The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

YORK REGION DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCIL

Mr Beer: In August 1989 the former Liberal Minister of Health set up a steering committee to examine the feasibility of creating a district health council for York region. York region, with approximately 475,000 residents, is the most populous area not served by a district health council.

The steering committee concluded its work in June 1990 and recommended the establishment of a district health council. Last fall in this Legislature I asked the previous NDP Health minister when the district health council would be created. "Be patient," we were told. "All will come to pass."

Later, in the spring of 1991, after no action was taken, a number of municipal councillors and service providers met with the four MPPs of York region to ask for help in again requesting the creation of the district health council. Indeed all four of us signed a letter to the minister dated March 25, 1991.

On July 11 the present minister wrote to say that the government "intends to proceed with the establishment of a new district health council for the region of York." The minister added that a chairperson would be appointed as soon as possible. It is now three and one-half months since that letter was sent out. As of today, no chairperson has been appointed and no date has been set for the creation of the York Region District Health Council.

The role of a district health council is critical to the planning needed to ensure a first-class health system in York region. The question that everyone is asking is, when will the minister announce the formation of the York Region District Health Council? We need some action and we need it now.

HOSPITAL FINANCING

Mr J. Wilson: Yesterday the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital was forced once again to lay off staff in order to balance its budget for the next fiscal year. It is mind-boggling that the NDP government continues to kick the people of Collingwood when they are already down.

Both the General and Marine and the Stevenson Memorial Hospital in Alliston have attempted to play ball with the Health ministry and have made significant cuts to their operations in the past four months in order to reduce their deficits.

It is ironic that while the Premier champions the cause of a social charter in the national constitutional debate, he refuses to assist hospitals here at home. It is also ironic that this same government that was so eager to accept praise for increases to nurses' salaries now refuses to acknowledge that hundreds of nurses are being laid off, others cannot find work and hospitals have reduced services as a result of the government's decision.

The Minister of Health recently informed the Ontario Hospital Association that no funding for inflation will be made available to hospitals in the 1992-93 fiscal year. Hospitals have been forced to shoulder additional costs as a direct result of provincial initiatives. Hence, it is reasonable to ask that hospitals be permitted to have their remaining deficits included in their base budgets.

The minister must assume responsibility and move immediately to provide direction for hospitals so that they can effectively plan for the future. Further silence is not the solution.

SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY WEEK

Mr Fletcher: The University of Guelph has one of the largest nutrition science departments in North America. On Monday a group of professors held a public forum on nutrition to mark Science and Technology Week.

The panel consisted of Professor Tammy Bray, who is the president of the Canadian Association of Biological Sciences, and professors Bruce Holub, Trevor Smith, Laura Nagy, Bill Woodward and Bill Bettger. They told a packed audience about the ways nutrition can prevent disease, and we all know that disease prevention is a big health strategy for the 1990s.

This forum is just one more example of the university transferring knowledge to the community, and this is a result of funding from the province.

I congratulate the University of Guelph faculty for choosing a timely and relevant subject to recognize Science and Technology Week in our riding. It is characteristic of the type of conference held at the University of Guelph.

RENT REGULATION

Ms Poole: The government's rent control bill, Bill 121, is in limbo. This past summer we held public hearings on Bill 121, but when it came time to introduce amendments in clause-by-clause, the committee meetings were abruptly cancelled. Despite the fact that the week of September 16 had been set aside for some months, the government cancelled because three of its members had made personal plans for that week and were not available.

Since then committee meetings on Bill 121 have been cancelled for the weeks of September 26, October 3, October 10, October 17 and October 24. The reason? Apparently the government is not yet ready with its amendments. The government has obviously bungled its rent control bill so badly that it does not know where to go from here.

We are now paying the price for the mockery of a consultation we endured prior to the introduction of Bill 121. Bill 121 pleases no one. Tenants feel betrayed and landlords feel victimized. If the government had really listened before introducing the bill, this would not have come as such a surprise.

Every week I mount my white charger with amendments in hand ready to do battle on behalf of the people of Ontario, but every week the government fails to respond to the challenge. In fact, it appears they are not even able to find their horses, let alone mount them. It has to change. We want Bill 121 to go back to committee.

1340

PROTECTION OF IN-CARE RESIDENTS

Mr Jackson: Members will recall the Grandview Training School for Girls sex abuse case, which I first raised in the House in June 1991. The number of women who have bravely stepped forward to date to lay complaints is now 14. According to police, this number could turn out to be only a drop in the bucket once all the facts become known about their investigation.

The nature of the complaints constitute a horror story of outrageous human indignities suffered by vulnerable women who were powerless to defend themselves in a system which was uncaring about their suffering as victims of the crime of sexual abuse.

Police are hopeful that charges will be laid and, according to observers, political pressure, thanks in large part to the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and the questions raised by our caucus in this House, was a significant factor in ensuring a complete investigation was done.

This should tell the Premier that he, his Attorney General and his former Minister of Community and Social Services were wrong not to hold a full provincial inquiry to protect young people from sexual abuse in provincial institutions in the future. This makes the public stance taken by the Premier, as opposition leader, to call for a provincial inquiry into nursing homes in 1985 that much more hypocritical when his commitment to these young victims at Grandview is now so lacking. This should also tell the new Community and Social Services minister to avoid guilt by association and move quickly to initiate an inquiry as soon as possible.

The women of Ontario are tired of hearing the Premier's public relations rhetoric on the rights of victims. Actions speak louder than words, and without concerted government action, words, no matter how loudly spoken, will not drown out the cries of suffering of these victims who have no one in this government, it would seem, to defend and protect them.

GREEK CELEBRATIONS

Mr Malkowski: I would like to take this opportunity to tell the House about two very special events taking place this Sunday, October 27.

I, along with many others, will be joining the Greek community in celebrating National OXI Day. This event is of importance to all of us as a commemoration of the Greek resistance to fascism which began in October 1940. Once again, this occasion will be marked by a parade along Danforth Avenue and a wreath-laying ceremony at the city hall cenotaph.

On the same day the Greek community will be celebrating the liberation of the city of Thessaloniki, which took place on October 26, 1912. Toronto has the distinction of being Thessaloniki's twin city. I have the privilege of being guest of honour at this festival and declaring Sunday, October 27, as Thessaloniki Day 1991.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Scott: Yesterday an event occurred in the House which I do not believe, in the interests of parliamentary democracy, should go unnoticed.

The honourable member for St Catharines raised with the Premier the fact that on at least two occasions and perhaps others representatives of his government had sent the OPP to interview members of the Legislature and, I believe, others about how information, in accordance with democratic tradition, had come into their hands from the bureaucracy.

The Premier, in a desperate and, I believe ultimately if the public were to be the judge, unsuccessful effort to separate himself from this shocking conduct, said that no member had, as far as he knows, been harassed. The honourable member for Halton Centre then rose and explained that the OPP had said she might indeed be criminally charged. The Premier fled the chamber.

I think what this Legislature is entitled to have is a statement from the leader of the government about the guidelines that exist in this government with respect to police investigations of members of the Legislature, the press and others who may have access to bureaucratic material designed to show the incompetence of the government. This is an important parliamentary privilege and it should be acknowledged by the House and the Premier and safeguarded today.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Villeneuve: Today, I am sorry that I find it necessary to report to members about more problems with the emergency assistance package recently announced for Ontario farmers.

We already know the entire package could have been utilized in Essex county alone to compensate for the terrible drought and for prices this year. However, the shortcomings of the assistance package do not stop there. The minister is aware that the $15 million he has put into the provincial stabilization program for grain and oilseed producers will not help growers of farm-fed grains. These growers represent Ontario's livestock and dairy industries.

It would seem that members opposite and the minister have forgotten the serious damage that has been done to Ontario's cattle industry in the last five years. One year ago, this government was announcing a special feeder assistance program because the situation was so bad. This year, when things are even worse, the government has decided to ignore the industry and cut it off from help.

I would hope that members opposite have learned by now that it costs less to buy a ton of grain than it costs to produce it. The government, in its announcements by the minister and the Treasurer, mentioned that it had consulted the NDP rural caucus. If those statements were true, and I believe them, then we have an obvious example of the NDP rural caucus either not hearing, not understanding or deliberately deciding to ignore the largest sector in Canadian agriculture. This must be changed.

CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE

Mr Drainville: I want to take this opportunity to inform the House about the very successful constitutional conference we were able to sponsor as a select committee this past week. I would also like to say that it is a measure of the very strong work and commitment that has been made by all members of the House, and particularly by those members who served on the select committee, and if I might even say, by those particularly on the subcommittee. The member for Cochrane South, the member for Ottawa-Rideau, the member for Willowdale and myself worked over a long period of time to ensure that we would have a forum that would be open and would afford the people of Ontario an opportunity to speak directly about the issues that are on their minds and the concerns they have about the future of this province in Confederation.

I would also like to say that in the process we had last week there were many members of this House who were part of it. I want to say how happy I am that they acquitted themselves well and presented their views with a certain judicious approach. Also, I would say that the people who came to that conference were people who although they had passionate views, were able to express them with a spirit of generosity and openness that was a credit to the people of Ontario. It is with great pride that we in this House can say that we have gone a long way to open up the process after Meech Lake and draw the views and concerns of the people of Ontario here into the forum of public domain.

VISITORS

The Speaker: Members are invited to welcome to our chamber this afternoon two members of Parliament from the Republic of Bosnia-Herzegovina, Mr Muhamed Kresevljakovic and Mr Osman Brka. Both gentlemen are seated in the members' gallery west. Welcome.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

PARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE

The Speaker: On Thursday, October 17, the member for St Catharines raised a question of privilege with respect to outside police forces interviewing members of the assembly and requested clarification of a ruling I had made earlier that day on this matter. The member for Etobicoke West also spoke to this matter, as did the Leader of the Opposition and the member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

First, let me say that the parliamentary privileges of members of the assembly were never intended to set members, including the Speaker, above the law. Such privileges were intended to give members and others certain special rights and immunities considered essential for the operation of the assembly. These rights and immunities allow the assembly to meet and carry out its proper constitutional role. They also permit members to discharge their parliamentary responsibilities and permit others properly involved in the parliamentary process to carry out their duties and responsibilities.

The Speaker is the custodian of the powers and privileges of Parliament, but my authority does not extend beyond the legislative precinct with respect to the matters raised by the members last Thursday.

1350

In addition, the Speaker will not give a decision on a hypothetical question. The Speaker will, however, give a decision on specific and actual events that have transpired and have been raised in the House. In respect of the suggestion that I set out guidelines or criteria by which requests by police forces to interview an occupant of the Legislative Assembly precinct will be considered, I must say to members that the Speaker will consider each such request by a police force on a case-by-case basis.

Our precedents, the precedents of other legislatures and the parliamentary authorities are very clear on these points.

Although I understand the very real concerns of the members, for the above reasons I am not in a position to deal with them.

