50-million farm interest assistance program. He announced a $15 million payment to grains and oilseeds producers. He announced $5 million to producers of edible horticultural product crops, $3.5 million to farmers experiencing financial stress due to the drought conditions of 1991 and $1 million to apple, onion, honey and fur producers. But there has been nothing in the announcements that I have seen that has anything to do with alleviating the problems that are being caused by Bill 84. We have been very critical as to the small amount of assistance in other areas, but there has been nothing with respect to assisting the tobacco industry.

I will not spend any further time with respect to agriculture. I am sure other members in this House will. I will be interested in hearing from some of the members from southwestern Ontario. Particularly from the Tillsonburg-New Delhi area, correspondence has come to many of us expressing the fears of and the effect on these many families who are being affected by Bill 84.

The issue with respect to smuggling has been raised. Statistics have come forward that cigarette smuggling across this country has become a $500-million-a-year business. The Imperial Tobacco report estimates that smuggling represents $370 million lost annually. These are statistics, of course, from across the country. To be fair to this government, it cannot accept the full blame, because this type of philosophy of simply taxing the tobacco industry is widespread across the country. The question is, what are they going to do about it? What are they going to do about the problems with respect to smuggling, knowing that smuggling is going on, knowing that all one has to do is go into many plants where there is transportation back and forth across from the United States in buses and automobiles? What are they going to do about that?

There was some initiative put forward, as I understand it, with respect to new tear strips which indicate duty paid that were introduced in the fall of 1990, making it easier to detect smuggled tobacco, but that has nothing to do with the tobacco that is being sold like alcohol in the good old days of Prohibition. It is going on. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Again, I assume that if they are levying this type of tax, they have addressed this problem, they have studied it, they knew it was going on before they introduced Bill 84. I assume they have looked at that, and I will be looking forward to hearing how they intend to deal with the smuggling issue.

1540

Just before I leave the issue of smuggling, there have been a number of comments made in Canadian newspapers across the country talking about the whole attitude with respect to taxing tobacco. One is from the Ottawa Citizen in June of 1990: "Raising cigarette taxes is a popular way for a government to get more money without losing votes, but eventually they will kill the cow that gives the milk, and then what will they tax?"

If the fiscal policy of this government is to rely on taxing this industry, knowing full well that the industry is going to be killed by Bill 84, eventually the government will tax the industry to such a degree that it will simply disappear or it will become very negligible.

The question is, studying the government's fiscal policy, then what will it tax? If the purpose of this bill is to kill the tobacco industry, the government should come out and tell us, "We're taxing it because we're concerned about the effect of smoking, the whole issue of whether smoking causes cancer." Of course there are statistics after statistics that say it does. If that is the case, let's hear some policy decisions from this government on the health subject. That problem is not going to go away simply because the government is going to tax the industry to death. What will happen is that we will have a whole slew of more illegal smuggling going on, contraband cigarettes being brought into this country. How is the government going to address that? So there is the issue of health.

Finally, the issue of cross-border shopping: Obviously these people will stand up and say it is because of GST and free trade, but there are other things I will be interested in hearing members speak on. I am sure they will spend most of their time saying that cross-border shopping is solely the result of those things, but there are other things that need to be addressed: the other bills that are being put forward, the effect of the gasoline tax. What is the common reason that goes through your head as to why people go down to the United States to shop? One is that they can buy cheaper fuel there. Another is, they can buy cheaper alcohol there. They can buy almost everything cheaper because of the tax structure that is being put forward by the governments of this country, and that includes this government.

This government must not go pointing fingers at other governments; it should point fingers at itself. Look at the series of bills the government is putting forward now. I ask members to look at Bill 84 and ask themselves whether Bill 84 in any way whatsoever has any connection with respect to the cross-border shopping issue. Do people go down to the United States to buy cigarettes? If members say no, they have problems, because I suggest to them that is one of the many reasons why people go down. Certainly they go down to buy alcohol. They go down to buy clothing. They go down to buy equipment. It may be as a result of taxes from other jurisdictions, but they certainly go down to buy cigarettes.

People from other countries, not just the United States, who come to visit us are simply shocked at the cost of tobacco in this country. Again, I do not think we should ignore the health issue. We cannot ignore the health issue because that should be addressed by the government, but the fact is that people buy cigarettes. People are hooked on cigarettes. Young people are hooked on cigarettes. What is the government going to do about that? I suppose one theory is that the government will make it so expensive that they will not buy it. It is not working. Members should just talk to any of their children who are going to the schools around this province and ask whether smoking has been reduced in the schools. I think they will find that many of the children of members are still continuing to smoke even though it may be a health hazard. The idea of raising the cost of cigarettes is not working.

Getting back to the issue of cross-border shopping, of this tremendous amount of revenue that is being generated, the $220 million this fiscal year and $250 million for a full year, if the government acknowledges that Bill 84 is part of the problem of cross-border shopping -- I do not see how it can help but acknowledge that -- what percentage of the funds is being used to assist the communities in our border communities that are suffering, the retailers who sell tobacco? Rightly or wrongly, they sell tobacco. That is another debate, which presumably will come forward in some health initiative put forward by this government, but currently we are debating Bill 84 and what the moneys are going to be used for.

I will bet that the minister will simply be silent on the subject and will not say that it is being addressed specifically to deal with health, to deal with cross-border shopping, to deal with smuggling, to deal with solving or assisting the agricultural problem in southwestern Ontario. My guess is that she will not say that at all. She may say it will be indirectly, but of the $250 million for the next full year or the $220 million for this fiscal year, what portion of that will it be and how is she dividing it up? Is she dividing it up to solve these problems, most of which are pre-existing?

I am not saying that these specific problems were caused by Bill 84, but Bill 84 has added on to these pre-existing situations. They are making them worse. They are making the farmer worry where his next mortgage payment is going to come from. They are making the employee who is working in the manufacturing of equipment in the tobacco industry worry about whether he is going to be laid off, and whether there are going to be more firms closing up and moving to the United States where the tobacco industry seems to be flourishing. I hope we do not hear announcements in the coming months of segments of the tobacco industry closing up, worrying what we are going to do with those people who are losing their properties or their jobs. It is a great concern that the government puts forward these types of bills, these series of bills, and has not studied the overall impact.

I do not wish to debate at this time any further areas of the subject. I will only again summarize that I am concerned with the subject of health and the government's lack of policy with respect to the effect of smoking on health, whether it be firsthand smoking or secondhand smoking, that whole area. I am sure there are many in this House and medical people in this House who could debate for hours the effect of smoking as a cause of cancer. I am sure there are many in this House -- perhaps you yourself, Mr Speaker -- who could spend many hours debating the effect on the downward turn of the tobacco industry and the farmer in southwestern Ontario.

I leave it for people of more authority than I to deal with those areas. I encourage more people to debate and discuss their views on the effect of Bill 84 on the whole issue of cross-border shopping and the smuggling that has resulted from that issue.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments, the honourable member for -- Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Drainville: Mr Speaker, I am surprised, after looking across the House at you for so long, that you have forgotten my constituency of origin.

I would like to respond very quickly with just a couple of comments. It is certain, as usual, that the member for Dufferin-Peel has raised a number of issues that are worth mentioning in such a debate on this particular matter. I would like, though, to challenge him on one little part of his presentation. He quite rightly alludes in his comments to the fact that other provinces are also using a tax on tobacco as a means of raising revenue and this is something about which he says -- I am paraphrasing him when I say this -- that just because they do it does not mean Ontario has to do it.

1550

I guess all I want to do is put it into some perspective here, because this is not something that began with the New Democratic Party. For 43 years, the Progressive Conservative Party here in Ontario taxed tobacco. It may not have been for 43 years, but for a substantial period of that 43 years they certainly taxed tobacco. I remember very well those halcyon days in the past when, as a citizen, I was reading Hansard and was engaged in the affairs of this province, reading of these incredible increases in the amount of taxation the Progressive Conservative Party was raising for the people of Ontario through this form of taxation. Nowhere in the member's statement did he give any indication that this had been a historical reality on the part of his own party, the party he is a member of and the party he represents.

I must say that is an omission that really needs to be corrected. Of course, if he is saying that in the past his government or his party was wrong in doing that, then he should admit that, and we, being open-minded individuals, are willing to hear that at any time.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to make a few comments to the member for Dufferin-Peel on his presentation this afternoon. The revenue that is collected for the tobacco tax goes into the consolidated revenue fund, which pays for our health, social and education programs here in the province.

He also mentioned the tire tax and what we have done with that. I would like to inform the member that the Minister of the Environment announced a few short weeks ago a $7.9-million infusion into the National Rubber Co to pay for recycling tires. I can say that on that end we are doing something with the tire tax and we are letting the people of Ontario know that their tax is going towards what it is supposed to go towards.

As far as meeting with the tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry is concerned, I have done that. The Treasurer has also done that and I have asked the Minister of Health to meet with them and talk about tobacco and how it affects our health and our health care costs in Ontario.

It might also be pointed out that the federal government increased its tax by three cents a cigarette in the 1991 budget, so perhaps the greater part of assistance to tobacco farmers should come from that level of government, and I would encourage the member for Dufferin-Peel to speak to his counterparts in Ottawa about that.

I would also like to inform the House that the ministry began a retail inspection program as of March 1991. We have inspected over 4,000 retailers at this point that I have statistics on. Of those retailers, we have found 25 where we have issued penalty assessments three times the tax value in these cases.

I would like to conclude my remarks this afternoon by also informing the member that cross-border shopping, if he noticed in the press today, has decreased since our summit meeting this summer on the cross-border shopping issue.

Mr Jordan: Actually Bill 84 will increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by 30 cents per pack. These taxes are hurting our economy and are actually encouraging criminal activity. Many feel they are infringing on the civil rights of thousands of people. Tax on a package of 25 cigarettes in Windsor is $4.38. The same package in Detroit has 74 cents in tax. Cigarettes and alcohol are cited as the major reasons driving Ontario shoppers across the border into the United States. As my colleague has previously stated, this, along with the gasoline and the general taxing policies of this government, is really encouraging people to go across the border for these items.

It is also a major cause of cigarette smuggling and it is becoming one of the major areas of criminal activity in this province. The information I have states that it is up more than 40% in the last two years. As stated by one of the speakers yesterday, you can buy illegally imported cigarettes within blocks of Queen's Park. You can have a carton of smuggled cigarettes delivered to your home in this city for $20. Buying a carton legally could cost you as much as $50. This taxation is further encouraging this type of activity.

Mr Cousens: I would like to go on the record, because when the member for Dufferin-Peel has an opportunity to share some of the comments he had in this presentation, it gives us an understanding that quite frankly is lacking on the other side of the House and from the Liberals. When the Liberals were in power, all they could do was raise taxes. Part of the problem the New Democrats have today is that they have to live up to all the promises and failures of the Grits while they were in power with their spending spree. Now these people, though they do not know how to cut back on their spending, have to find ways of increasing taxes. They are wrong to do so, but the fact of the matter is that when my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel is able to come forward in this House and articulate the situation, the problem, as well as he has, it reflects very well on the people from his riding.

It also says something about all the other ridings that did not elect a Tory. I think it is high time they began to think about it, because every time they go and pay more taxes, what this gentleman has done is remind them of the fact that there are other choices out there, and the other choices are ones that are not going to cost them as much money. That is the kind of thing the member for Dufferin-Peel has been raising in his presentation. I think we are looking at a House that needs more people like the member for Dufferin-Peel, who has the kind of experience and background that he brings to all the issues in the House, and I want to thank him for his excellent remarks this afternoon.

Mr Tilson: Just very briefly on two issues raised by the member for Victoria-Haliburton and the minister, with respect to the minister's comment that referred to the tire tax, the whole purpose of my address to this House was to simply ask the question, specifically what are they doing with the $250 million? What are they going to do with that? Is it going into other areas? I am sure they could stand up and say, "Yes, there are some moneys going to cross-border shopping and some moneys going to the schools to educate our young people with respect to the hazards of smoking," and they could even refer to some examples where moneys have gone to southwestern Ontario to assist some of the farmers there, although the statistics I have read to this House indicate that there does not appear to be any, or very little, going to southwestern Ontario.

The whole purpose of my address comparing it to the tire tax was that when you look at the tire tax, we have yet to see statistics showing specifically what they are doing with the vast amounts of money that have been raised from the tire tax. Is that going to the environment, or is it going into the general coffers that allow them to spend on the various expensive programs that they have been initiating? That was the purpose of that question, simply to ask, where is the $250 million going?

With respect to the comments made with respect to our party and other provinces raising revenue from tobacco taxes, of course that was my whole point in reading that into the record. That party has maintained that it is going to be different, that it is not going to continue the mistakes of the past or the mistakes of other provinces, "This party is going to be different." They are no different from the rest of the provinces of this country in raising money and destroying the tobacco industry in this country.

Mr Winninger: I suggest the members have to be mindful of the veritable challenge this government faced last April in the face of declining revenues and soaring costs, $6.2 billion over the last fiscal year. The government has two choices, as everyone knows: It can borrow the money -- members of the opposition have already chastised this government for borrowing too much -- or the government can raise taxes.

This particular tax being raised under Bill 84 serves numerous purposes. First, it is part of a budget designed to ease us out of a recession, return people to work and get the economy moving again. We do not fight the deficit on the backs of the poor and unemployed. We design a budget that is reasonable and compassionate, a budget for difficult times.

1600

I remind the members of what John Kenneth Galbraith had to say in an article entitled How to Tame the Recession. He said:

"With the notable exception of the province of Ontario, governments everywhere are tightening their belts, curtailing services, reducing payrolls, furloughing workers or promising to do so. Individuals immediately affected, needless to say, have their spending promptly reduced. Many, under threat of unemployment, are impelled to retrench. So are those receiving welfare and other payments not being curtailed or threatened with curtailment.

"It is in this regard that the Ontario government is leading the way. It has decided to cut taxes for people with low incomes" -- as we have seen with Bill 83, just passed -- "to provide more income for social assistance, affordable housing and capital projects, to offer loans for businesses hurt by the recession and to look seriously, moreover, at creating its own pool of investment capital to help reinvigorate the provincial economy."

Our challenge as a government was threefold: How were we to deal with the $3.5-billion reduction in federal transfer payments? How were we going to maintain existing programs, without speaking about improving and extending them, which would cost us $3.2 billion? Finally, how were we going to deal with the wildly escalating costs of social assistance?

This budget, as I noted, was designed to put people first in building a productive and more humane community. It was a budget committed to economic renewal, a fresh, new economic vision of sustainable prosperity to move us out of the worst recession in 50 years with an environmentally and socially sustainable, renewable economy.

That is what the $250 million raised under the Tobacco Tax Act is designed to create. It is a tax designed to ensure that necessary revenues flow through to meet this government's growing expenditures and contain the deficit at $9.7 billion. This legislation put before the House represents, I submit, a concerted effort both to contain tax increases for the middle class and to reduce taxes for our low-income earners.

Bill 84 is certain to reduce our health care costs. It is a positive step, as noted by our Treasurer, towards reducing the 13,000 premature deaths in Ontario every year.

Let's not forget that it was the Liberal government, during much more prosperous times than we are currently suffering through, which raised the tax rate on cigarettes in 1988 by 35.3%, and again in 1990 by 26.1%. Our rate of increase is 34.6%, certainly less than the Liberal increase in 1988.

Dealing specifically with the programs this money is being spent on, money is being used to create jobs in a climate of burgeoning unemployment. The anti-recession fund created 70,000 jobs. The anti-recession fund has translated into $4.3 billion spent on capital projects this year, including hospitals, schools, water and sewer systems and transit networks; funding for research; funding for development so that we may better compete internationally, as the members for the third party constantly urge; to improve the funding that is flowing through Innovation Ontario to invest in the growth of high-technology firms, and research and innovation to change our products and to change our production processes.

Recently $35.5 million has been announced to aid our farmers who are hard hit by drought and diminishing incomes. Money raised through this revenue tax is flowing through to the farm community.

Furthermore, taxes have been flowed through to fund social assistance reform to get one million members of Ontario society back to productive work and off welfare. There is $250 million being spent to improve welfare benefits to those in greatest need. Money is also being used to help people get back into the labour force, to increase the fairness and accessibility of our welfare benefits and to assist municipalities with funding social assistance.

At a time when 250,000 jobs have been lost in Ontario and social assistance is up 40%, to $1.4 billion, should there be any question as to why a modest increase in the tobacco tax should take place to ensure that those who are in greatest need receive the assistance they so vitally need in this troubled time?

Money is also being used to create affordable housing, 35,000 units of co-operative and non-profit housing to support the homeless.

What about the prevention of violence against women? Money that was never spent before is being spent to expand the shelters, to improve counselling and prevention programs, to provide immediate social assistance to battered women, to expand pay equity, to improve day care and to introduce employment equity into the workplace.

What we need is appropriate and reasonable spending so that we can work towards social and economic renewal as a basis of recovery and so that we can create jobs, retrain workers and encourage new forms of productive investment. We need to secure well-paid jobs at high levels of employment. We need to provide that the benefits of growth are shared equally. We need to ensure that our economic renewal is environmentally and socially sustainable.

This government is promoting the recovery of the manufacturing base. It is ensuring that industry is productive and competitive as we move into the second millennium. We need to enhance workers' skills. We need to make them more adaptable. We need to adopt new technologies and managerial practices. We need knowledge-based economic restructuring and innovative investment capital for emerging businesses.

We -- labour, business and government -- can be true partners in economic renewal, but only if all members of the House realize that revenues have to be maintained at a modest scale to ensure that the kinds of social spending programs that are indeed progressive and in keeping with the times can move ahead.

1610

Mr Cousens: I cannot believe this group of people elected by the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario, who are usually very intelligent, have ended up putting in place people who do not know the balance between what industry is all about and the social needs of our province.

The member expounds eloquently about the social agenda this government has. He expounds about what it is doing to help certain municipalities, but his speech does not bring with it any kind of significant commitment to the business community to help get the economy going. If people had more confidence in the minister and his government, we would see more investment and an expansion of jobs in this province. Instead, we are seeing unemployment levels increasing and the general economy on the decline. It takes leadership at the highest level.

I can only suggest that the honourable member, whom I know personally as a friend, should be looking at more than he is. I happen to like the member. He happens to fight for some good things in his community. We have talked about those things. I want to see this member and other members of the New Democratic caucus bring a little more strength. The pendulum keeps swinging farther and farther to the left and what we need to do is bring it back a little. That would mean a balance that respects the needs of the business community. This government never brings that up. They do not know how to talk about it. They do not know what a payroll is all about and they do not seem to understand the drastic problems that exist out there in our economy right now.

I challenge the members of the New Democratic caucus to alert themselves to the real needs of our society. It is not to increase taxes to the level they are. It is becoming something we need to control. We need to control spending and we need to control the expectations of the public, to bring these things under control. The fact of the matter is that this government is not beginning to do that. The member's speech tells us that.

M. Bisson : Merci beaucoup. C'est avec un grand intérêt que j'ai écouté mon collègue le député de London-Sud, qui a parlé un peu de la situation des taxes. Toute cette question autour des taxes est vraiment une question qui tracasse n'importe quel gouvernement dans n'importe quelle province ou juridiction où on se trouve.

D'un côté de l'équation la population vient nous voir, nous en tant que députés, en nous disant: «On demande des services. C'est important qu'on donne les services nécessaires à ma communauté.» Il faut assurer qu'on ait en place un système d'éducation, des systèmes médicaux, toutes les affaires que veut le monde pour avoir une société avec un peu d'équité. De l'autre côté, comme n'importe qui de n'importe quel gouvernement dans n'importe quelle juridiction, on a le problème d'un monde qui nous dit, «On ne veut pas payer ça.»

C'est vraiment une des grosses questions qui tracassent n'importe quel gouvernement. On se retrouve, en 1990, au seul d'une économie globale. Comment être capable, comme gouvernement, de mettre en place les revenus nécessaires qui donneront les services nécessaires pour appuyer notre société, et, comme l'a dit le député de Markham, mettre en place les programmes nécessaires pour appuyer le secteur des affaires de la province? Je pense que c'est exactement ça qu'a dit mon collègue le député de London-Sud. D'une manière ou d'une autre, un gouvernement a besoin de payer le prix pour mettre ces services-là en place.

Il n'est pas facile pour n'importe quel gouvernement de trouver les ressources nécessaires et d'avoir de l'argent en place pour payer les programmes. Je pense que la plupart des députés ici, comme la majorité de la population de l'Ontario ou de n'importe quelle autre province, vont dire, «Des taxes c'est correct, mais parle pas des taxes à mon porte-feuille.»

C'est vraiment là le problème dans lequel on se trouve, comme n'importe quel politicien dans n'importe quelle juridiction du Canada, d'ailleurs: de quelle manière peut-on aller rechercher les ressources naturelles dont on a besoin pour être capable de payer nos services?