Also on Thursday last -- I am sorry, but the member for Dufferin-Peel is not present in the chamber and I will reserve this part to when he is here.

On Thursday last and again yesterday, a number of members including the government House leader (Mr Cooke) and the members for Durham East (Mr Mills) and Sarnia (Mr Huget) raised points of order with respect to language used during proceedings in the House.

The rules against the use of offensive, disorderly or otherwise unparliamentary expressions are designed to ensure that proceedings are conducted with dignity and decorum and in a temperate and moderate manner. Language used in the course of our proceedings should be worthy of the place in which it is spoken. I remind members that although the responsibility for determining whether words or expressions used in the House are unparliamentary rests with the Speaker, they themselves must bear the primary responsibility for their conduct in the House.

I do not propose to deal any further with the points of order raised by the members, other than to say that I am greatly concerned about the use of certain expressions with reference to Nazi Germany. I regard such expressions as totally inappropriate for this chamber. As a general principle, in the future I will not allow such expressions directed to one side or the other of the House. If such expressions are used in the course of our proceedings, I will intervene and cause a withdrawal to be made.

Mr Bradley: Mr Speaker, on the first ruling you brought to our attention today, while I appreciate very much the fact that you are going to take whatever action you deem appropriate within your role and responsibility to protect members on our side of the House from what we would consider to be harassment or intimidation, to protect members from being interrogated by police forces within the precinct, within your jurisdiction, the concern members have -- I suppose it is more to your stature as Speaker of the House than the legal responsibilities or legal confinements you have that I appeal when I say it -- extends to constituency offices, to the streets of the province and to our homes.

By having representatives of the Ontario Provincial Police interview them, as happened with the member for Halton Centre, about documents that fall into their hands, documents that are provided to them as part of the flow in a democratic process -- it has been that way for a number of years -- our concern is that two things are going to happen.

First of all, members are going to feel harassed by this activity. Members are going to feel intimidated. Others, perhaps not members of the Legislature, in the news media for instance, who come across these documents by certain methods are going to feel harassed and intimidated. Those who are genuinely concerned -- I have heard the Chairman of Management Board speak about this -- about the activities of the government and the problems they might create for the people of this province provide these documents from time to time to people outside the government. I am concerned those people will feel intimidated by the activities.

These activities obviously must be directed by someone, because the police force does not walk down the hallway of the Legislature or anywhere else, uninstructed, to initiate investigations of opposition members. I believe our rights and our responsibility as an opposition are limited very much and are abrogated by this activity on the part of the police force, a police force, as I say, that does not direct itself to do this, but has to be directed. In this case, all evidence points to the fact that someone in the government is directing this, and of course the Premier is responsible for all the government.

The Speaker: The member for St Catharines will appreciate that the definition of "precinct" over which the Speaker has jurisdiction includes this building, the grounds and the first two floors of the Whitney Block. While I fully understand and appreciate the concerns you have raised, the Speaker is not in a position to exercise any authority or control over any buildings or property beyond that which I have just described.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, I can respect the technical nature of your ruling, but there have now been a number of incidents in which the OPP, instigated by somebody, has conducted this clearly harassing activity, and I want to ask you to deal with a new aspect of the matter. If we take the case that was advanced in the House yesterday by the honourable member for Halton Centre, we see this: It was brought to her attention that there was some material available from the Ministry of the Environment, for which she was the official opposition critic at the time. She made that material public in some fashion, and someone, we know not who precisely, instigated the police to conduct an investigation of how it came into her hands.

The police attended on her twice in July, not within the precincts of the Legislature but in her constituency office -- as close to the precincts, it seems to me, as you could possibly get -- and indicated to her that they were conducting an official investigation -- who instigated it they did not say -- but it was possible that criminal charges would be laid against her, the member for Halton Centre. She consequently retained counsel to assist her. None of this is new, because this was disclosed formally by the member for Halton Centre in the House yesterday.

If the backbenchers on the government side have some difficulty in understanding how a police investigation that may lead to criminal charges against the member affects the privileges of that member in responding to government issues, I cannot help them, except by saying that for generations in this House, opposition parties, whether they be Liberal or NDP -- they were Liberal and NDP most of the time -- have raised these questions about our ability to do our work when government material comes into our hands.

You have made the point, Mr Speaker, that in your view at this stage the precincts of the House do not include anything outside this building and two floors of the Whitney Block. I put it to you, with the greatest respect, that a constituency office, which is publicly funded and which I believe is run under the auspices of the Legislative Assembly and for the dissemination of government business, both government and opposition, should be treated, it being in the nature of a non-partisan office, as part of the precincts of Parliament. If it can be said that a police officer could not come in here without your permission and threaten to charge the member for Halton Centre because she received a document from a public servant, can it really be said by this government that the OPP can simply go to someone's constituency office and have precisely the same effect?

Mr Speaker, I will bring this to a close shortly, but this is a critical matter. I understand perfectly the limitations that you say exist on your authority. I ask you to reconsider them, because I believe a constituency office is within the precincts of Parliament.

But even if it is not, is it not time that we have a statement from the leader of the government whose government instigated these investigations, knowing that a threat of police action and criminal charges might be made, and indeed have been made, against the member for Halton Centre?

We need a statement from the leader of the government about whether, now that he has the seals of government squarely in his hands, he is going to tolerate what he simply would not have permitted to happen a year and a half ago. All of us can imagine the bells that would ring and the screams that would go on about the privileges of the House if a police officer had told the member for York South he might be charged criminally if he had possession of a bureaucratic document. If the leader of the government remains silent, what has happened is this government has got into office and is not prepared to honour the parliamentary processes that it used and that played a part in getting it there.

1400

It is hard to think of an issue that is more important to every ordinary member of the House. If an OPP officer, at the instigation of a minister, a Premier or an official of the government, can go to our constituency office, in the presence of our constituents, to conduct an investigation and say, "Charges may be laid against you because of your parliamentary activity," this place shuts down, because the harassment by a government that will permit that in a freedom-loving society is simply becoming intolerable. How can the honourable member for Halton Centre, who has a spouse and family, expect to forestall the operations of the OPP instigated by the ministry officials who threaten her with possible prosecution? This is a serious matter and I hope you will deal with it in that light, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: While the authority of the Speaker with respect to the precinct and the definition of what the precinct is are very clear and unequivocal, at the same time the members should know the Speaker will deal with any point of privilege raised regardless of where the action which is alleged to have occurred has in fact occurred. The Speaker will always be ready to entertain any concerns with respect to points of privilege and will deal with them on a case-by-case basis.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I am not certain in my own mind what I heard you say your authority is with respect to these precincts and whether or not you will develop a policy. I believe you indicated that you were undecided about that. I do not think you should be undecided about that. Constituency offices exist by decisions made by the Board of Internal Economy. They are funded by the Legislative Assembly and, in my opinion, are under the purview of the Legislative Assembly and the Speaker.

To get more to the point, I believe the ultimate issue and principle here is whether or not the ability of an individual member of the Legislative Assembly to perform his or her duties as a member is being affected by the actions taking place. I can recall similar matters being dealt with in this House. I think of a case of a bank literally threatening a member with respect to his amount of loan owing. I seem to recall that the member belonged to the same party that is now in government and I seem to recall the Speaker of the day taking some action and deciding that the member's privileges had been breached.

Here we have, in my opinion and I dare say in the opinion of almost every other member of some objective opinion in this House, a far more serious matter: not a bank threatening to call a loan but a police force possibly being used to intimidate individual members and prevent them from performing their duties to their constituents, as every elected member has the right to do. Surely that is a matter for the Speaker and the government to look into.

The Speaker: The member for Parry Sound may recall that in the instance to which he refers a point of privilege was raised by the member affected. Whenever a point of privilege is raised and specific instances cited, the Speaker will be most pleased to review that to determine whether a prima facie case of privilege is in effect.

Hon Mr Cooke: I share some of the concerns that have been expressed by the opposition parties. I think there is a very substantial difference between the police investigating a leak and the source of a leak and the other question as described and reported by the member for Halton Centre, that the police are saying there is something legally wrong in having a document that has been leaked to the member.

If in your view, Mr Speaker, the rules or the Legislative Assembly Act are not adequate to address some of the concerns that have been expressed by the member, I think the three House leaders should look at this matter and address it through either rule changes or changes to the act, whatever is required. If a leaked document comes to the attention or into the possession of a member, the member should be allowed to use that document but the government should obviously have the right to look into how a leak occurred. That is tradition and has occurred in the past.

I do not believe any police force should be able to go to a member of the assembly and say, "Because you have a document and the document is stolen, you can be charged." I think that is totally incorrect, totally wrong. If we need to change the rules and the Legislative Assembly Act to not allow that to happen again, then we need to do that as the three political parties in the House.

The Speaker: We have dealt with this at some length. The member for St George-St David, the member for Parry Sound and the government House leader each mentioned the precinct. The Speaker's authority is quite clearly defined, as is the term "precinct." Indeed, in a different way, members have raised on occasion some concerns with respect to security as it applies to the constituency offices. If the members of the House wish to alter the definition of "precinct" to include the constituency offices, obviously that is a matter to which the House can address itself. It is not something the Speaker can unilaterally change.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, may I --

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, is this a different matter?

Mr Scott: It essentially is. Your Honour has indicated that because of the definition you give to "precinct" you are not able to inquire, but you have made entirely plain, as I understand you, that if there are concrete cases of privilege to be investigated, you will undertake those investigations on a case-by-case basis. There is such a case. Yesterday in the House the member for Halton Centre said that after she received information --

The Speaker: I am sorry. I do not mean to curtail the member in flight, but perhaps this will be of assistance: If the member for Halton Centre has a point of privilege which she would like to raise with the Speaker, the Speaker would be delighted to hear that point of privilege.

Mr Scott: With the greatest respect, it is not that she has one in futuro. The reality is that she raised it yesterday. On page 3057 of Hansard, she said, "On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker," and then went on to describe the government investigation being undertaken by the OPP. She did not say the event had happened in her constituency office, but I am told it happened there twice.

She went on to say: "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." If there was ever a clear invocation of privilege, it was that.

The Premier, the government leader of the day, brushed it all aside, because he said the harassment was not to be taken seriously. As no one was here to report it, he fled out of the chamber and was scrummed on other matters. The reality is that there cannot be for this member, and for all of us who do the same kind of work she does, a more serious invasion, off the premises, of her privileges as a parliamentarian: the assertion by the police officer that you may be charged in the criminal courts if you have used information in a way that is prohibited.

Now the Minister of the Environment --

The Speaker: No. Would the member for St George-St David take his seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member please take his seat. The member for Halton Centre.