Le président suppléant (M. Villeneuve) : Merci infiniment au député de Cochrane-Sud pour sa participation. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Bradley: One of the items that was not noted, as it should have been, with the same emphasis it has been noted by members in the opposition, is the effect of this tax on cross-border shopping. Many people who reside in areas which are close to the border, or who know of people in those areas, know that there are loss leaders that send people across the border. There are things which attract people almost on a weekly basis to do their shopping in the United States. One of those is the cost of tobacco products. Another is the cost of alcohol, and meals as a result of the cost of alcohol. Third, and probably the most important, is the cost of gasoline. There are many people now who make a habit of going over to the other side of the border to do their shopping. That is what leads them in that direction.

Few people would quarrel over the years with what we call sin taxes. Ordinarily an easy tax to put on is the one on alcoholic beverages. Second is the one on tobacco. Both of them have a detrimental health effect. One would make an argument for an environmental tax in terms of a tax on gasoline, or an energy conservation tax. All these, in a certain context, probably were tolerable to the public. What has happened, however, is that because of cross-border shopping, because of the not millions but billions of dollars that are going to the United States to purchase products, many people now understand that we have reached the maximum in terms of taxes on these products.

That is why those of us in the opposition have advocated that these taxes be withdrawn. Of course, there will also be a diminishing return on them, but that is another issue. My main plea to the government is to look at the fact that it is sending people to the United States to shop by increasing taxes on what I call the loss leaders.

Mr Stockwell: It has become painfully obvious that the issue the member forgot to address is exactly what his government is doing for the farmers who were growing tobacco. Maybe he will offer up some particular pearl of wisdom in his response. I would like to hear it. I think the farmers in southwestern Ontario are waiting with bated breath. They are very concerned.

Although the member addresses a lot of issues with respect to pay equity and so on, he does not deal with the real issue involved here. If he is prepared to raise taxes, he has to give people the opportunity to convert their farms to something other than what he is really driving them out of the country to buy. I do not think anyone is going to give anyone any argument about the fact that people are leaving this province to buy tobacco because it is cheaper. It is dramatically cheaper. If that is a decision the government is prepared to make -- and I guess it is, it increased the taxes -- then he has to offer an alternative to the farmers in southwestern Ontario.

My friend across the floor has offered nothing to the farm family, nothing to the growers, nothing to the people attached to the industry about what they are supposed to do in this economic uncertainty, with a declining base of consumers and a government that is very clearly opposed to the consumption of this product.

I think the other point that must be made to the member for London South is that, I agree with him, resources are very hard to come by. He suggested it is very difficult to find places where he can raise taxes. I am not saying that is not true too, but with all due respect, it is neither fish nor fowl.

If the government is prepared to put forward some serious recommendations and raise the taxes of the people in this province, it should have been prepared to tax the people for it. I firmly believe the people should be taxed for the government they get. If the government was truly fair and suggested that all its initiatives, which cost a tremendous amount of money, should be funded, they should be funded from the tax base. But not only did the government increase taxes to selected industries, it ran up the debt by some $9.7 billion. I do not think the government made a decision. It offed the decision on to future generations, which I think is the most reprehensible thing it could have done.

Mr Winninger: I certainly appreciate the mixed commentary from the member for Markham. He is certainly pleased with some of the initiatives this government has taken. He has said on more than one occasion that he wants to see more done on behalf of the environment, and certainly the kind of money that is being raised through Bill 84 by way of revenues will help fund the kind of environmental remedial work the member for Markham has so often and so cogently called for.

The member for Markham and his party did not have a monopoly on private business. I ran my own law firm. I know what it means to meet a payroll each week; I know what it means to meet expenses. Quite frankly, when your costs are soaring and your revenues are down, you have to seek ways of ameliorating that situation. You either raise taxes on a modest level or you go out and borrow the money. In this time of recession, the member for Markham will understand that one has to do both.

In response to the remarks made by the member for Etobicoke West, certainly I do not hold any intimate knowledge of farmers in the agricultural community and I would rather defer to some of my colleagues who represent rural ridings and who have a better grasp on the issue facing tobacco farmers.

I come from London. There are many tobacco communities nearby such as Delhi and Glencoe. I am not diminishing the threat they are facing these days and the threat that all farmers are facing at a time when their revenues are declining, when they are dealing with the ravages of drought and an insensitive federal government that is not providing the kind of assistance that this provincial government has committed itself to.

1620

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 84, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, the honourable member for Ottawa East.

[Applause]

Mr Grandmaître: Well, isn't that great?

First, I want to let members know that I am not a tobacco farmer but I am very much interested in the taxing of the product.

I know exactly what the minister is going through. I have sat in her chair previously. She has to put through these bills, which are not easy to put through when you are talking about increasing taxes on tobacco, gasoline, liquor and all these great things that need to be taxed. But there is a limit to taxation. Even the former Minister of Revenue will agree that there is a limit to taxation.

What really concerns me is the way we are going about taxing tobacco. I know this government needs dollars. It was pointed out by the member for London South that they need to balance their budget. I do not think by increasing the tobacco tax, they will balance their budget, but all these needed dollars are necessary to provide us with a reasonable way of living.

It seems every government on this side of heaven loves to tax three substances -- let's call them substances -- liquor, gasoline and tobacco. I know when we speak of tobacco, we are talking about a product that kills people. Studies have indicated very clearly that every year 13,000 die prematurely because of tobacco misuse -- and I use the word "misuse." This government is not only satisfied to tax people who smoke, and tax them dearly, but it has now instituted a Fair Tax Commission that will make sure that when you die, you will pay a death tax. So they will get you coming or going. They want to make sure of this.

I think the Ministry of Health is doing great things promoting good health. I am told that 15% of our population quit smoking last year, and this is good news. But this is not good news for Ontario or for the present government, because it takes advantage of losing smokers, 15% of our population, every year. What they are doing is increasing the opportunity of creating more revenue by increasing the tax, as they did the last time around, from 1.6 cents per cigarette to 6.5 cents per cigarette.

There is a limit, as I pointed out, for the simple reason that people who quit the habit quit buying tobacco. There are repercussions, and our farmers are suffering because of the lack of smokers or the lack of tobacco use. I think it is the responsibility of this government to provide adequate funding for tobacco farmers who are going bankrupt every day in this province. It is shameful for this government not to provide adequate funds not only to tobacco farmers but to all farmers in Ontario. I realize that only a few weeks ago a $35-million program was instituted to improve the quality of life of our farmers, but this is not enough, especially when we look at the record taxes that are being raked in by this government.

Mr Duignan: Established by the Liberals.

Mr Grandmaître: The member across is saying it was started by the Liberal government. I do not think it was started by our government. I think it has been perpetuated by every government for the last 120 years, ever since tobacco has been on the market. I dare the British Columbia socialist government and the Saskatchewan government not to increase tobacco taxes. That is the first thing they will do. I hope they will be using the funds for better things than this government will.

By increasing the tax by close to five cents per cigarette, this government will amass a $1.04-billion revenue. As I pointed out, $35 million will be going to help farmers earn a better living. I think more money should be provided to farmers converting to another crop.

Talking about a tax grab, I have to address the issue of cigarette and tobacco smuggling. This government has to do a better job in stopping smugglers. It is happening every day. I know in the past a former Liberal government tried to introduce a tobacco-marking system. Is it working? I am asking the minister to respond to my question. Is it working? How effective is it? I know the tobacco manufacturing people spent $10 million of their own money to institute such a program, and I think a worthwhile program.

I know the ministry is losing millions of dollars every year. The ministry knows this; the minister knows this. I think the minister should provide her ministry with the adequate tools, the adequate human resources to prevent the tobacco smuggling that is happening every day. I would like the minister to tell me if she or the ministry have hired more tobacco inspectors. I would like to know. I would like to get an answer to my questions, and I have more questions.

As I pointed out, the minister has a tough job in introducing these bills and pushing them through, but I am asking her questions today. I have six questions to ask the minister.

I would like to know how helpful the tobacco marking program is. Has the ministry hired more tobacco inspectors? How many charges have been laid since instituting this new program? Why not appoint tobacco manufacturers as tax collectors? If we were to appoint tobacco manufacturers as tax collectors, I think we would prevent smuggling. I am not saying we would abolish smuggling, but I think we could cut it back by 75% or 80% if taxes were paid right at the manufacturers' level. In other words, we should make them tax collectors. I remember this is something we were looking at in my own day, but no answers were given.

Also in my day, we had a problem with Indian reserves and I hope the ministry has solved this problem. I know a lot of things were happening on Indian reserves. A lot of tobacco and cigarettes were being sold untaxed, not only from Ontario but also from other provinces.

1630

I know that most of the answers the minister will give to my six principal questions will be no. If the answers to my questions are yes, her ministry will be doing its job, the job it is supposed to be doing, and that is to collect taxes in Ontario. Why should we introduce legislation if we are not going to follow through? Why can the ministry not hire the human resources needed to do a good job? I think it is very unfair to the ministry.

Maybe the minister thinks I am speaking in favour of her bill. I am not, but I am sympathizing with her people, because they simply cannot do a good job when she does not have the human resources. She has been cutting back on her human resources budget every year, and this year she is doing the very same thing. She is cutting back. If it is not on tax collection, it is on assessment. I know what is going on in her ministry.

On tobacco smuggling, I would like to quote from an investigation that was conducted by the Peat Marwick Thorne forensic and investigative accounting department. They estimate that the total federal loss of revenue from untaxed and smuggled tobacco products totals $350 million for over 12 million cartons of cigarettes. Ontario should have a share totalling at least five million cartons. That is about a 40% share of the smuggled cartons, based on our population. The provincial tax on cigarettes per carton, including our provincial sales tax, is $13 per carton. The federal tax on cigarettes per carton, including GST, is $18.08.

Let's go back to the five million cartons referred to as Ontario cartons and multiply this by $13. It amounts to $65 million in lost provincial revenue. That is close to half of what they gave farmers to resolve their problems. Five million cartons at $18.08 represents $90.4 million in lost revenue, for a grand total of $155.4 million. That is what it adds up to. Why? Because of lack of enforcement.

I think smuggling and cross-border shopping go together, because most people smuggle cigarettes when they shop in the United States. This is getting to be very expensive, not only for the tobacco growers in Ontario but for all products that are being bought in the States and transferred or driven through the border of Ontario free of tax. This government has to do a better job in enforcing our present laws. We are losing money. I think it is very unfair that other people in Ontario have to pay extra taxes because of lax laws or lack of enforcement of our present laws. I think it is a crime that this government knows about these problems but is not reacting to them.

I could go on and on, but my throat is drying up. I would just like to remind the minister that she has to do a better job and the ministry has to do a better job.

I would like an answer to my six questions. If she needs help to twist her deputy minister to get more people to enforce her legislation, I am offering my services and she can keep her salary. We are not here to take advantage of taxpayers. We are simply offering good opposition.