1410

Mrs Sullivan: I raised a question of privilege yesterday. I would like to raise that same question of privilege again. I believe, as I indicated yesterday, that my privileges were breached. In fact they were breached in an even greater way, not only for myself but for other people who are associated with me and my caucus, because not only was I involved in that interrogation but the then Leader of the Opposition, Mr Nixon, now agent general in London, was also interrogated, with the same information given to him, as were members of our staff on the Liberal side of the House. Mr Speaker, this is a clear breach not only of my privileges and Mr Nixon's privileges but of the privileges of every member of this House. I ask you to investigate this.

The Speaker: I would be most pleased to review both yesterday's Hansard and today's and report back to you as soon as possible.

Mr Conway: Could I make another point, Mr Speaker, on another ruling?

The Speaker: Is this on a different matter?

Mr Conway: It is on the ruling on language.

The Speaker: Yes.

Mr Conway: I listened very carefully to what you said you would not approve of in the future. I think you made some reference specifically to the nomenclature of Nazi Germany. I take it therefore that you would not approve of this kind of statement, "Colonel Drew is maintaining in Ontario at this very minute a secret political police, a paid government spy organization, a Gestapo to try to keep himself in power." Those were the words used by the very distinguished leader of the CCF in Ontario in 1945.

The Speaker: The member for Renfrew North will know that while there are many long days, I have not been hear since 1940. Statements by ministers.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It is time for oral questions.

Mr Bradley: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understood there was to be a statement from the Minister of Energy. Our members prepared for that. Is that not the case?

The Speaker: I called for statements by ministers. There was no response. The next order of business is oral questions. The member for York Centre.

Mr Sorbara: It seems that in the absence, day after day, of statements by ministers, the opposition is now making statements and the government is responding, and responding in a rather feeble way.

ORAL QUESTIONS RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Sorbara: My question is to the beleaguered Solicitor General, who probably now deeply regrets his transfer from the quietude of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology to the mess he has found in the Sunday shopping ministry.

If reports are correct, it appears the government is prepared to concede a small concession in the interminable Sunday shopping debate and allow storekeepers the unfettered discretion to stay open on the three Sundays in December if they wish. Although this is a reasonable amendment, it does not make a bad piece of legislation a good piece of legislation. It does not acknowledge that there are others who celebrate their high holidays at other times. It does not acknowledge that some people prefer to celebrate other events in the calendar year. Nevertheless, it is a very small concession.

I want to ask the Solicitor General two things. First, is he prepared to announce now that he is going to proceed with that amendment? Second, how does he justify the notion that we should be able to shop on Sunday with the notion, the major theme in his bill, that in Ontario on Sunday no consumer ought to be able to shop unless he or she is shopping at some place that has been defined as a tourist facility? How does he justify that and what is he trying to get to in this bill?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Actually I am pleased the question came up today. I hope that member in particular and his colleagues in general will acknowledge this amendment, which I propose to forward to the clerk of the standing committee on administration of justice with the appropriate notice to opposition members well in advance of the next meeting on clause-by-clause consideration of Bill 115.

I would also say that I and the government have been ready at that particular committee for some four weeks, and on seven separate occasions have been denied proceeding. Finally my statement was made yesterday and the clause by clause has proceeded.

I encourage the member for York Centre to recall his own quotes and his own words of only a few weeks ago on how important it was for this bill to be dealt with immediately to bring surety to the marketplace, particularly in advance of Christmas. I say to the member, he now has that opportunity. Will he take it?

The second part of the question I believe was, how does this square with the intention to have a common pause day? It squares in this sense: Quite unlike the previous government, which left a situation where people could be open every Sunday, this will see a common pause day achieved for approximately 48 weeks, or 11 months out of 12, and worker protection for 12 months out of 12.

Mr Sorbara: Mr Speaker, I just want to tell you that every time the opposition forces the government to retreat on its positions, the province heaves a collective sigh of relief.

Hon Mr Wildman: So you are in favour of it?

Mr Sorbara: Yes, we are in favour. We are in favour of a lot more.

I want to remind the Solicitor General, who suggests that somehow he has been ready for clause-by-clause consideration of this bill for some time, that it was his members who forced an indefinite postponement of this bill back on September 16 when we and the opposition members had set aside an entire week to consider it. The reason we have not proceeded with it is that the government was in massive retreat, trying to revisit the question all over again, and was not prepared to bring its amendments until today when it finally decided to allow for a very small concession.

Mr Speaker, I just want to let you know that the Premier was quoted on the radio today suggesting that somehow this whole business is the fault of the opposition members. If we have to take credit for this small concession, we will take credit, but I ask the Solicitor General, will he dissociate himself from the comments of the Premier which suggest that our obligation to carefully analyse and scrutinize legislation ought to be characterized as stalling on a piece of legislation? Will the Solicitor General dissociate himself from what the Premier said this morning on the radio?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The simple answer is no, but before we engage in that kind of rhetoric let me simply say this: I invite both opposition benches to join with me to get this legislation passed and bring certainty to the marketplace, which has been desired by everyone on this particular issue. Let's get together. Let's do this together and let's deliver this bill to the benefit of the province.

Mr Sorbara: That is a different song than was being sung a month ago when the government whip on the committee forced closure and forced the bill out of committee.

The Solicitor General is suggesting to the members of this House that somehow it is all okay now, that we can proceed. He has not taken into consideration the fact that through a month and a half of public hearings, we heard over and over again that people want more freedom; that the bill treats unfairly large drugstores which are not going to be able to open and small music stores which for some reason are not going to be open; that the only stores that are going to be open are those that cater to a tourist clientele, and that he has brought forward amendments that allow a store that has permission to stay open to be hassled in front of the Ontario Municipal Board.

Now that the Solicitor General has begun to feel comfortable with making changes to a very bad piece of legislation, will he just carry on and solve the problem of the music stores and the large drugstores and simply give the people of the province the freedom they want to make their own decisions about what they do on Sunday, rather than having their Sunday dictated by what the Premier and the Solicitor General think they should do on Sunday? Will he bring forward some more amendments?

1420

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government has any number of amendments that show a willingness and a large degree of flexibility. This amendment simply adds to that list, although I must say at this juncture that I believe sufficient flexibility has now been achieved. As I said, I would invite members of both opposition benches to join with me in the achievement of a common pause day to the benefit of families, individuals and worker protection, and join with me in showing some certainty to the marketplace on this issue. I invite them both not to do other than join hands with the government and get this job done. I invite them not to be obstructionists, not to deny the retailers of this province and not to deny the families and workers who also seek this protection, and to do it now.

Mr Mancini: My question is to the Solicitor General. Today it appears the government is changing its principles on Sunday shopping one month at a time.

As the minister will know, the city of Windsor has one of the highest unemployment rates in all of Canada. Recognizing this, Windsor city council passed a municipal bylaw that would help local stores compete with stores in Detroit that are allowed to open on Sundays. This move by Windsor city council is an attempt to prevent further business erosion and loss of retail jobs. The NDP Sunday shopping legislation will strike down Windsor council's bylaw and retail stores in Windsor will not be able to compete. As a result, some Windsor retailers will close and many retail workers will lose their jobs.

Can the Solicitor General tell us why border cities like Windsor will not be able to allow shopkeepers to open on Sundays year-round if that is their wish?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government does not believe Sunday shopping or the ability to open on Sunday is the answer and will stem cross-border shopping. Even in the months when Sunday shopping was allowed under the previous government's bill, that did not stop the growing -- and I mean substantially growing -- exodus of Ontarians who were proceeding to the United States to shop. I am sorry that the facts of the circumstance will not support the contention the member raises.

Mr Mancini: The minister has not been listening. It appears he cannot grasp the devastation of this recession, nor is he able to understand the competition retailers face in border cities. Economic indicators point to a dangerous second phase of this recession. Retail sales are down, housing sales are down, car sales are down and many Windsor retailers will be forced to close down, and we get no help from this government.

Some municipalities like Windsor have limited resources at their disposal to fight this deep recession. Windsor has used one of the few tools available to protect retail jobs. If the minister is unable or unwilling to help Windsor, then he should let Windsor help itself. Will the minister allow border communities like Windsor and Essex county to make their own judgements on how to protect retailers and retail jobs?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The government has assisted the city of Windsor. We will continue to assist the city of Windsor. I specifically was joined by Mayor Millson, the mayor of Windsor, and a large number of other mayors of border communities just a few months ago. We came together -- the federal government, the provincial government and the municipal governments to devise programs that would assist border communities in the difficulty of cross-border shopping. We did that in a very unanimous and together way; a very productive situation.

I simply would respond to the member that I do not believe, nor will the facts show, that opening on Sunday will stem the problem of cross-border shopping. Perhaps not from my perspective, but from his, he may take some solace in this amendment that is coming forward. At least in the most competitive period for retailers, he will have achieved benefit by way of this amendment.

Mr Brown: The Minister of Revenue has recognized the importance of the retail sector for economic development. As a result, she is proposing that retail establishments be allowed to open throughout the summer, as well as in the month of December. Belatedly this government seems to be acknowledging the importance of retail sales to economic development.

The minister will be aware that the Liberals have introduced an amendment that would allow municipalities to open on Sundays for economic development reasons, as well as tourism development reasons. This amendment is vital for border communities such as Sault Ste Marie, which are in the process, as all members know, of fighting for their economic lives.

If the minister is unwilling to scrap this legislation in its entirety, will he at least allow communities to develop and use economic development criteria as a reason for opening on Sundays?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am not sure if I have comprehended the question exactly, except to say that I know the government has met specifically and deliberately with border communities for going on to a year and has also involved the federal government to enlist its support for measures that would assist border communities. There has been a meeting of all those agencies, I believe, within the last few months, with the mayors of those specific communities, and there have been provincial funds allocated for programs within those communities to help assist them in the difficulty of cross-border shopping. If recent media reports are accurate, there has in fact been some success in that there has been a cessation of the level of cross-border shopping that had been occurring previously.

Mr Carr: My question is to the Solicitor General as well. In answer to questions by the Liberal Party, I noticed he said: "Let's get together. Let's do it together. I invite the members opposite to join me, to join hands."

The Premier has said on many occasions that we should be constructive on this side of the House in helping. I have in front of me a very simple bill I have had drafted. If I could have a page, I will send it over to the minister. He talked about the time delay in going to the justice committee. This bill to allow stores to open for the Christmas period can be introduced this afternoon. Will he commit today to taking a look at this constructive piece of legislation by the opposition and join hands with me in embracing this legislation and having the stores open? Will the Solicitor General commit today to do that?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I have not had the benefit, except at this very moment, of receiving this suggestion, but let me respond in this way: We have a bill that is not about Sunday shopping; we have a bill that is about the protection of workers; we have a bill that is about the protection of a common pause day for families and individuals. At the same time it contains, with this new amendment, the flexibility for this government to entertain retailers at their most competitive season and members of the public who need some additional time at that particular time of year.

I simply say to the member, if that is what he was in favour of and he is in favour of this amendment, I invite him again to join with me on Monday in clause-by-clause. Let's get it through. I think we can do it in that one afternoon and we would deliver not only what this amendment calls for but all of the benefits of the bill to this House immediately.

1430

Mr Carr: The problem is that Bill 115 is complex and contentious. People on all sides of the issue say it is a bad piece of legislation. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done. We are going to, as the minister said, join together to try to make that piece of legislation better.

The minister has a simple bill. It is very short and it can be separate from Bill 115. It could be passed this afternoon. It would do everything that his amendment would do. Why does the minister not, as he has said before, look at this as constructive help from an opposition party, something that was said in the throne speech by the Premier, that the government will be looking to the opposition for something constructive. Here is something constructive; now is his chance to do it. Will he pass it this afternoon?

Hon Mr Pilkey: After brief reflection on the bill, the answer is no. It seeks to elongate the time frame of the flexibility that we have offered and backdate it to October 27 until the end of the year, and that is not what our amendment says.

I would rather indicate as well, to be quite direct about it, that the government does not have any interest in piecemealing this bill, which will see the passage of Bill 115 sent off into orbit for some undefined point of time in which we will never achieve it. I believe there will be many supporters of the third party who will in fact encourage them to support the amendment that we have introduced to the committee and the bill in its entirety. I would not want to deny the member the opportunity for that pressure.

Mr Carr: As members know, Thanksgiving to Christmas is the period when people start gearing up for Christmas. My children are now picking out their gifts. The mistletoe and the decorations are being put into the plazas and the shopping malls in anticipation of Christmas. If the minister has some problem with the date, we are willing to work together and we are willing to be flexible. If it cannot be done this afternoon, possibly he could change the date. He has a chance to look at it. There are a couple of other small changes, but it could be done as easily as tomorrow.

It is a very simple piece of legislation. Will the minister, as he said to us on this side not more than five minutes ago, join with us in passing this piece of legislation, allowing the stores to be open so that retailers who are reeling from this government's policies will have a chance during the Christmas period to survive at the one period when most of their sales come from? Will he commit to making whatever changes he feels are necessary over the next day or so to get this piece of legislation through?

Hon Mr Pilkey: We have demonstrated by our agreement to such an amendment today to proceed and to get on with it. The members of the opposition now have two simple choices. They can either join with the government to the benefit of this legislation, families, individuals, retailers and others or, quite frankly, they can persist in their filibustering and gamesmanship --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: -- and they can well answer to all those Ontarians, individuals, families and businesses alike, why there is this quagmire of uncertainty in the province at this time.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Today in Hamilton, there are about 9,000 disabled and elderly people who are literally left without any way of leaving their homes. An example of how many people and how many trips this involves is about 400,000 trips per year. These are given by DARTS, the Disabled and Aged Regional Transit System, and that system today has been hit by a strike. For the sake of these thousands of people, will the minister tell this House what action he is planning to help them?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The member opposite is totally correct in her information and certainly we are very concerned. We are talking about a service which is most important to the less fortunate, and if I could, with respect, I remind all of us that we are on one waiting list or another, so it escapes no one.

Arrangements have been made for the disabled. They have been made through the hospitals, they have been made through the taxi companies. We do believe it is a dilemma, it is an impasse, but the collective bargaining process must be given a reasonable chance to win.

This is the second day of a legal work stoppage in Hamilton. The responsibility is with the municipality of Hamilton, the regional body of Hamilton-Wentworth, and the employees that are united through the collective bargaining process and represented by their bargaining agents.

We are monitoring the situation. We are doing the best we can to find alternatives, and hopefully collective bargaining will be given a chance to win and the subject matter will be addressed in a relatively short few days.

Mrs Marland: I know this particular minister is particularly eloquent, but I wish he would be less patronizing to these people.

Susan Hudson is a DARTS user and she has told the Hamilton Spectator that with this strike she has no way of getting to her job at Amity Goodwill Industries. Hers is just one of thousands of desperate stories written by the strike.

I understand this government's hesitation to offend organized labour, but we are talking about people who cannot get to their doctors, to their workplaces, to their schools, or shopping for food. This minister thinks that he has made accommodation for wheelchairs and taxis. I will tell him now that there are only two taxis in Hamilton that can take wheelchairs, so I do not know where he is getting his information.

What is it that the minister plans to do to offer to help these people? Should this service not be declared an essential service? What is it that he has against the disabled so he will not take a position right away today to help these people?

Hon Mr Pouliot: I certainly have no intention and I hope my tone did not convey any sense of being patronizing, but I must say I do not deserve these comments. This is unwarranted. Let us stick with the issue. The question perhaps would have been best directed to the ministry responsible.

If the member refers to an essential service, that is filled with validity indeed. I am the minister responsible for transportation. In my jurisdictional capacity, my mandate says, yes, people who have to attend a hospital will be accommodated, people who have to attend a clinic will be accommodated. Unfortunately, in terms of recreation, in terms of social visitation, people will not be able to do these because the situation called for a legal work stoppage. This is the situation. We are in the second day.

Let us stick with the issue collectively, as opposed to trying to embarrass, with the highest of respect. Those are the people who are being afflicted. We are doing all we can and we do recognize the value of this most important service.

Mrs Marland: Let us stick to the issue, I agree. Let us stick to this issue, and the issue is disabled people who cannot get to work, who cannot shop for food and their own supplies.

This same organization was on strike in 1989, and at the same time in 1988, Wheel-Trans was on strike in Toronto. On both those occasions I suggested to the government of the day that this service should be declared an essential service.

I simply say to this minister that I am not talking about recreation and socialization. There was no reference to that in my first question to him, and I do not appreciate his suggesting that is what the disabled community of Hamilton-Wentworth are concerned about. They are concerned about survival in their work. If they do not get to work, they do not get paid.

The Speaker: And your question.

Mrs Marland: During the recent Toronto transit strike this government refused to introduce legislation that would have declared the TTC an essential service. As a result, this city was thrown into chaos for eight days. How long is this government prepared to lock the disabled people in Hamilton in their homes in order to keep its NDP union friends happy?

Hon Mr Pouliot: We have nothing but friends on this side of the House, but in a democracy there is nothing stopping us from appreciating some friendships more than others.

The workers involved in the work dispute, 33 full-time employees -- let's set the record straight; many of them are disabled -- have been without a contract since July 31, 1991. They are not asking for more money. The issue here is job guarantees. It is the second day of a legal work stoppage. We are doing all we can to make sure that emergency services are being provided by professional people. We are also at the same time encouraging both parties to reach a settlement as soon as possible.

1440

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Bradley: If I could get his attention, I have a question for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Premier attempted to distance himself from the OPP investigation of members of the opposition. The Solicitor General is responsible for police forces in this province, including the OPP. I ask him now to tell the House that which the Premier would not reveal to members of this House yesterday: Who ordered the OPP to investigate and interrogate members of the official opposition, staff of the Ontario Liberal caucus, the former Leader of the Opposition, Robert Nixon, and a Toronto Star columnist on documents which were leaked from the government to those of us in opposition and those who serve the public interest?

Hon Mr Pilkey: In the sense that the question was characterized, I believe the appropriate answer would be no one.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Has the Solicitor General completed his response?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Yes, Mr Speaker.

Mr Bradley: That is an incredible answer from the Solicitor General of Ontario, who is obviously playing games with members of this House by evading the question in that way.

I think members of the opposition and independent observers of this issue would come to the conclusion that someone in the government of Ontario has ordered the provincial police to investigate the opposition and others who have received these leaked documents. I ask the Solicitor General now, what is he prepared to do to end this intimidation and harassment of members of the opposition and their staff who receive leaked information from his government, information of interest to the public we serve and information that is essential to carrying out our role and responsibility as members of the opposition in a democratic society?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am quite willing to respond to the questions of any members of the House. My response was not meant to be one of avoiding it, but the question was asked in a way, I think, that was out of context and not valid.

Perhaps I could answer it in this way: If there is an allegation to the OPP that a crime has been committed, it is under an obligation to investigate that circumstance. It is my understanding that the Deputy Treasurer alleged that a criminal breach of trust had occurred, and the OPP quite naturally then proceeded to investigate the matter. I am not aware that anyone in the government directed operationally how the OPP would conduct its investigation.

Mr Runciman: I have a question on the same subject and respectfully suggest -- I may have to withdraw this -- that the Solicitor General may inadvertently be misleading the House in the response he just made. I will give him the benefit of the doubt. I will withdraw that, Mr Speaker, because you are going to compel me to and that is the only reason.

I spoke earlier today to an inspector in the anti-racket squad of the OPP with respect to this matter, and he indicated quite clearly to me that there was considerable internal debate within the anti-racket squad based on the government request. I think it is clear in the Hansard of October 16 that the Treasurer responded, "We have asked them to examine the process." That is the Treasurer's response to a question posed to him, I guess in follow-up to what the Solicitor General said, "Where there is a crime committed or the suspicion of a crime committed, the OPP goes in." We have the Treasurer saying, "We asked them to examine the process." There seems to a be a very clear conflict here, and I ask the top law enforcement officer in the province why he endorsed such an investigation.

Mr Scott: It's a big laugh.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: No, it certainly is not a big laugh at all. I can only answer as honestly and openly as I can. To the best of my knowledge, there was a breach. The OPP was asked to investigate it. They have done so.

Mr Scott: Larry, Curly and Moe. You people are on the edge of a very nervous moment. Think about it.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. We have waited long enough. We are all ready to go.

Hon Mr Pilkey: The member opposite says we are on the edge of some kind of problem or difficulty. I do not exhibit any nervousness because quite frankly there is nothing for the government to be nervous about. The OPP has an obligation to investigate when it is requested to do so. This is the basis of an ongoing investigation. I certainly have not directed them in any way as to whom or where they should investigate. That is an operational matter under their purview, not mine. While the matter is under investigation, I do not really think it would be appropriate for me to comment.

Mr Scott: Who started the investigation?

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

Hon Mr Pilkey: I can honestly tell the member I do not have that information in any event.

Mr Runciman: I think this response and the previous response can be categorized as rather frightening. I think the minister is being completely honest and apparently he does not know what happened in this instance. We are talking about the OPP going beyond its mandate. He clearly spelled it out here: "crime or suspicion of crime." The previous day we had the Treasurer saying, "We want to have the process reviewed." There was considerable debate within the OPP. They looked at the situation in Ottawa with respect to budget leaks and the political fallout with respect to that whole matter falling upon the RCMP. There is very grave concern.

I asked the Solicitor General today why he endorsed this since it clearly goes beyond the mandate of the OPP anti-racket squad, and he does not have any answer. Apparently he does not know how it proceeded. I ask the minister whether he would be prepared today to endorse an investigation by a standing committee of this House. I think it is important enough to be carried out.

1450

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Ontario Provincial Police does not seek my endorsement of investigations it does. Investigations are conducted upon request when a criminal breach of trust is alleged. All regular investigative precautions are adhered to during these investigations, and any investigations entered into by the OPP are done by it in an operational mode. No names and no comments are issued while the matter is under investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister take his seat, please. I am finding it quite difficult to hear the response. We will wait until the member for St George-St David has come to order.