Mr Jordan: I was interested in the comments made by my colleague, but I find it is really just another way of hammering the Ontario farmer. Besides the income loss and the job loss, the farming community is receiving no incentives from this tax. The government is taxing tobacco and is putting the farmer out of business, but there does not appear to be any proof that some of the tax money is being used to do research on tobacco plants. Perhaps there are other uses for the plant that would not be harmful and could sustain the industry.

In my riding of Lanark-Renfrew, companies like Somerville Packaging in Smiths Falls, a division of Paperboard Industries Corp, are constantly under the gun, facing legislation like Bill 84. The 171 plant staff and 21 office staff rely exclusively on the tobacco industry. The plant manager confirms that any investigation of alternative packing or manufacturing has been done completely at the company's expense. There has been no government assistance whatsoever to return some of the tax that has been placed on this product. The government must think through such legislation before bringing it in. It must consider the importance of 192 jobs in communities like Smiths Falls in eastern Ontario.

The increase in taxes is expected to raise an additional $250 million. This revenue goes directly, as we understand it, into the general coffers. Not a penny is set aside to encourage the manufacturers and tobacco farmers to explore alternatives to tobacco production.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: In my constituency of Port Arthur, I live in a village called Murillo and we have a baseball team out there called the Murillo Mud Hens. They are very good. After three strikes, you are out. This is the third member on Bill 84 who has asked about the marking program and what our retail inspectors have done so far, so I am going to tell him again and hope that all the other members who wish to speak on this bill who are not in the Legislature at this time, but are going to speak, have this answer so they do not bring it up again, as if they are not listening to the replies they are getting in the debate.

The retail tobacco inspection program began in March 1991. Since that time, 5,266 retail tobacco outlets have been inspected by ministry inspectors. Of these, 4,953 retailers have been found to be fully compliant; 288 retailers have been found to have small quantities of unmarked cigarettes which they were ordered to remove. Another 25 had slightly larger quantities of unmarked cigarettes in stock, and penalty assessments of three times the tax value were issued in these cases.

I would also like to inform the member for Ottawa East that, yes, we are working with native reserves, with the Attorney General also involved, regarding native tobacco quotas, so that issue is being dealt with.

Also, I would like to remind the other member who spoke about the $35.5 million that the Minister of Agriculture and Food announced to go to all farmers that the minister is working with the tobacco farmers. He is listening to the issues they have and is hoping to have some answers and some solutions that he can bring back to us as a cabinet to help the tobacco farmers.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any further question or comments? If not, the member for Ottawa East has two minutes to reply.

Mr Grandmaître: I think the minister tried to answer some of my questions, but I am going to repeat some of them. Why not consider appointing tobacco manufacturers as tax collectors? That is very clear, very plain. How many new inspectors have you hired since you have been sitting in this office? Are you taking notes of those questions?

1640

The Deputy Speaker: You should address your questions to the Chair, please.

Mr Grandmaître: I am trying to wake up the minister, Mr Speaker.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was awake and I was listening to what the member for Ottawa East was saying.

Mr Grandmaître: I do not want to surprise her, but I still maintain that I should get answers to my two questions: How many new tax inspectors has her ministry hired, and why not consider tobacco manufacturers and appoint them as tax collectors?

Mr Cousens: I am really surprised. I look at my good friend the member for Ottawa East as he allows a little lady like this to come along and beat him up. Here we have David and Goliath, but David --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: No way. The new Minister of Revenue is in the job the member for Ottawa East used to have and can just out-talk and outmanoeuvre him. I do not think she could begin to out-think him, but the fact of the matter here is that the former Minister of Revenue is coming along and going after the present Minister of Revenue saying, "How terrible."

The problem started with those guys in 1985. David Peterson came to power and had the big dream the New Democrats and Liberals cooked up together. They were so far up in the clouds with all those wonderful concepts on how they would spend the taxpayers' money and how they would build a kingdom, and as they looked down on it they started to plan and plan and spend and spend. What we are living through today is just a further extension of those dreams that were started by David Peterson, and then the member for Ottawa East and all the Liberals because, let's face it, it was a coalition between these two groups. Once the Liberals came to power they were propped up in the first place by the New Democrats and the province went along with it.

To me, there are not that many Conservatives left in this House. There are 20 of us now. There were days when there may have been more, but we will continue to exist. There is a motto that says, "Tough times don't last; tough people do." We are into tough times right now and the people of Ontario will survive. They will come through. They will survive the budget, the deficit and the things the New Democrats are doing, but let's not just forget the history of what has happened. The Liberals helped bring this to pass.

They started the spending that has now caused the New Democrats to be in a position where they are having to spend in excess of what will be brought in through the Treasury this year. The deficit will jump to $9.7 billion. That is within their budget. The feeling we have now is that the deficit will be well in excess of that. It could be $12 billion or maybe even $13 billion. Though the people of Ontario will not pay that bill this year, with the increase in taxes and the way this government is carrying on, our children will. Those who succeed us will have a big bill to pay.

Ottawa has had to face up to that problem over the last several years, and the fact of the matter is that 35 cents of every dollar of our federal taxes goes to pay off the deficit, to pay the interest rate. We are not even close to meeting a balanced budget in Ottawa, and now in Ontario we are going to project an increased deficit over the next several years and increase the hole. The hole will get bigger and bigger as the people of Ontario live beyond their means.

Spending by this government is another reason for this tax. Spending was estimated to go up by 13.4% in their budget forecast; spending will be up in excess of that because of the welfare rolls, social assistance, a number of things -- some of them legitimate, let's face it. We are not going to see the people of this province suffer when we are into a deep recession; we have a duty to fulfil those responsibilities. But when you see government spending up by that amount for reasons that have to do with the size of the ministers' offices and the size of the bureaucracy they are building --

An hon member: The bar tab.

Mr Cousens: And the outstanding example that was raised today by our leader, the member for Nipissing, in the spending by the Attorney General, allowing $10,000 for a couple of days' visit out to the Niagara region. It sure helped the economy.

The Deputy Speaker: Please come back to the issue.

Mr Cousens: It is part of the issue. If you want to disagree with me, Mr Speaker, I take exception. I am talking about the spending by this government and the deficit, and I am talking with relevance to the bill we are on.

The Deputy Speaker: Talk about the tobacco tax.

Mr Cousens: The problem we have is the deficit created by this government, and the tobacco tax is part of the whole problem. I am sorry, Mr Speaker, I take exception to it. I am pointing out an example where the Attorney General had a party for his staff, which he did not attend, but they spent $10,000 on this party; again, part of the deficit, and here, in order to cover that deficit, they have taxes. It all fits into a picture.

If for that event they had bought only Niagara wine with the $2,500 bar bill instead of the Grand Marnier and the Baileys Irish Cream, there might have been a little happiness for the member for St Catharines.

Our concern has to do with government spending. There are illustrations galore where this government has not yet faced up to the need to reduce its spending. Instead of reducing its spending, which is the illustration I tried to give to the honourable Speaker, they are increasing taxes. The tobacco tax becomes a way in which this government tries to approach the problem.

I am going to talk about the tobacco tax and its ramifications, but I also feel there is a much a larger picture of a government out of control and the sense of confidence that is being lost by people like myself and those in my riding and across the province who are saying the New Democrats have an opportunity to do what they want. We in this House will, I hope, bring to their attention the problems they are creating through their measures and their actions, due to their inaction in other areas. There is a sense of responsibility that we have to make sure the New Democrats understand it before they continue to spend with abandon.

When we start looking at the way this government is spending money, the only way it is able to solve its problems is, one, by increasing taxes or, two, by increasing the deficit. The one thing they have not thought about is cutting spending.

Very recently the Treasurer came forward and said, "I'm coming in with the new R word: restraint." There was some talk of restraint; $600,000 in the first year is all it amounts to. That is just a bag of shells. That does not begin to show any effort of restraint on a budget as large as Ontario's. They have not begun to really say, "We're going to cut back on certain things."

It is very easy to make the symbolic gesture of saying MPPs will not have a salary increase. Everybody takes great pleasure in thinking the MPPs are paid too much right now for what they do. In the view of many people politicians get too much money. I just take some exception to the way this government has come along and said, "We're going to have restraint," and the one thing that has happened is that during the last year, every member of the New Democrats has probably made more money than he or she has ever made before, and they have made every effort to change the cost figures for our salaries. But we do not talk about it. There is no public support for me to talk about members' salaries, so why get into it? That is not my intention.

My talk here has to do with the serious problem of the farmers who are trying to eke out a living. They happen to be growing tobacco, which has become a product where people in Ontario have said, "We don't want smoking." This building is a non-smoking place. We have helped bring in non-smoking legislation across the province. In fact, we have an understanding now of the effect smoke has on health in a large number of ways, not just the primary smoke of the smoker but secondary smoke. What we have ended up doing is rationalizing the increase in taxation very easily, saying there is one way to stop people from smoking and that is to add to the tax on a package of cigarettes or on a gram of tobacco. So while people are doing something that is called a sin, we are able to get more money for the government coffers.

1650

How much money do members think the government has brought in over the last number of years? In 10 years both the federal and provincial governments have taken in excess of $31 billion in tobacco taxes, $31 billion by both levels of government in tobacco taxes. Yet how much money has gone back to support and assist the tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry? Has $1 billion gone in? No, it is less than that: $70 million has gone back into the tobacco industry over a 10-year period. What has happened is that well over $30 billion has gone into the coffers of both levels of government and meanwhile the number of tobacco farmers in Ontario, where we had something like 2,500 tobacco farmers, has gone down to maybe 1,200.

The 1,300 who are no longer farming tobacco are into other products, they are out of business, their farms have been sold or the banks have taken them over. They certainly do not have as much to rely on as they once had. Their dream has been taken away. The lack of assistance and support from any level of government to significantly address the needs they have has become a matter of concern to all of us.

I am going to talk about the programs the governments had. I think that is part and parcel of the picture. When we see the $31-billion golden egg that has been given to the governments of Canada and this province over a 10-year period of time, that huge amount of money, a very minuscule amount has gone back to help that industry. Only $70 million has gone back to them.

So what do we do? We have to look at the different programs that have been available to help tobacco farmers. For one thing, I am a non-smoker. I was not at one time and I could still easily start smoking again. It is one of those things. Having done it, I enjoyed it. I think there are many people right now for whom smoking is a very important part of their existence. I happen to believe we can only go so far in trying to force people to do what we want them to do.

It is called civil liberties and it reaches a point where, having taxed them to such a level, it is almost like Prohibition. During the 1930s we said, "There will be absolutely no alcohol," and so at that time there developed a whole underground network of trade so that people could buy alcohol. Now what happens here in Ontario, because we have increased the cost of tobacco to such an extent, as has been previously mentioned by other speakers in this House, is that people do cross-border shopping. Tobacco is certainly one of the items that comes across the border in large quantities, because it is so much cheaper south of the border than it is here in Canada.