Mr Scott: Wait till the Premier comes. They won't let him in.

The Speaker: I am asking the member for St George-St David to come to order, please.

Mr Scott: Forgive me, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Will the minister conclude his response. New question, the member for London South.

MIDWIFERY

Mr Winninger: My question is addressed to the Minister of Health. On October 15 the minister announced that Ontario would be the first province to introduce a bachelor's degree in midwifery. I understand the first classes in the three-year program are slated to begin in 1993 after a curriculum is developed with the help of doctors, nurses and midwives. This program will serve to meet the demand for qualified midwives in Ontario once Bill 56 is passed to regulate midwifery and to set up a self-governing college.

Will the establishment of a regulated profession mean that traditional native midwives will have to adhere to the standards and rules set by the college of midwives in order to revitalize traditional midwifery practices?

Hon Ms Lankin: The question the member raises is of concern as well to the standing committee that is currently going through clause-by-clause analysis of this legislation. During this summer the ministry met with a group of aboriginal representatives to consult on this very issue and we have taken a look at their concerns that the legislation could somehow inhibit the practice of traditional midwifery.

The regulation of midwifery is also related to the education program the member speaks of. We funded the aboriginal groups to do some further consultation on this and they have given us their responses. I am meeting with them next week to discuss some of the concerns they have and hope to report that back to the legislative committee before the end of clause-by-clause. It would be our intent that the legislation and the education program be respectful of the practice of traditional midwifery.

Mr Winninger: For those aboriginal people who choose the proposed education route, will the educational program be accessible to aboriginal people, and will it incorporate traditional practices of prenatal, childbirth and post-natal family care in its curriculum?

Hon Ms Lankin: The responsibility for the actual education programs will come under the purview of my colleague the Minister of Colleges and Universities, but we have had discussions about this.

The curriculum committee of the interim regulatory council on midwifery has met with representatives of the native communities, and one of the things we are trying to do, as the minister has gone out for tender for the establishment of a four-year degree program in a university, is to ensure that the program has some flexibility around long-distance learning around various clinical sites so that we have as much flexibility and access as possible.

I also think the issue of incorporation of some of the traditional practices of our aboriginal people in the education program is something that should be looked at, and we will take that under advisement with the people who will be doing the curriculum development.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Solicitor General, once again, on the subject of intimidation of members of the opposition who have received leaked documents from the government. I see he has had some advice and counsel from the government House leader and from other members who perhaps are informing him on a better way of answering the question.

When I asked the minister who had ordered the investigation of members of the opposition and others who have received leaked documents that it is in the public interest to have exposed for the people of Ontario, he decided he would interpret that question in such a way as to say no one. Then, in answer to the member for Leeds-Grenville, the minister seemed to indicate someone requested that there be an investigation. When the Solicitor General or someone in the government requests, that is an order in terms of dealing with the police in Ontario.

I ask the member again: Who in the government requested, as he would say -- ordered, as I would interpret it -- an investigation of members of the opposition, including the Leader of the Opposition, present day; the Leader of the Opposition who is now in Britain; the member for Halton Centre; members of the Liberal staff, and the Toronto Star reporter, John Power? Who ordered those investigations or, as he says, who requested those investrigations?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I am trying to respond very openly to this issue, but I think these questions are being framed in a way to elicit something other than that. Let me explain that. Initially the member asked me who initiated or requested an investigation. He started to name members of Parliament and other people and I answered him, nobody, and I am answering him again, nobody. The issue is that a government document was stolen and that the OPP was asked to investigate.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the minister take his seat.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

The Speaker: No. Just a moment. Would the member take her seat, please. When order has been restored I will entertain any alleged points of order. It is very difficult to hear a response when the volume is turned up so high. Perhaps folks would just calm down a little bit and allow the Speaker to hear whatever responses are being presented.

Has the Solicitor General concluded his remarks?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Only to conclude in this way to the response I had given earlier, that the OPP will decide whom to interview, not the cabinet minister, and that is the plain truth of the matter.

Mr Bradley: I am looking at a column from a Toronto Star writer, Mr Power, who said about the Ministry of Natural Resources:

"After asking questions about Queen's Park and getting evasive answers or no comment, this writer was contacted by a senior ministry official and asked to spill the beans on the informant. Next came a call from a member of the OPP anti-racket squad with the same demands. He stated the police had been called by the ministry to look for the leak within the ministry."

We have a leak in the Ministry of Natural Resources and somebody asking somebody to start an investigation, we have one in Treasury and we have one in Environment. We have three different ministries. I have a very simply question for the Solicitor General. Who in each of these cases authorized an investigation? Who initiated an investigation? Who requested an investigation of members of the opposition, of members of the Liberal staff and of a reporter for the Toronto Star?

1500

Hon Mr Pilkey: Just on a point of privilege, first of all: Apparently in my earlier comments I used the term "stolen," which may or may not have been appropriate. I am advised a more appropriate word would have been "leaked," so I make that clarification.

I repeat now -- I have repeated it three times and I guess I can repeat it 33 times -- I am not aware of anybody who authorized the investigation of any opposition member.

Mr Runciman: Following up on the Solicitor General's initial response to my question, when I suggested he was misleading the House, which I apologized for --

Hon Ms Gigantes: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the members of the House to come to order. Every member of this House has the right to rise in his or her place to raise a point of order with the Speaker, and the Speaker shall hear that point of order.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, this is the second time this afternoon the member for Leeds-Grenville has used a term which he knows to be unparliamentary and has done it in a way which is thumbing his nose at your authority to keep order in this House and at the rules of this House. I suggest you warn him that he shall not be allowed to do it again.

The Speaker: I listened very closely to the member for Leeds-Grenville. The member in fact withdrew the comment he had uttered earlier, which indeed was unparliamentary. I imagine that all members are quite aware of the fact that they should not be accusing others of misleading the House.

Mr Runciman: My concern, and the reason I raised the comment that offends the member, was the fact that the minister stood in his place and indicated, or at least implied, that this investigation could well have been initiated by the OPP. I spoke to members of the anti-rackets squad, who clearly indicated an internal debate based on a political request. With the comments made by the Treasurer earlier, there is a very significant contradiction here. The Solicitor General stood in this House today and implied, if not stated clearly -- we will have to check Hansard -- that this investigation could have been initiated by the OPP. That kind of comment comes from the top law enforcement officer in the province, and I would like him, right now, to explain those remarks.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I believe those were not the remarks I made, and I believe Hansard will so show.

Mr Runciman: To follow up on my original question, which the minister continues to evade, I have to give him the benefit of the doubt that he simply does not know what is going on with respect to this matter.

We asked him how this matter was endorsed, when it clearly goes beyond the mandate of the OPP anti-rackets squad, which he himself spelled out in response to the member for St Catharines: There has to be the possibility of a crime or a suspicion of crime. In this case we have the Treasurer, the minister's colleague in cabinet, saying they simply wanted to look at the process. That is a very clear contradiction. Will the minister get up and explain that to the House today?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I cannot explain what the Treasurer advised the member. I can only advise the member that if the OPP is requested to undertake an investigation of a leak, it will undertake to do so and it alone will determine whom it questions in that investigation.

PLANNING APPROVAL

Mr Johnson: My question is for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Two years ago Geertsma Construction built a 12-unit condominium in a site-plan-controlled area in the township of Thurlow. In 1990 the township of Thurlow supported this construction company's application for an exemption from the Planning Act because the municipal bylaw already sets the ground rules for construction of this project.

Geertsma has been led to believe that all relevant documents have been filed for the ministry to approve this project. To date, they have not received approval. This poses a problem because the condominium cannot be registered without approval. Therefore, although the purchasers of the units can occupy their units in the building, they cannot take formal possession.

I understand that this process is required under the Condominium Act. However, this means owners are paying rent and not their mortgages, so in effect they are losing potential equity. To date, the condominium is still without approval, and there has not been any new information from the plans administration branch. Why has Geertsma Construction had to wait a year in what was believed to be a simple matter of administration?

Hon Mr Cooke: I have spoken to ministry officials about this application and I have been advised that the final plans for the condominium have been returned to the applicant's Ontario land surveyor for some corrections of technical errors. As soon as we have had the plan returned to the ministry and it has been reviewed, we will approve the application and the exemption.

In terms of the time it takes to get through the planning process in Ontario, I share some of the concerns of the member. That is why the Ministry of Municipal Affairs is looking right now at what changes can be made in the approvals process within our government, within our own ministry and with other ministries in the short term. That is also why we have set up the planning inquiry led by John Sewell to look at the planning process in this province, so we can make it more efficient while at the same time providing good planning that respects the environment and the needs of our community.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Solicitor General. In his answers this afternoon, evasive as I interpret them to be, the Solicitor General has nevertheless indicated that the OPP was requested to initiate an investigation; it did not initiate it on its own volition.

What I want to know from the member is, who alerted the OPP to this leak and who suggested to the OPP that there should be an investigation of the leak of this government document -- of any of these government documents but particularly the government documents related to those leaked to the opposition? Was it a minister? Was it a deputy minister? Was it someone on the staff of a ministry? Was it someone from the office of the Premier? Who put forward the request to the OPP to initiate an investigation?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I think that is a more valid question. We finally have it straight on now, and it does not allege someone directing investigations against members of this House. I think they finally have it straight.

As I indicated in my remarks earlier, the Ontario Provincial Police do not come to me every time they start an investigation.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Pilkey: If I might be permitted, Mr Speaker, as I indicated, the Ontario Provincial Police does not come to me, as minister, to tell me every time it launches an investigation. If they did, I would be very busy indeed.

From the debate I heard in the House -- I believe it started last week -- it was my belief that there was a response from the front benches that in terms of the Treasury leak it was a request from the Deputy Treasurer. That was my impression, what I thought I heard or understood over the din of this House last week.

I will attempt to confirm for the member that this was the information given by the Treasurer to the House and clarify that for him. That is a straightforward answer to the question.

Mrs Sullivan: My question is a supplementary, once again to the Solicitor General. Members may recall that the document we are discussing, about which an interrogation of myself and others occurred, was brought to this House.

I can assure members that the OPP does not sit in anxiety watching the proceedings of the Legislature on television so it can instigate an investigation from those circumstances. I am asking the minister: In the instance in which I brought material which came into my hands directly to the floor of this Legislature, who instigated, who ordered, who requested that the OPP investigate my holding of that document?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Given that we have several varied circumstances, all around a similar circumstance -- as I indicated before, I am not aware of all the investigations the OPP commences -- I would be very pleased to seek the answer the member requests and to provide that to her just as soon as possible.

1510

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I too have a simple question for the Solicitor General. This province and indeed this country are founded on our traditions as a constitutional monarchy and, as such, many members of this assembly will be meeting with two members of the royal family tomorrow as they visit our province.

In honour of the royal visit to Ontario, would the Solicitor General undertake a gesture of goodwill and immediately restore the reference to Her Majesty the Queen in the oath taken by Ontario's police officers?

Hon Mr Pilkey: I would undertake to review that with the police services boards of Ontario, the Ontario Association of Chiefs of Police and the Police Association of Ontario, all of which joined the government in the consideration of the review of the Police Act that came to that determination, but I do not believe I could do that before the royal visit later today.

Mr J. Wilson: The week after they agreed with the government, they passed a resolution disagreeing with the government's decision when they finally had an opportunity to consult with their membership.

On April 17, as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, I raised this issue as a point of parliamentary privilege in this House. I have continued to press this government to restore this unifying symbol of our heritage because I feel so strongly about our ties to the monarchy.

I am very proud to have the royal family visiting our province. I ask the Solicitor General again: Will he demonstrate his pride as a Canadian? Will he demonstrate his commitment to the royal family and to our royal traditions? Will he allow the men and women of Ontario police forces to swear allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen, the Queen of Canada?

Hon Mr Pilkey: The Ontario government is just thrilled to have the royal couple here in Ontario and in the communities, many of them smaller communities, throughout our province. I believe the people of Ontario will be absolutely captivated by this royal couple, as people all around the world have been.

My only regret as Solicitor General is that I will not be involved in the ceremony with respect to that visit. Notwithstanding that, I want to tell members that I have the greatest respect for the royalty and for the couple, and I know the Premier, who is going to be with them for most of the trip, will represent us perhaps better than anyone else in this province could.

[Applause]

The Speaker: Does the member for St George-St David have a point of order?

Mr Scott: I have a question. I have been waiting here while the applause has been going on. The applause cannot be used to run out the clock. Everybody knows that. I understand the government does not want us to have another question, but it cannot run out the clock by applause to prevent an important question being asked. I ask for a ruling on that.

The Speaker: In fact, the member will recall that the time had expired on the clock prior to there being any applause. I am sure the member for Scarborough East, who was waiting patiently to ask his question, appreciates your kind gesture on his behalf.

DECORUM IN CHAMBER

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: All through this afternoon the member for Etobicoke West has displayed a sign, "Call the police." I do not think that is parliamentary in this chamber. I do not think one is allowed to hold that up in here. I think this is disgraceful.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: If your rights as a parliamentarian were being abused, wouldn't you call the police?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I ask members of the House to come to order, please.

To the member for Durham East, the question about signs in the chamber has been raised on occasion both during this Parliament and previous parliaments. There is no standing order with respect to signs in the chamber. Speakers, both this current Speaker and past speakers, have discouraged the use of signs in the chamber. Notwithstanding that discouragement, from time to time signs do magically appear.

If a rule change is sought, the members will have to approach the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly with their request to have something put into the standing orders, but without anything specifically in the standing orders, it makes it very awkward for the Speaker to make such a ruling as you have just requested.

Hon Ms Gigantes: On the same point, Mr Speaker: I understand what you are saying about the question of displaying signs. Over the last five years, during most of which I was not here, there has been a tradition develop where signs were permitted. However, I would like to draw to your attention that the standing orders do talk about a demonstration that threatens to disturb the order of the House. I suggest to you that we are nearing the point of that kind of situation with a member who will hold a fluorescent sign any time he feels like doing so. It is most disturbing to the affairs of the House and I suggest you take that under advisement.

Mr Conway: I can scarcely believe my ears in this connection. I happen to agree, quite frankly, with the member for Durham East on the subject of signage. I think the tradition of paraphernalia into which we have fallen here in the last few years is quite unbecoming. I have said that before and I would support any move to clean it up.

However, I have to say to my dear friend the member for Ottawa Centre that no group of individuals in the history of the Ontario Legislature has been more flagrantly in violation of that dictum than the NDP. I do not know who it was, but just the other day I saw someone over there holding up a sign with something on it.

I remember among the several cases a famous night or series of nights in this assembly 18 or 24 months ago, when the very colourful member for Welland-Thorold stood in his place up in that corner, near to where the member for Kenora is now situate, and advertised phone numbers and a variety of other things with signs.

I just want to say that I cannot believe my ears when I now hear the government House leader and the Minister of Housing, to name but two, inviting honourable members of the Liberal and Conservative parties to a parliamentary decorum that they systematically ignored and refused to submit to over many years, in my experience.

The Speaker: I have already made a ruling on this alleged point of order. If there is something new to be added, okay. Otherwise, I am not entertaining further discussion.

1520

Mrs Caplan: To the point of order, Mr Speaker: I want to point out to you, because I know this is something that concerns you, that the point just spoken to by the member for Renfrew North is a real concern to my constituents in the riding of Oriole. Just these last few months I have had several constituents mention to me the concern they have about decorum in this House.

We have discussed the fact that over quite a period of time it was the practice of the new government to behave in a way that is less than what would be expected in this House. They told me they were very concerned. They used the word "hypocrisy." They felt the government was behaving in a very hypocritical way, and today's display I know will only increase the cynicism. I would ask the Speaker in his ruling to consider how cynical it is making constituents to hear --

The Speaker: Would the member for Oriole take her seat, please.

Hon Ms Lankin: On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: In terms of trying to add something new to the debate, I would say that there are a lot of people who have spoken who have very long institutional histories in this place and institutional memories that give light to past procedure, past practices and past behaviours, all of which, as a new member to this House, I listen to and I think are something the voters of this province would like to see changed. As a new member elected to this House, I would like to be part of making a new decorum and I invite all members to look at it in that respect and not with respect to the institutional history that has existed.

The Speaker: To the member for Etobicoke West, is this something new?

Mr Stockwell: It is new and improved. On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: May I suggest in my defence I do not --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I cannot believe that the two members opposite show such grave concerns about holding up a sign, yet have no concerns about sending the police into opposition party offices. It seems to me a very large contradiction. Rather than worrying about signs, maybe the members should worry about where the police are going, who they are investigating and who is introducing this --

The Speaker: Would the member for Etobicoke West please take his seat. To the member for Ottawa Centre who raised the point originally with me, and to the member for Renfrew North who I know has always respected the dignity of the chamber, this Speaker, like past speakers, discourages the use of signage within this chamber, but the standing orders do not give the Speaker the ability to make a ruling on a sign such as we saw this afternoon. Members may wish to take this matter to the standing committee on the Legislative Assembly for further discussion.

MOTIONS COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Mr Cooke moved that the standing committee on resources development shall meet to consider Bill 118, An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act, during the winter adjournment in accordance with the schedule of meeting dates to be agreed to by the three party whips and to be tabled with the Clerk of the assembly at a later date as follows: one week to receive public submissions at meetings in Toronto, two weeks to receive public submissions at meetings outside of Toronto and one week for clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.

All proposed amendments shall be filed with the clerk of the committee prior to the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause. At 4 pm on the last day on which the committee is authorized to consider the bill clause by clause, those amendments which have not yet been moved shall be deemed to have been moved and the Chair of the committee shall interrupt the proceedings and shall without further amendment or debate put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining sections of the bill and any amendments thereto. Any divisions required shall be deferred until all remaining questions have been put, the members called in once and all deferred divisions taken in succession.

The committee shall report the bill to the House on the first day of the spring meeting period. In the event that the committee fails to report the said bill on the date provided, the bill shall be deemed to be reported to and received by the House.

The Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Conway: Is that a motion that can be spoken to?

The Speaker: Yes, it is indeed.

Mr Conway: I would just say a few words. There has been, as members will know, a great deal of interest in this House and an even greater degree of interest outside this House in the government's Ontario Hydro policy. Bill 118, which was brought to our attention by the member for Peterborough, the former Minister of Energy, was, I believe, introduced back on June 5, 1991. It has been, as I say, the subject of an intense debate in some quarters here. I must say at the outset that I appreciate the agreement that has been worked out among the House leaders to have this bill go forward to hearings outside of the legislative sitting period this fall.

It was quite surprising to me that there was some thought -- quite an active thought, apparently -- that this bill, very significant and highly controversial, would be dealt with in the fall sitting of this Legislature. The expectation was, in some quarters, that it would be passed into law by Christmas 1991.

I am pleased we have an agreement that will take this bill into the hinterland during the winter. I know my constituents are going to be very keen to have an opportunity to speak to the standing committee on resources development. I have to believe that there are a lot of other people in northern and southwestern Ontario, among other parts of the province, where that interest is going to be similarly high.

I do not remember, although I could stand corrected, too many, if any, references quite like the one we have just had. It is quite clear why we have this motion. The government, at the direction of the chairman of Ontario Hydro, wants this bill as quickly as it can get this bill.

One of the things about Bill 118 that I really find fascinating is the marvellous retroactivity that is built into those sections of the bill that deal with the empowerment of Marc Eliesen. I have said before that I find it deeply offensive that not just one but two ministers of Energy, on behalf of this government, were sent into this Legislature to present facts in support of this bill and the policy that underlies it which were manifestly inaccurate. I do not hold either the member for Peterborough or the member for Kitchener accountable for that. Quite frankly, I absolve them of responsibility because I know who the architect of that disinformation was.

The member for St Catharines-Brock nods her head negatively. That is her right. But I just want to say that I know the chairman of Ontario Hydro wants this bill. He wants it yesterday because this is the bill that empowers him in a way that I think is not in the public interest. I repeat that I have no difficulty whatsoever with this government choosing Marc Eliesen to be the chairman of Ontario Hydro. I think that is a perfectly understandable and appropriate thing for the Bob Rae government to do. That is not my quarrel with either this bill or with Mr Eliesen, because I believe that he does have a certain talent that will serve him and the government in some respects rather well.

1530

I repeat that what I have seen in Bill 118, and particularly the unfortunate circumstance in which two ministers of Energy have been put to defend something that was simply not true, to see the retreat that the member for Kitchener had to offer by way of a curtailment of the directive power, just invites me and my colleagues, not just on this side but private members on the other side, to look very carefully at this bill and the policy that informs it.

I am delighted, I say again, that we are going to have an opportunity over several weeks in the winter break to look at the bill clause by clause and, more important, to hear from farmers and others in the community about how they feel the government is proceeding with Hydro and energy policy.

I just want to say again that I observe the language of the motion, and the very careful language, as being in a real sense a time allocation motion with respect to the clause-by-clause. The government has that right. I myself have invoked it on one or two occasions.

But I want to say, as I look forward to joining this committee for its travels around the province, as I look forward to having Mr Eliesen before the committee, that Mr Eliesen came to the appointments review committee in, I think it was, May. He denied, for example, ever asking anyone on the board of Ontario Hydro to be appointed chief executive officer. We have, I might add, a letter signed by a number of very distinguished citizens who serve on that board, which letter states that he said so to them.

So we have a very difficult situation, with the current chairman denying he ever asked anyone at the board to be appointed by it as the chief executive officer -- he denied it flatly -- and now there is a letter in the public record which states quite clearly that there were members of the board who heard him ask for that very thing. I am looking forward to having Mr Eliesen and some of those people come to the committee to find out who is telling the truth.