Is it our plan to get people to stop smoking? Certainly the tobacco tax is a tremendously large disincentive to a smoker. All they have to do is add up the cost of their habit and begin to say, "I could do other things with the money." There is another disincentive to smoking, and that is the health consideration. I have no idea what the costs are for emphysema, cancer and other sicknesses related to smoking. They certainly puts a large cost on our health system. It is of concern to me and it is of concern to everybody that there are primary and secondary illnesses because of smoking.

I think the whole problem of whether or not people should smoke is not a matter for me as a legislator to decide. I think that is something for an individual to decide on his own. Let them weigh the merits of whether they can afford it. Whether it is their willpower, whether it is all the reasons or whether they have to go and get help to quit smoking, let that be their decision.

Has it become the decision of the province to say, "We don't want people to smoke"? We have reached the point where we have said, "We're taxing it to such a level that it is now threatening the industry of the tobacco farmers and all those who are related to it." The industry is an integral part of Delhi and Tillsonburg in Ontario, where there are many people whose livelihood depends upon tobacco. It is not just the 1,200 farmers who are left; it is the thousands of other jobs in curing and providing manufacturing equipment, the whole marketing of their products and the world markets they open up. It is a combination of things.

Are we making a philosophical decision in this House that we do not want people to smoke? If that is the case, I wish someone would say so, because then we could come along and do something in particular for those who are going to be disaffected, the industry we are talking about, the tobacco farmers and those related to the tobacco industry. Then we can come along and say, "All right, we are restructuring it so smoking will not be allowed in this country and we are now going to do specific things to assist you." I do not think this government has said that. We have called it a sin tax. We have called it Bill 84. It becomes just another way for the government to raise money to spend on other things.

I apologize for my earlier comments to the Speaker. I respect him very highly in the chair and out of the chair. The fact of the matter is that a tobacco tax for Ontario is part of a much bigger picture and is not something you can just take in isolation and say, "Okay, just examine specifically the effect on the smokers or the cost of this extra amount of money for a cigarette or a gram of tobacco." It has much wider ramifications than that. If a certain percentage of the money we are raising through taxation went back into the tobacco farmers' assistance program in different ways, so that they could transist to other forms of farming, then we in the province could somehow justify the large revenue base that comes through the tobacco tax.

The tobacco transition program is run by both the federal and provincial governments. It is a fund in which there is money right now from the federal government that can be spent to assist farmers in this whole transition program. In fact, this program has already put something like $54 million into the pockets of tobacco farmers who have taken land out of production from tobacco to soybeans and other products. But there is still $14 million in the tobacco transition initiative, in the federal coffers, which could be used to assist tobacco farmers right here now in Ontario.

The key to get that money is for Ontario to have its own parallel program to assist the tobacco farmers, but the Ontario government has seen fit, in its own wisdom, not to participate in that program. Therefore, the $14 million the federal government has set aside will not be spent to assist Ontario tobacco farmers. I cannot accept that when I see this government coming along and raising a tax on tobacco right now, if at the same time it cannot look at the needs of the tobacco farmers. Something is very inconsistent.

Let's face it: It has been done by every government. I cannot say it is just the problem of the New Democrats' closed minds. It was certainly the case when the Liberals were in power, and we can go back to earlier days when Tory governments in Ontario taxed tobacco as well.

It is a matter of degree. We are now at the point that the number of tobacco farmers continues to decline. We have an industry in trouble and there is not a sou going back. They will probably find a few dollars, because of some of the other programs, but a significant understanding of the need of the tobacco farmers is not being taken by us in the Ontario Legislature.

I have to take great exception to that kind of callous disregard of the needs of people who have their own personal investment at stake: their land, their families, their homes. The whole industry that surrounds this is not getting the support from government it should receive.

I look across the House and they just laugh. I do not sense the commitment that should be there on the part of all of us, saying, "We want to do something to assist those who have a specific need." We have an industry, a totally indigenous industry to Ontario, and this industry is now in jeopardy. If we as a government, if we as a Legislature -- I am not part of the government; I am part of the Conservative opposition to this bill. I could not be part of the government on this. I would be voting against the bill. I really sincerely hope the government will have second thoughts on just why it is continuing to tax at such a level and why it is that it will not consider a more balanced approach to the budget of the province and the needs of the people within it.

1700

I am specifically talking about the needs of the tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry. What will Elmer Buchanan be -- that is the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- doing in the future? I think of Elmer Fudd and I probably have a bit of a laugh in my mind when I think of the Minister of Agriculture and Food --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would prefer that you refer to the Minister of Agriculture and Food either by his riding or as the minister, please.

Mr Cousens: Okay. I will refer to him as the Minister of Agriculture and Food, because it would be wrong to refer to him as a cartoon person. That would really put him down as a funny, useless person who does not show respect for the high office. But if people have in the back of their minds, when they think of a person's name, a certain cartoon figure whose name is Elmer Fudd, and the Minister of Agriculture and Food, a very highly respected person by the New Democrats and not by many others, is in a position that he is being ridiculed, I can only say he is being ridiculed because of his failure to deal with an issue that has to do with the very livelihood and wellbeing of a significant industry in our province -- significant if you are in it. There are many other industries that are in trouble. We saw the people this morning from Algoma who came to talk to us about their needs.

Hon Mr Hampton: Saskatchewan farmers had a chance to reflect on this yesterday.

Mr Villeneuve: They are in trouble too now, a lot more than they realize.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Cousens: The people of Saskatchewan have a problem all right, but I will tell members, they do not grow tobacco in Saskatchewan. They do not have tobacco farmers in Saskatchewan. I do not know what they would be doing about it. I am talking about Ontario and what we can do here in this province to help the tobacco farmer.

The honourable members opposite are very glad to try to divert me on to other subjects. I not about to be sidetracked on to other subjects. I think there is sufficient to talk about just in dealing with the tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry, which is an indigenous Ontario industry, and we have to do something about it.

The issue will not be resolved until we see some action taken by this government to do something about its deficit. It should not keep spending with such abandon that it has to increase the size of the debt, which will increase to proportions that future generations will have to pay.

Our caucus, under the leadership of the member for Nipissing, is trying to at least make a statement --

Hon Mr Hampton: The Taxfighter was out in Saskatchewan, was he?

Mr Cousens: He is known as a taxfighter, and the fact of the matter is --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. There is a period of two minutes per member after, if you wish to ask any questions of the member for Markham. The member for Markham, please address the chair.

Mr Cousens: I think I will have to start at the beginning, to go back over all the points I have tried to make, because with these interruptions that are coming forward --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Durham West, please. The member for Markham, address the chair.

Mr Cousens: I would be pleased to address the chair. I would just hope there is something all of us can do to deal with the New Democrats.

There was an ad we put in the paper when this government brought down its budget. It is a picture of the Treasurer and the Premier having a great laugh. That is when they dumped the budget on Ontario. It has to do with what we are talking about now. If the government did not have the extra spending that it is going on with now as a government, if it did not allow itself to go on without abandon, then it would not need to be raising the kind of taxes that it is right now. Why not, at this time of economic recession, have some kind of holding back from a government that is just not keeping in touch with the reality out there?

I am concerned about a number of issues as they pertain to this. I think other members of the House will want to speak to it. I do not think there is any doubt that the members of our caucus are strongly opposed to the tax increases that are being brought forward by this government. We have gone through the bill with care. We realize that the bill is just giving more heavy-handedness to the government in its collection procedures. We see that the bill is going to add to the cost of each cigarette so that it is 6.5 cents on every cigarette purchased and 6.5 cents on every gram or part thereof of any tobacco that is purchased. We are seeing the cost of living go up. It is part of that business where the cost of living in Ontario becomes all that more difficult.

We are losing our competitive position in Ontario. I do not think we can blame it on a tobacco tax bill, but it is just one of those reasons why it becomes more costly to live in this province than in other jurisdictions. Is it any wonder people are looking at Buffalo or places south of the border more seriously because it is more costly to live in Ontario?

Can they tell me what is not more costly in Ontario? Tobacco is more costly, but everything else seems to cost more, and what do we get for it? Probably more government, and the one thing people are getting too much of in this province is more government. If there could be a sense of bringing government down, bringing it under control, bringing its expenses under control, then we would have a chance to see the future with a sense of confidence.

There are a number of issues we have to raise on this. I do not think the subject will end with this debate. The government will, with its strength of numbers, come forward and vote down any amendments we make. The government will, in its own wisdom, go ahead and spend the way it has. They have freedom for three and a half or four years, however long it takes, and at that time hopefully the people of Ontario will remember something of the disastrous kind of government they had in this province. Here they are being bled again and again by a government that just cannot keep its hands out of our pockets and is just taking the money and then frittering it away.

There are more examples coming forward as people point out to us the failure of this government to deal with it. If this government -- and in fact I have not discussed it with our own caucus -- came forward with some measures immediately, before this bill was passed, that would help the tobacco farmers plow back a certain percentage of the money that is going to be raised through this extra tax and through the taxes that come in through the tobacco tax to assist farmers in Brant-Haldimand and other areas, then I would have a sense that this bill has some equity to it. At this point the money just goes into the government of Ontario coffers. We are not even taking advantage of funds that are available from the federal government. If there were that kind of movement by the government, then there would be less anger from someone like myself because I would see something being given back to the people who really have a need for it.

The tobacco farmers have a need. Let's understand that. Just to continue to tax tobacco is to try to discourage people from having any kind of smoking at all. It may be right, but I do not think we are the people who should be doing it. If we are going to do anything, it can be education at the schools or education in society, but it is not for us to become the civil libertarians who are going to make the laws for everybody. I think we have to set a context for a society to live within and to be part of, but just to come along and arbitrarily move things out of the range of people because of what we are doing is wrong.

I know the New Democrats do not like a word I have said, and I just cannot help it. I wish there was some way in which we could all come back and haunt the caucus room of the New Democrats and cause them to rethink their whole budget approach to Ontario. That is the reason I stand on the floor in this House today, because if we could get them to live within their means, live without this huge, monstrous deficit, to reduce some government spending, to establish a balance so that business can prosper in the province, so that there is confidence in the economy for the future, then I would begin to feel that we have done something here that is beneficial.

1710

What I hear on the other side of the equation is that there is no business sense coming out of this government. That just is not the way to build a prosperous society. Our society is in trouble right now, and what it needs to have is leadership from a government that has empathy and understanding for the needs of business, industry and workers who want jobs so that there is an environment there for them to make a profit, to make a business and to look after their families, instead of this biased, one-sided view that really does not have everything in perspective.