We have had a debate in this House around what kind of employment contract Mr Eliesen has arranged with the government or the board. I have got to tell members that the answers provided to me to this date are wholly unsatisfactory.

I repeat that I have no difficulty with Mr Eliesen being the chairman. I think it is not a surprising thing that he should be appointed chairman. But I do have a problem with his being appointed chairman and chief executive officer, particularly under the circumstances of his appointment.

There has been a lot of debate in this assembly about conflict of interest. I think what we have seen with the writing of Bill 118, and I have said it before and I will repeat it now, is that one person wrote that bill and that person was the then Deputy Minister of Energy, the now chairman and chief executive officer of Ontario Hydro. In my years in this assembly, I have never seen a situation which I considered to be more classically a complete and total conflict of interest than Bill 118 where it relates to Mr Eliesen.

We have had some debates around here, and I was not here the day that the member for Sudbury East and the member for Scarborough West were grilled about whether or not they were in breach of conflict rules, but there has not been a word to date about Mr Eliesen's conflict in the writing of that bill and being therefore, as a result of its passage, the single most noteworthy beneficiary of its enactment. I am certainly looking forward in the course of these hearings to have a discussion about that as well.

We have had some discussions in this House around the employment contract and we have not had very satisfactory answers, to my way of thinking. There is absolutely no question in my mind that the government has a right to determine its own Hydro policy. I have said that before and I believe it. I may not agree with it. Chances are that in some respects I am not going to agree with it, but I respect them for their decision to move forward in a way to put their stamp on Ontario Hydro.

What I will not accept, however, is to be told on the one hand that a hallmark of that policy is going to be accountability and openness and to be told day after day after painful day that: "I, Mr Premier, leader of the executive council, never discussed the terms and conditions of Mr Eliesen's employment. I don't know whether he's going to be paid $400,000. I don't know whether those press reports that he's going to get a 75% pension entitlement after six years" -- which would be an entitlement of hundreds of thousands of dollars a year for the rest of his life -- "are accurate. I don't know whether it's true that the Hydro board has already put tens of thousands of dollars into Mr Eliesen's pension."

There are many issues about which this Legislature should be seized in so far as Bill 118 is concerned, and I want to say I look forward to these hearings and I want to serve notice now that I, speaking only as the member for North Renfrew, will participate in those hearings, I look forward to an active discussion around the committee stage and I want there to be no confusion some months hence that when that bill is reported back for the committee of the whole stage and third reading, I will expect those of us who have had an opportunity to monitor and to pursue this most central of government policies will certainly want to take some time to talk about what we heard in the committee, what people have told us about the Hydro policy of this government and its impact on real people in the community.

I can only say that I wanted to take some time this afternoon to put myself on record as to what we are dealing with here as Bill 118 proceeds on its way through the committee stage and later to committee of the whole and third reading.

Motion agreed to.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mr Runciman from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 16th report.

The Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 104(g)11, the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

RETAIL BUSINESS HOLIDAYS AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES JOURS FÉRIÉS DANS LE COMMERCE DE DÉTAIL

Mr Carr moved first reading of Bill 142, An Act to amend the Retail Business Holidays Act, 1991.

M.Carr propose la première lecture du projet de loi 142, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les jours fériés dans le commerce de détail.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

Mr Carr: This is the bill that was talked about in question period. The bill would permit retail business establishments to be open on Sunday from October 27, 1991, until the end of the year. This is at the request of the Solicitor General, who asked that we join hands with some constructive bills, so that is what this bill will be doing.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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.

Suite 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 Bradley: I enjoyed the opportunity yesterday to indicate why I was opposed to this particular bill. I was afraid at some of the uses this money might be put to, and today I am even more fearful, after the question period, that the funds that would be derived from the tobacco tax would in fact be used by the government to fund investigations of members of the opposition. That is always a concern we are going to have, that when the government derives some funds, when the government does some taxation in this province, it can be used for various purposes.

We look at a tobacco tax and its total impact on the economy. I think a number of the members who have discussed this particular bill have talked about the fact that it is very difficult to oppose a tax of this in normal times because it is considered to be a product which is detrimental to the health of people, and certainly anybody who views the evidence that has been put forward by members of the medical profession over the years would agree that tobacco has certainly not been beneficial to the health of those people, so normally one would say it is a reasonable tax. In fact, some governments might choose to even withdraw that particular product or others to tax it out of existence. That is one particular way of dealing with it in terms of its health effects. This government has decided to put another tax on it this time.

I am suggesting that there are some people in our society -- I talked to a person, for instance, in my own constituency who is confronted with schizophrenia. I was quite surprised by this. If you are not exposed to it directly or you do not know people who are in that predicament, you would not know, but this person indicated that the only time he seemed to be avoiding his problem and some of the implications of this particular condition was when he had cigarettes. He lamented the fact; in fact in his particular case he said: "I know they cause me problems because of things such as lung cancer or heart disease or things of that nature, but in my everyday existence I believe I require cigarettes. It's the only time I can keep myself stable."

I was quite surprised by this, and it places me in a dilemma. I suppose one way of dealing with it is an exemption from this particular tax, but it is an interesting wrinkle on the whole idea of taxing tobacco products.

A second group I am concerned about that is hit by this are people who are very senior in their years, senior citizens who, no matter what you do, you are not going to convince them not to smoke. Those people, most of them at least, live on fixed incomes. When they are confronted with the federal tax which Mr Wilson put on in his last budget, and then a provincial tax in the Treasurer's budget, the member for Nickel Belt's budget, these people feel it is a great imposition on them financially, yet many are addicted to it or at least feel it is one of the enjoyments they have in their life in advanced age. I do not smoke and I do not know whether that is a legitimate health case or not, but it is nevertheless something which exists in reality. That is again why, when we keep piling tax upon tax on tobacco products, I wonder whether we are necessarily doing the right thing.

I applaud any efforts by a government and I think the three governments that have been in power have attempted to educate people not to smoke cigarettes, or pipes or cigars or anything else they might smoke, and the school system certainly has. I think you, Mr Speaker, were part of the education system at one time, if my memory is correct, and so was I, and I know there are many people in the education system who have worked extremely hard to convince people that there are adverse health effects related to smoking tobacco products.

I certainly applaud that and I believe that is the way we eliminate the problem, rather than by simply taxing people into oblivion, those who are particularly addicted and cannot stop the addiction, those who are senior citizens or low-income people and cannot afford it, and of course the individual I mentioned with that particular disorder. I believe him when he said that in fact it stabilized him. He was quite sincere in this and concerned about the increase in taxation.

In terms of utilization of the money, I could go on at some length on that. I do not think I will this afternoon. There are other taxes that I think are more ominous for the province than this. After I spoke in the House yesterday, I received some communications from people who watch the parliamentary network who are certainly in agreement that this is one of the factors that sends people to other jurisdictions to purchase their cigarettes, particularly over the border. I was quite surprised by that, because it was as much conjecture as anything else on my part, though I had heard it from many people, that the gasoline tax, the alcohol tax, the cigarette tax and the all tobacco products tax in fact had the effect of driving people to the other side of the border to make those and other purchases. It was confirmed when I spoke to people about this or when people phoned in. Some of them admitted that this is what brought them across the river, that they would like to shop in Canada but that they are relatively low-income people.

Sometimes it is a lecture. This is one of the dangers of cross-border shopping. People who make lots of money and do not find it as hard to make ends meet perhaps do not tend to shop in the United States as much as others. Some do -- I am not saying they do not -- but there are some low-income people who consider it almost essential, because of certain products they want to purchase, to go to the United States.

I think the cumulative effect of this tax and the tax that was levied yesterday, even though it is on high-income people -- it certainly does not hit cabinet ministers and I do not think it necessarily hits anybody in this House who is an MPP, certainly not his income as an MPP -- along with the gasoline tax, the fuel tax and the tax on auto workers -- that is, the tax on vehicles, which is going to be detrimental to auto workers -- those total taxes put together are taking a big bite out of the wallets and paycheques of people in this province, those who are fortunate enough to have a paycheque today.

There are many working people in this province who are concerned when they see tax upon tax piled upon them. There are many people who normally might be expected to support this government. The member for Chatham-Kent smiles over there because he knows who I am talking about. Certainly the Speaker himself, who no doubt is in very good touch with his own constituency, knows what people think about these onerous taxes on folks in Ontario.

I implore this government to reconsider this tax. I implore this government to reconsider all the taxes it is levying on the people of Ontario in these difficult economic times. People never like taxes. They tend to tolerate them more in boom times than in other times. We recognize that this is not the only Legislature which is levying taxes. There are people who perhaps expect the federal government under the Progressive Conservative Party to levy certain taxes on certain people, but they do not expect the New Democratic Party to levy the same kinds of punitive taxes on the people of this province.

I have been in the union halls of this province and various places and have heard people complain about taxes. I know some of the members here enter those places from time to time. In Sudbury, I was in the Caruso Club. I am sure some of the people there who smoked were concerned about this tax. They were certainly concerned about the next tax we will get to, which I will not talk about today, the increased tax on alcoholic beverages we see being implemented. That, again, is driving people to other jurisdictions.

I hope all members of the Legislature, particularly the government members, who have it within their power to raise a ruckus in caucus, will speak for working people in Ontario, will speak for low-income people in Ontario, will speak for everybody in Ontario in attempting to convince the Treasurer and the Premier, who is the boss of everything, that these taxes should be withdrawn.

If they do so, I will be one of the first people to stand up and applaud that action. I even promise I will not call it a retreat in that specific case. If they were to withdraw any of those taxes, I at least would not stand up in this House and call it a retreat. Others may view it that way. I would not view it as a retreat. I would view it as what happens from time to time when the government listens to the opposition. As the member for York Centre said today, a collective sigh of relief is often heard in Ontario when this government backs down from some of its early initiatives. I implore them to do that today.

The Minister of Agriculture and Food is here. He has another interest in this, other than simply the tax, and he knows the difficulty those farmers face. In fairness to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, when this happens, if it discourages consumption, he has to find money -- it is a diminishing return after a while -- to deal with the plight of tobacco growers in the province. Indeed, he has to find money to deal with a lot of problems that are not easy to deal with. They were easy in opposition, but they are not easy once one assumes the mantle of office.

They should think about it over there and give it a lot of thought. I implore them, as New Democrats who portray themselves as friends of working people, as friends of low-income people and as friends of all the province, to withdraw these draconian taxes.

1550

Mr Hope: I always listen to the member for St Catharines. Sometimes he does not think I do, but I do. He pointed out one specific, that it was all right for the Liberals during their five-year reign. He mentioned that under good economic times it is okay to tax people but they do not like it. We have seen the actions of the Liberal government in good times, not looking at the books and trying to make sure things were properly spent in the appropriate places, instead of offloading it to the municipalities and then saying, "It's all right, good economic times are here."