I just hope there is some chance the New Democrats will reconsider this bill. Bill 84 does not need to pass. We could make some amendments to it that will allow it to be far more palatable for the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Cochrane North -- South.

Mr Bisson: That is twice today that I have been referred to as the member for Cochrane North. I take that as a compliment. I think Cochrane North and Kapuskasing have done a lot to serve as an example of the type of things that are possible, such as what happened in Kapuskasing last spring, when people really do come together to try to work out solutions.

More specifically, the member for Markham talked about creating a business climate, creating an environment where it is more conducive to do business in Ontario. I do not think anybody will argue with that statement on the surface. I think everybody wants to have a better business climate for people to invest in this province.

But what kind of climate is the member talking about? If the member had been here yesterday, he would know that is exactly the point I talked about. Is he talking about creating a climate that says we do not want equity in our society? Is he talking about an environment that says, "It's okay; you can come to Ontario and start up a manufacturing plant and pollute all you want"? Is he talking about a society that says, "No, you don't have to have protection for the workers"?

If that is the kind of environment he is talking about, then I would charge that the member is one-sided and should not accuse this government of being one-sided on the way he is looking at things, because I think he is being somewhat self-serving in the way he puts that.

He spoke more specifically, and not at very much length, I might add, to the question of the tax on cigarettes. As a smoker, obviously I have some difficulty with that, but I understand the reality, and that is what I spoke about a bit earlier.

He started getting off track quite a bit, and what he was basically trying to say is that governments had to be, I guess he was saying, uninterventionist in the way they do things and if government would just back off and leave everything alone, society would be a much better place.

It is interesting when you look at some of the figures on exactly that question where governments do try to take an attitude of leaving things open to the private sector in a much more positive way in the type of atmosphere the member for Markham speaks about. You end up with some of the figures I will quote now very quickly. When compared to places like New York and Michigan, where there is that kind of climate, the homicide rate is four times what it is here in Ontario. I will speak of that at a little bit more length during my turn in the debate.

Mr Villeneuve: I too want to congratulate my colleague the member for Markham, who is neither a farmer nor a smoker but certainly understands the problem thoroughly. I want to congratulate him for that. As the member for Cochrane South has just mentioned, he is a smoker and it is hurting him and it is pinching him.

This particular member does not have tobacco producers in his riding and he does not smoke personally. However, he understands very well what has been happening, not only in Bill 84 but in a whole raft of bills that are increasing the taxes to the consumers of this province, to the tourists, and certainly contributing very extensively to the cross-border shopping problem we have in certain areas. It was expressed to us this morning by visitors from Sault Ste Marie and it is being expressed to me, coming from an area close to Cornwall, where we have an Indian reservation called Akwesasne where there are no taxes at all, so people go there for tobacco products. They go in droves and come back with illegitimate purchases of tobacco.

This government is forcing many of our outstanding, honest citizens in Ontario to break the law, to become crooks actually. It is certainly very disconcerting when indeed this is one of the few little pleasures that some of the people can enjoy. I realize that now a majority of Ontarians are non-smokers, but we do have a minority of smokers in Ontario and I believe, if indeed they have chosen to continue to be smokers in spite of what the government has put out regarding the health risk, they should be allowed. They should not be priced totally into a situation that puts them almost to the point of driving them underground, to be closet smokers.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to mention some points of information to all those people listening today. When the Tories were in government, there was an excess of money in Ontario. Things were booming. They spent. They created programs. They had extra money at the end of the year. "Let's create a program and somebody can tap me on the shoulder."

When the Liberals were in government, they did the same thing, except they realized at some point that there was going to be a deficit. We were going into a recession and it was going to affect them. So what did they do? They called an election. But they did not plan on losing and we as New Democrats did not plan on winning.

Now that we are here, we are proud of the budget the Treasurer brought in. If we had to do it again, we would not have done it any differently, knowing what we know, knowing the financial situation we are in, the recession.

Yes, we are looking at all the programs that all those past governments have created. We are looking to see, who are the people they are serving? Are they effective? Is there a better way of doing business in this province so that all people can benefit from the taxes they pay?

The Minister of Agriculture and Food is working with the farmers. He has done a lot of work with the farmers. He meets with them all the time. He will continue to do that. As I said before, the federal government also raised tobacco tax three cents a cigarette. I hope members opposite also are talking to their federal counterparts in Ottawa.

We are going to have better health care in this province through these taxes, and I am sure, for the first time in this province, as we heard through the budget hearings this summer, people who never before benefited from a budget are now speaking in praise of this government's first budget.

Mr Bradley: When a bill is going through the House and you watch the role the minister plays in that particular situation, you do not expect some partisan rant to go on. You expect that from the rest of the House perhaps when a bill is going on, but I heard the same speech yesterday about how great a budget it was and so on.

One has to wonder why a year ago the government was not going through the exercise it is going through now. It is as though they invented it. If you read back in the speeches that were made on this side of the House by the opposition parties, the caution was put forward to the Treasurer and to other members of the government that they should be evaluating each of the programs extremely carefully to see which were still relevant in 1990 or 1991 and which are not relevant, which programs can be delivered better and so on. Now we get a lecture from the Minister of Revenue on how this is what they are doing and the opposition somehow should know this is what they are doing.

The problem is that we are running a deficit of $9.7 billion. Instead of trying to pare that deficit down to something more reasonable, the exercise now is to bring it on line, that is, within $9.7 billion.

Those of us in opposition think that is too much. The spin doctors on the government side and some of their writers in the newspaper, such as Gerry Caplan, who writes his column in the newspaper and so on, say: "Of course you have to understand this is the way things must be done. You have to understand that we have special programs that have to be put into effect. You have to understand it's the feds' fault, it's somebody else's fault."

This was preached to the government some time ago, that it has to exercise this. Now I suspect the government will come in at $9.7 billion and say it is some great accomplishment. This exercise was to trim it from that unprecedented figure.

Mr Cousens: I would like to just address some of the comments made by the Minister of Revenue. Probably the most significant and telling statement the minister made was that the Minister of Agriculture and Food is working with the farmers. That is just not good enough. They can keep on telling me they are working with the farmers and they are talking with people, but if they do not have a program or a commitment to help them and to address the concerns and grievances they have with this government and with our taxation levels on the tobacco industry right now, then it is just empty words and for us to continue to listen to this bafflegab is just to waste everybody's time and attention.

For the Minister of Revenue to come along and say the Minister of Agriculture and Food is talking with the farmers is not doing one bit of good for the people in Brant-Haldimand, and it is high time this government woke up to it. Maybe it could also call a by-election so the people down there can have a bit of a statement about what the government is not doing to help the tobacco farmers.

1720

I would like to thank the honourable member for S-D-G & East Grenville. He brings up the point that people going into an Indian reserve and going to other places to buy tobacco is an illegal process. What kind of an act is that? We are forcing people into some kinds of deeds that they do not want to do. I appreciate the kind of thing he sees in his own riding, and we have to do something about it.

I will not even comment on the member for Cochrane North. I think the member has not understood what I am trying to say about the balance of government working with industry. I will say that the New Democrats have lost my confidence in their ability to do that. I do not think they know what it is all about, and their comments just reflected that.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Bisson: Thank you for very much. I remind the member for Markham that it is Cochrane South and not Cochrane North. No, I did not miss the point the member was making, what he was alluding to just a little while ago. It is a whole question of trying to create a balance within society that speaks about laws that are equal for people, so that no matter where you are in society you have a reasonable chance of being able to access government services or the legal system or whatever it might be in a way that has some equity built into it.

That is what we talk about as New Democrats. We talk about a democratic socialist party. We talk about putting together principles by which people can have access and equal opportunity get services that the government provides.

When the member for Markham speaks about how he thinks we are trying to create a government that is somewhat one-sided, I tend to argue, because exactly what the member for Markham is talking about is what his party's government did for years and, I think, what the Conservative government in Ottawa under Mr Mulroney has demonstrated over the past years in Ottawa. Mr Mulroney has been there for eight years and the laws that have been changed -- it is not to say they are all bad. I am the first to admit that some of the laws the Conservative government passed in Ottawa were good, but some of those laws have been quite regressive. That is the crux of this whole discussion. If we look at what has happened lately in British Columbia and what we have just seen in Saskatchewan, people within Canada are starting to say: "We don't believe the rhetoric that we've been getting from the Conservative Party. We don't believe in a Canada that threatens our very existence as far as the things we hold near and dear to us with regard to our social values, the programs that are available to us as Canadians and the whole social fabric of what this country is all about."

I see the member for Etobicoke has awakened and is flashing the Agenda for People. It is a document that I have no problem defending and a document that I think makes a lot of sense. What this government is doing is coming at this with a practical approach. But after September 1990, when we came into government, we opened up the books. When we opened up those books, we found a couple of surprises. One of them was quite large, about $2.5 billion, if I remember correctly. Under those kinds of conditions and with the economy the way we found it when we got here, obviously we had to rethink how we did some things and how we were to accomplish some of our objectives over the long term. That is what this government is doing. It is coming across the whole idea of presenting issues and dealing with the various things we think of as important within Ontario in a very pragmatic way and a very realistic way.

But let's be specific about what we are here to talk about today. We are here to talk about Bill 84, which is basically a tobacco tax. Yet again, a government in Ontario, like other places, has decided to increase taxes on tobacco. I have sat here quite patiently in the House listening to my colleagues in the Liberal caucus who spoke before me and to my colleagues in the Conservative caucus, who are again sitting over there -- such as the member from Etobicoke, who I see is paying great attention -- listening to them talk about the virtues of what they would do if they were the government of Ontario and how they never stood for and do not stand for today what the government is doing in Ontario with regard to the tobacco tax.

Excuse me, but every Canadian and every Ontarian will realize that what is happening here today is no different from what has happened in the whole history of taxation, either in Ontario or within the federal jurisdiction. Let's talk about the brass tacks. The brass tacks are that we as governments have to raise capital in order to pay for the programs that we as Ontarians or Canadians want. Somewhere along the line you have to get the revenue to do that.

There are a couple of options that a government has. It can say, as the Conservative Party would talk about, and the Liberals talk about the same theory in Ontario, as when the government passed down its budget in April 1991, that we have a decision, we have some choices, and it is saying clearly that it is not accepting the $9.7-billion deficit.

The reality is that there were not many options left open to us. There was the little surprise left in the till when we got there of losing $2.5 billion. There was the little surprise of the federal government cutting back on transfer payments and also the whole state of the economy that we inherited. We were not the government in the 1980s. We inherited a mess.

Mrs Caplan: Stop whining.

Mr Bisson: The member for Oriole talks about whining. I sit here in this House day after day and listen to the member for Oriole do exactly what she is doing now.

Mrs Caplan: It's not a mess? You knew the federal government was cutting transfer payments. Tell the truth.

Mr Bisson: Do not imply that I am not telling the truth.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): The member will take his chair. The member will be seated. The member will speak directly to the Speaker, and the member for Oriole will refrain from interjection.

Mr Bisson: What I am getting at is that for people to stand here in the House from whatever opposition party, either the Liberal caucus or the Conservative caucus --

Interjections.

Mr Bisson: Here we go again, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Order. A member can participate when he has the floor. A member participates best by listening when he does not have the floor, and I think if we co-operate, all of us on both sides of the House, we can get on with the business we are here to do for the people of Ontario.

Mr Bisson: We are here today talking about the whole question of Bill 84. The province of Ontario has made a decision around taxation of tobacco. The point I am trying to make is that we all sit here as politicians on the virtues of what we would do if we were the government: what I would do if I were a Liberal member or an independent member or a member from the Conservative caucus, and how I would do things better. Obviously that is part of what we do as politicians. We are trying to put forward our ideology as being somewhat better than the other political party's. There is political gain in that and everybody has participated in that one, being in opposition or, quite frankly, being on the government side. The reality is that we as a government have to make decisions that are realistic to the situation that we find ourselves in, in light of where we are with the recession.

The point I was making and what got the opposition upset was the reality that when we inherited the government in 1990 by the will of the people of Ontario, who said, "We elect a majority government to rule the province of Ontario for the next four to five years," we got here and there were some things wrong with the economy. Businesses were leaving to go to the United States. Why? Because of the policies of our federal government. We cannot hide from that. Free trade has not helped us, deregulation has not helped us, and a host of other policies that were put in place by the federal government have added to the situation that we find ourselves in today. It has not set the kind of business climate that we as Canadians need to develop our economy.

I said a little while ago that what the Conservative government has done over eight years has not been all wrong. No government on the face of the world has done all wrong --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I am going to ask the member to make reference to the bill and try to focus on the bill. You will find you will have fewer interjections if you speak to the issue before the House.

Mr Bisson: Yes, Mr Speaker. It is somewhat difficult because the point I am trying to get to on Bill 84 is that as a government we have to make some harsh decisions. Specifically on Bill 84, where is a government able to generate revenue to provide for the programs that are necessary for the people of this province? That is the whole point of what we are getting at. Governments have very tough decisions along the way.

There is another question when we are speaking specifically to Bill 84. We have another responsibility to the people of Ontario, because we provide health care through our OHIP system to the citizens of this province, of trying to save on the money we spend within our health care system. I am a smoker myself and wish I could stop; it is an addiction I have and I freely admit that. But I realize as a consumer of tobacco products that the longer I smoke the more difficult it is going to be for my health, and at the end there might be a cost to the taxpayers of this province due to the health costs they will have to pay for health care I require because of smoking.

1730

One of the things governments have done over the years, not only on this side of the House but also the Liberals when they were in power from 1985 to 1990, is to raise tobacco taxes pretty well every year. It was not only that they were trying to raise revenue -- I do not accuse the opposition of that -- but they were also trying to cut expenditures on the other side. There is a cost to people smoking too much; there is no question of that.

There are places where we can bring forward ideology, into the debate on particular bills that speak about how we want to see this province run, how we want to create a business climate and all the rest, but let's be specific when we are talking about Bill 84. There are some harsh decisions we have to make as a government, the same decisions my colleagues on the other side of the House would have to make if they were sitting here, but the people of Ontario made a choice in 1990 and elected a New Democratic government to make those decisions.

If we do not spend the dollars on the programs provided by government, there will be consequences and social costs, if we do not go out and do those things. If the government decides it is not going to raise revenues through bills such as Bill 84 and decides it is going to cut expenditures on the other hand, that it is not going to provide social housing, medicare or a multitude of other programs that add and contribute to the life and health of Ontarians, then there is a cost.

There is an interesting figure in the 1991 budget related to what this is all about. Members should look at the crime rates in other jurisdictions where there is not as much spending by the government on social programs, on providing for those people who are having difficulties. When you compare our numbers on homicides in Ontario to those in jurisdictions within the United States, they are 8, 10 or 14 times higher, depending on the jurisdiction, than here in Ontario. If the government does not spend the money on social programs and on building the infrastructure, that is the price we pay.

We have a decision. Would we rather walk the streets of Ontario with a certain amount of security, a certain amount of dignity as human beings in this society, and support that through our taxation systems, or follow a political ideology like that of my friends in the Conservative opposition, leaving it totally in the hands of the private sector and running the risk of having higher crime rates?

It is the same thing with infant mortality rates. The infant mortality rate in Ontario, compared to other jurisdictions such as New York and Michigan, is significantly lower, by 30%, 40% or 50% in some cases. It is not a question that in Michigan and New York they do not have the medical technology that we have in Ontario -- in some cases it may be superior -- but the average citizen cannot access those services because the ideology of those governments is the same as our Conservative friends' when they talk about governments intervening in the private sector.

That is what this bill is all about. This bill is about the stark realities of decisions you have to make as a government to provide services for the people of your province. As a government, at times you are going to have to take flak, because somebody must pay. If I as a consumer decide tomorrow, "I need to invest in my home because my windows are falling out of the walls, and it is going to cost me $10,000," the consumer borrows money from his or her banker to pay for that. If the consumer says, "I need to borrow money from my banker to provide an education for my child who is 18 or 19 years old," he goes out and borrows that money.

That is a decision we have made as a government. We admit it freely; we have no problem with it. On the last budget, we had some decisions to make. We have a wholesale rampage on our economy. Do we fail to provide the services necessary to support the people of this province, not directly but through the social programs we have, medicare and other programs necessary for our very way of life? Do we throw the people to the wolves -- I hope that is not what my opposition friends are saying -- or do we go ahead and try to fight the recession in such a way that we allow Ontarians, the people living in this province, to walk the streets of Ontario with a certain amount of dignity and feeling as if this Ontario society also belongs to them?

In closing, there are some tough decisions we have to make as a government, such as those on Bill 84, having to raise revenue at the same time as trying to balance off what the social cost is to health care if we try not to deter the cigarette smoking that is happening in our society. They are very tough decisions and this government is prepared to make those tough decisions, realizing that not everybody is going to agree with them.

I would just leave this with my friends from the opposition, especially the member for Markham who spoke before and who talked about having a society that we are creating as New Democrats that is unjust somehow to the business sector. I completely and utterly disagree with him, because what this government is talking about is building partnerships, building real equity within our society that says, "You as a corporate citizen also have a responsibility, not only to the people of the province and the country, but to the environment, to your workers and to the general society around you." All of us are going to share in that responsibility, not just the government of Ontario, but every citizen within Ontario.

If the member for Markham is advocating that we build a society that says, "Let's create a more just business climate by allowing people to pollute our environment; let's allow a more equitable business climate by not paying or remunerating workers for just services; let's provide a better business climate by not providing the proper protection for workers with regard to health and safety, and let's not provide for government in those kinds of terms," I say no.

I support what this government is doing through Bill 84 because what we are talking about in this bill, as in the rest of our legislation, is building a fair, just and equitable society for the people of this province.

Mrs Caplan: I want to point out to the member opposite that his flower is wilting and the reason for that is because of the hot air he has been spewing during this debate. The flower has not survived the discourse he has just treated this Legislature to. He was factually incorrect.

My constituents who watch the proceedings in the House and who know the facts often say to me, "You know, he wasn't telling the truth," or they will say things such as, "He was really misleading the House." I will say he was not lying and he was not really misleading the House; he was trying to create a perception. That is why people in this province sometimes become so cynical. He stood in his place and the perception he created was quite inaccurate.

One of the goals the government set for itself was to have a balanced operating budget by 1996 or 1997. This is a laudable goal. I point out to the member and to the people of this province that he inherited a balanced operating budget that had been in balance from 1986, 1987, 1988. In fact, it was a fully balanced budget in 1989-90, and what he inherited was a triple-A credit rating.

Yes, the province was in a recession, the economy was in decline and the fiscal policies of the government have done nothing to instil confidence in the people of this province. It has done nothing to encourage business to come to Ontario, and the job loss under this government's fiscal policy has been in excess of 250,000 jobs since it took office. That is a shameful record and that happens to be the truth.

I have been a proponent of taxes on tobacco from a point of view of healthy public policy, not just revenue generation. What he has described to this House borders on --

1740

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Before we continue with questions and comments, I ask for the co-operation of all members of the House to allow the individual who has the floor to make his comments. If members want to participate, maybe they can use a two-minute time period to make comment, but please refain from interjections.

The member for -- the honourable leader of the third party.

Mr Harris: That is one way of doing it if you cannot remember my riding. It is Nipissing, Mr Speaker. None the less, thank you very much. I do have a few comments to make.

We are dealing with the cumulative effect of governments over a period of 10 years or so in this province that have now adopted of policy of saying: "The reason we are hiking these tobacco taxes all the time is so you will stop smoking. We want to eliminate smoking in Ontario." That was the goal and the objective. That seems to be why it is okay to raise taxes on tobacco to such astronomical levels.

Today, this cumulative effect is that we are now taking in $1 billion from tobacco alone in this province. What I object to very strongly is that successive governments have continued to hike this taxation to a level where, along with gasoline and booze, it is affecting tourism, it is affecting cross-border shopping, it is affecting the image and the perception of Ontario. As the tourists say: "I am getting ripped off there. Goodbye. I am not going there any more."

What I really object to is this: They are putting nothing back. I suggest it is a tax grab and that is all it is. The government is grabbing extra tax dollars and the effect of what it is doing is putting tobacco farmers out of business. It is setting up tremendous imbalances now with reassessment going on in Haldimand and in Norfolk.

If they put one tenth of 1% of this money back into the very farms they are putting out of business -- with the impact the government is having on the economy, I would say maybe that was the goal; it was not just a tax grab. But they grab this money from the industries and the businesses and the farmers and they give nothing back. It is nothing but a tax grab and we will not support that.

Mr Johnson: I want to thank the member for Cochrane South for many of the fine comments he made with regard to the reasons why we have to implement these sorts of taxes.

I was in Delhi prior to the election in the spring of 1985 and I met with a tobacco farmer down there. I was actually down there to purchase a car from him. When I was there he said he would like to show me around his community.

He said: "This is a farming community. It has been a farming community for many years but terrible things are happening here. Farmers are going out of business for many reasons."

He smoked, but he said: "The health of our people is important, so I guess people think smoking is not good, so they are not doing it as often as they did in the past. People are quitting. The new generation is not smoking like older generations did and things are changing."

The leader of the third party has said some things, and certainly I know the member for Markham said that our government had callous disregard. I wonder if it is the same callous disregard the Conservative Party that was the government in the spring of 1985 had when all the tobacco farms in the area of Delhi were going out of business.

Mr Harris: It is exactly the same. Are you proud of being rotten like every other party?

Mr Johnson: The member from the third party agrees. Well, I am glad to know that.

The Acting Speaker: May I interrupt, please? I remind the member that he is making comments and questions on the speech that was made by the government member and not on the opposition comments.

Mr Johnson: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I regret that. I just want to conclude by saying that the member for Cochrane South made some very substantial points and I hope the members of the opposition were listening very clearly to what he said, because they were most important.

Mr Brown: I appreciate the comments from the member for Cochrane South, and I think he should practise his speech over and over again because what this is, of course, is a revenue bill. It is a bill to raise taxes. This is a bill that requires the people of Ontario to pay more for a certain product.

What we know about this government is that when it took power on September 10, members in this House will remember that the Treasury officials said the budget of the province had deteriorated. We were in a position where the deficit was projected to be $700 million for that year. By October 1, the new Treasurer suggested it would be $2.5 billion. That is what he said it was. Even given that, we were in surplus.

The crime here is that this government has come before us with a reckless budget and with a reckless deficit of $9.7 billion. The only way to pay for $9.7 billion is through increased taxes. That is the bottom line. The $9.7 billion is a tax. It is just a deferred tax. It is a tax that we are going to pay over and over again, and our children are going to pay it.

It is a tax that they have knowingly put before the people of Ontario for no good reason that any of us can think of, except that they do not have any sense of financial and fiscal management. No one suggests there would not be some deficit, but the $9.7-billion deficit is something our children will pay for, we will all pay for, and the flexibility of this government will be gone. It will be gone.

Mr Bisson: I suggest that the member for Algoma-Manitoulin practise his speech better, when he talks about passing on deficits to our children and our children's children and our children's children's children. The reality is we got here in 1990 and it was a big surprise, when we got here, what we were left from the members opposite.

The other reality is that the member for Oriole talked about her constituents -- and she said that very carefully so that she would not be ruled out of order, I might add, implying that somehow I was misleading the House. She was very careful. She talked about her operating budget while the government here in Ontario was balanced. She failed to mention that its capital deficit was actually not balanced at all. As a matter of fact, in 1990, the year of the election, they did not quite report the facts until we got into government afterwards.

When we take a look at the operating budget for the current government in 1990-91, I can boast the same thing. This government has a balanced operating budget in the interim of 1990-91. It is balanced. There is no question that we have to be able to raise revenue over the next number of years to be able to pay for the programs Ontarians want, but I would suggest that the member for Oriole, when she talks about my misleading the House, is being very selective in her terms.

Also, the last point -- I only have a couple of seconds -- is that the member for Nipissing calls this a tax grab. That is clearly not what I talked about in this debate. There are a number of issues that are current to Bill 84. Yes, it is the raising of revenue through taxes, but also it is a question of being able to protect people through our health care system over the long term and have fewer smokers.

The member for Nipissing speaks about tax grabs. His federal cousins in Ottawa have plenty of experience at that and I am sure he cannot lecture us here in this Legislature about doing the types of things his federal cousins are doing.

Mr Bradley: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker, for the opportunity to address the House and you, in particular, as the Speaker, on the bill that is before us, the one that deals with the tax on tobacco in Ontario.

If we look back on the history of taxes in this province, or perhaps even federally, we will see that tobacco was often the choice of many. The reason tobacco was the choice, just as alcohol was the choice, was that it was an easy thing to tax in our province because everybody knew it was a health hazard of some kind and everybody knew it was not essential, at least for most people in the province it was not essential, and it was an easy one to pass off.

There may have been some reason for that. If we were in good economic times, the opposition would still say the government should not be taxing, but it would be with less conviction than at the present time. It is not even the fact that we are in difficult economic times that some of us make the argument against the tobacco tax. We make it because of its effect of driving people to other jurisdictions to make those purchases. It is difficult to drive them to other provinces, because in Canada other provinces tend to like selecting tobacco products and alcohol products for the purpose of taxation as well, but it does send them to the United States.

1750

The member for Lincoln is in the House this afternoon. He represents an area that has part of the city of St Catharines, and to the west and to the south of St Catharines, and he understands there are people in his constituency who from time to time, and more frequently than in years gone by, decide to go over the river to get their products, as we say in our part of the province. This has always happened. Anybody who lives in a border area knows it has always happened that there has been a certain amount of shopping on the other side of the border.

I am not a smoker. I have never smoked a cigarette in my life, ever -- or anything else. I have never smoked anything. I could be a candidate for the Supreme Court of the United States because I could say with a lie detector test that I have never smoked anything in my life, so there it is. My brother, who may be watching on television this afternoon, can turn any argument or discussion in the world into an anti-smoking lecture; I assure members of that. I come from a family where there is not necessarily a lot of sympathy for smoking, and therefore perhaps not a lot of difficulty in terms of seeing this kind of tax.

In fact, one member of the family quit smoking after Michael Wilson put the last tax on cigarettes. I can understand it as a tool, if it were a tool to stop people from smoking. The member for Scarborough East is here, and as a member of the medical profession he would know the devastation smoking has brought about with many people in terms of their health.

My concern at this time is that the major effect of this tax, combined with the tax on alcohol, which is going up and with the gas tax that is going up, will be more people going over the border to make their purchases, people who did not do so before, perhaps people who do not want to purchase clothing or other products but since they are going over to buy their gas, their cigarettes and their alcoholic beverages, or perhaps to have a meal which is cheaper because of the cheaper price of alcoholic beverages, that will become a habit and the billions of dollars will begin to be even more billions of dollars heading to the other side of the border. This is pretty serious, to say the least, for those of us who reside in border areas.

The member for Sarnia was in the House this afternoon and he was concerned about this. I remember having a discussion with my friend the member for Sault Ste Marie on this same matter. He faces the same situation of people heading to the other side of the border. The members on the government side will vote for this tax because they have to or they will stay out of the House, one of the two. They do not have a choice in our present system. They certainly will not vote against it if they want to be in the cabinet or ever hope to be in the cabinet or curry any favour from the government. I am not criticizing them. That is the system. I do not expect they are going to break with that. I could be mischievous and say they should. I do not expect that is going to happen.

The reason I am very concerned about this tax, and I normally would not be, is that it is going to drive people to the other side of the border. The effects are quite devastating in our communities. There are stores closing down left and right in border communities. There are some stores which have been in business for 70, 80, 90 or 100 years that are closing down, largely because of the competition on the other side of the border, part of that competition coming about because people are heading over the border for the loss leaders, as I describe them -- the cigarettes, the alcohol and the gasoline -- but at the same time making other purchases. I do not think we can afford for that to continue to happen in this province or in this country.

I remember it used to be a case where we said people from St Catharines, Beamsville and perhaps up to Grimsby went to the other side of the border. That is now spreading into Metropolitan Toronto. It is spreading into the Kitchener and Oakville areas. We are having people coming from 100 to 150 miles away, not to make these specific purchases but to make purchases on the other side of the border.

When people are thinking of these taxes, I wonder who they are. I wonder whether they are the people to whom the member for Welland-Thorold made reference in one of my favourite television shows, called Haeck from Queen's Park. Certainly the guest who was on last week provided a lot of Haeck from Queen's Park.

Mr Stockwell: What did he have to say?

Mr Bradley: He had this to say about the people making decisions, and I do not know if it would be the people making decisions on this tax, but I suspect this is the case.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. First, I ask the member for Etobicoke West to refrain from making interjections, and I ask the member who has the floor to address his remarks to the chair and not to have a dialogue with somebody who is interrupting the process.

Mr Bradley: Exactly. That is why I thought the members of the House would like to hear what the member for Welland-Thorold had to say about those who make decisions on these kinds of taxes. He said, "The problem is you've got politicians up there in Toronto who won't take the time to get out of their limousines and talk to real people." I am sure he must have been thinking of the people who dreamed up this particular tax. That is how I relate it.

He went on to say, "When people are told, for instance, that some pinhead made a decision about eliminating the oath to the Queen for police officers, they say, 'What kind of nitwit could possibly think that somehow people in this province are demanding that?'"

Asked by the member for St Catharines-Brock what he had to say to these politicians, the member for Welland-Thorold said: "The government should stop using $1,000-a-day consultants and go straight to the people to get their input. The disdain the people feel about politicians, well, I'll tell you, politicians have earned it."

I think what he was saying on this, about another issue, and he was not just picking on that particular issue -- it is unfortunate that I forgot who was the Solicitor General at the time when I raised that -- I really did -- but I think he probably was not thinking of the Solicitor General. He was probably thinking of the people who advised the Premier to advise the Solicitor General of the day to do that. I blush because I like the member for Cambridge and I feel badly about that.

However, to get back to this tax, he was wondering where the people come from who dream up these taxes. It is certainly not the members of the civil service, because they do not think of these things. They may put options in front of people, but it is really a political decision that is made. It must be the people who are making more money than the members of the Legislature, even more money than the Attorney General who now makes $90,000 a year and the people he referred to, the pinheads.

The Acting Speaker: Order. I hate to interrupt the member when he is on a roll, but it would help if he referred to the bill occasionally and we had a sense that we were dealing with a specific piece of legislation.

Mr Bradley: The member for Welland-Thorold probably would have felt more comfortable if he knew that the taxes being derived from this particular bill were going to assist Niagara farmers, who are now in a position where they want to sell their land. I well remember, as you may, Mr Speaker, the Premier of this province calling his press conference in Vineland -- that is probably what turned the tide in Lincoln at this time. He castigated -- I pronounce that carefully -- the members of the then government for not saving the farm land and the farmers, and at the same time he suggested they would be helpful.

Maybe they brought in this tax for that purpose. We have a tax that apparently is going to pay off only a huge deficit to cover parties that were held in the Attorney General's office.

Hon Mr Hampton: We want to know about that new lottery the former Minister of the Environment created. That was a good tax.

Mr Bradley: He intervenes. I did not want to mention those parties, but I know that when people say, "What can this tax be for? Is it for the Baileys that is being served at the minister's reception? Is it some other alcoholic product that is being paid for by the people of this province for a big wingding in the Solicitor General's department?" I do not think so. Certainly, if they have to meet the deficit, part of that deficit is being incurred by the parties the government is having in various ministries. That may be why they decided to have this tax come forward.

I cannot at this time support this tax, a tax I would normally support.

Hon Mr Hampton: How about a lottery? Would you support a lottery?

Mr Bradley: I know another option would be a lottery. I know the government of Ontario, which was against lotteries, has now abolished the Ontario Lottery Corp.

It must be close to 6 o'clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.