I am sure the member will reflect on his comments throughout these debates. As he is the critic, I am sure he will take a close look at his comments when he reflects on the auto workers and other workers across this province who are being affected severely. In the rough economic times we are in, we must understand the value of the programs this province has in place and make sure they are appropriately funded, and make sure the municipalities are not carrying the burden of the programs the government inflicted upon them in previous years. This is where this government has been very committed, through the taxation process.

Unfortunately there are those who will be taxed somewhat. If anyone believes in a day when there will be no taxation, I guess he is wrong. There is always a taxation levy, and where it hits is unfortunate. I, as a smoker, understand where taxation has to come from. I am not afraid to admit it; I do smoke. I enjoy it and I do not mind paying.

Ms Haeck: The member for St Catharines and I usually have this sort of friendly repartee, but it is usually on the dais at a softball dinner or something like that, when the master of ceremonies has made the mistake of calling him the member for St Catharines-Brock and me the member for St Catharines. I know that in this House he would not want to make that mistake.

At this point I want to correct one or two of his comments, one in particular, because it really has affected the peninsula and I think it is not the kind of impression we want to leave with people that only low-income citizens and people of moderate means within the peninsula go across the border to shop. The member for Lincoln and other members of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs were presented with a myriad of statistics and information which indicated that in fact it is mainly middle-income or upper-income individuals who are crossing the border on a regular basis to do the kind of shopping the member is alluding to. It is important for us to make sure people understand that it is not strictly an activity of need. This is an activity done very consciously by people who have the means to shop in Ontario.

Mr Bradley: I will respond in reverse order. To the member for St Catharines-Brock, the point I am attempting to make is that people of modest income, people who do not have a lot of disposable income, are those who are most justified, if anybody is justified, in seeking lower prices. They have to have their everyday needs met. Some of those are in terms of basic entertainment, sometimes in terms of cigarettes and sometimes alcohol and gasoline. They are the most justified, if anybody is ever justified, in seeking lower prices.

The member for St Catharines-Brock and the member for Lincoln, who share the peninsula with me and some other members, know we are a part of the province that is very significantly impacted. There are businesses closing in the communities we represent. There are farmers who are finding it mighty tough in the areas we represent. Because people are heading to the other side of the border, farmers cannot get them to purchase their products.

Very often they are not heading to the other side of the border to purchase food. Often it is beverage alcohol. It is often dinners they wish to have that are much cheaper over there because of the price of alcohol. It is often cigarettes, which are extremely expensive here and not nearly so expensive there, and of course gasoline, which is the main factor in taking them to the other side of the border. I know my colleagues in the Niagara Peninsula would certainly want this government to retreat -- or at least withdraw, because I would not use the word "retreat" -- from the taxes that are inclined to make us less competitive in Ontario and drive people to the other side of the border.

I am always interested in hearing from the member for Chatham-Kent. I know he would have supported those taxes in tough economic times to meet the obligations that were there in terms of social programs in this province.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to start off by saying that if you are going to approve any new tax or fight tax increases in general, the first and probably the foremost taxes you deal with are the sin taxes: tobacco and alcohol. Those would be the taxes most governments feel most at ease in increasing, probably because there are many special interest groups out there that will applaud any increase in any of those taxes. There are a number of people in anyone's constituency who see this as a definite advantage, plus or positive from any government.

That being said, we in government, and particularly those in the government today, must be very careful and vigilant in ensuring there is not any disproportionate tax or overburdening of a tax situation. I think what we have reached today is a situation where tobacco is taxed to such an extent that it is now beginning to affect obviously not only the lives of the people who buy this product, but the lives of the people who produce this product. It is now a situation where the main reasons for people to go cross-border shopping -- I sat on the cross-border shopping committee and the members across the House will admit this, I am sure, very readily -- are gasoline, alcohol and tobacco. I do not think there is any debate about that.

When government examines places where it would like to see increased taxes, I think all governments come to the sin taxes, alcohol and tobacco, and feel they are justified and politically correct. It is an easy mark. Today we are generating from the tobacco industry something in the neighbourhood of $1 billion in taxes; $1 billion is generated by taxes on cigarettes.

It seems to me we have crossed that threshold. We are at the point now where I almost think the government, if it is truly going to live by its words -- any of the three governments that were in power -- should just ban the substance, abolish it if this is the debate, if the debate is going to reach a higher level, a higher plateau. Is it health care? It is the cost of maintaining in the health care system people who have smoked all their lives. The question then should be, why is the substance available for purchase and why is it available with government taxes added on?

The thought I have is that maybe the government, if it were truly going to entertain the thoughts that it professes, would be better having a debate about banning tobacco. Clearly that is not the case. No government is prepared to do that. No government is prepared to see a windfall -- and I use the term "windfall" -- of incredible sums of money, $1 billion a year in taxes, evaporate. That is probably why we do not reach that next plateau, which is to ban the substance.

1600

The argument may be made for alcohol, although they did try that once and it was not very successful. But specifically with tobacco, we then have a byproduct of the decision-making. The byproduct is that we are faced with a series of people who are involved in this industry who are being told on the one hand by government that they are important, their jobs are important, their pay is important and their vote is important, but what is also important is that we ensure that they do not work. Really, that is what this tax comes down to.

There have been studies that have directly shown that if a government raises taxes, it is going to drive a certain number of people out of work. In effect, on the one end the government is taking $1 billion out of the system, but on the other end it is taking jobs away. Farmers have a terrible time surviving in the tobacco belt in Ontario.

I think we must be very vigilant as a government, as representatives here today, that we are prepared to debate the issue. Is the issue taxes on tobacco? If that is the case, let us debate that. Or is it whether tobacco should be sold? If that is the issue, then let us debate it.

The argument that comes forward on a number of occasions from the opposite side is the health care costs etc. The government could solve that problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): If I may interrupt the member, the issue is Bill 84. If the member would refer to Bill 84, that would be helpful as we proceed with the debate.

Mr Stockwell: Okay, Bill 84.

The government could straighten that out if it simply abolished smoking cigarettes. They would be banned. Then we would have the groups that endorsed this position applaud the government to no end. It would resolve the health care problems because you could not smoke, but I really do not think that is the issue. The issue on Bill 84 is the cash cow that has developed over the years, and the cash cow is $1 billion a year.

What do we do with a government that is prepared to suck a tremendous amount of tax dollars out of the system but not prepared to deal with the responsibility that is left, and that is a whole bunch of farmers who are in real trouble? We can quote the statistics but they do not even need to be quoted any more; they have been used so often. There are 1,200 growers in Ontario. The number is down from 2,500 in the early 1980s. A very great many of them are not a profitable operation.

The question is -- I put this to the Minister of Agriculture and Food -- of the $1 billion the government collects, and this new tax will add more on top of that, does that all go back into farming? Does that go back to the tobacco farmers? What percentage of that goes back to the tobacco farmers?

If the government is going to accept the accolades and the pats on the back, then it had better be prepared to make the decisions to help those people who are affected by those said decisions. I do not really believe this government is doing that in Bill 84. I think tobacco farmers would take great exception to this tax and they would have a list as long as my arm of reasons and rationale and non-support from government. I do not say it is specifically this government's fault. Tobacco is an easy mark and this is a tough decision. Any time politicians are faced with an easy mark or a tough decision, they take the easy mark, and here it is again.

The questions we ask ourselves are: Where are the resources to fund these farmers? Who is going to pay for it? I think the person who should pay for it is the person who is collecting the money. If the government is prepared to accept the tax, then it had better be prepared to support the farmers. We cannot have one without the other. I do not think that in Bill 84, with another cash grab, the government is doing that. I think it is irresponsible and it is a disservice to the growers in this province.

What is painfully obvious to me as well when we deal with this issue is that the backbenchers in this caucus have very little input into the decision-making at the cabinet table.

Mr Wiseman: You are wrong.

Mr Stockwell: The member suggests I could be wrong, and it would not be the first time. I could have sworn somebody sent the police in. Apparently I am wrong on that one. I could have sworn they promised government-run auto insurance in their last election bid. I could have been wrong about that one. I could have sworn they made a whole bunch of promises in the Agenda for People. I could have been wrong about that, but it is all here before me.

Maybe I am wrong, but it seems to me from the history of this government and this member, including with respect to Bill 84, what you say at election time and what you do when you are in government are two completely different things. Before you start chastising members for being wrong, maybe you should examine your history and exactly where you came from, because I do not even recognize you people any more.

The Acting Speaker: Would the member speak to the Chair, please.

Mr Stockwell: On Bill 84, what is painfully obvious and what I think is missed in the address is, when is enough enough? I guess that is what I would like to hear from the Minister of Agriculture and Food. What about next year? What do the farmers have to look forward to next year? Can he give them any guarantees, any security that they do not have to be faced with this enormous burden to carry? Can he give them any guarantee: "Okay, this is a one-time tax and for the rest of our term we are not going to increase it"? Can he give them those kinds of guarantees, and if not, how come? They deserve that, because their lives, their livelihoods, their investments are resting precariously on whether or not a single group of people, a small group of people in cabinet, decide whether they want to go for the easy mark again rather than making the tough decision.

As I was saying before, I cannot understand how this cabinet which listens to its caucus members cannot understand the pleas I am sure it hears in caucus from some of the members on its own side of the House. I cannot believe the government does not hear their pleas, because I know what they are telling it. They are telling it their farmers cannot afford it. They need some help, and if it is going to tax them to death, it had better redirect some of the money back to them.

I am fundamentally opposed at this time in this province to increasing taxes on absolutely anything. I think as a province we are tremendously overtaxed. We have too much government, we have too many bureaucrats, we have far too much of everything involved in government to go on and live our lives in a fair and profitable fashion. I use that term "profitable" very carefully. I will not accept a tax on tobacco as I will not accept it on alcohol and as I will not accept it on gasoline, for some of the reasons I have outlined, not the least of which, I might add, is that it is one of the major problems for cross-border shopping.

I doubt very much if this government -- just to allow it to feel at ease -- could bring forward any tax that I would support at this time. I doubt very much the previous government under its Premier could have brought forward any of those taxes that I would have supported at that time. I think it is counterproductive. It is a tax that will penalize farmers and obviously smokers disproportionately. It is an easy mark for a government to make to get left-handed applause, left-handed backslaps from certain special-interest groups.

I have been very interested and I have listened very intently to that side of the House. I heard the rationale from a number of speakers on why this tax had to be increased this year. I did not hear from any members who told me exactly what the farm community was saying to them and I did not hear from any members who felt they were speaking for the tobacco farmers, which I find very interesting from a party that previously supported, spoke on and endorsed the farmers at great length. It is a government that I think no longer listens.

In conclusion, Bill 84 will go through just like all their other taxes. It will do a number of things. It will probably raise a little bit more money. It will ensure a few other decisions made by the public. It will ensure more people will cross-border shop for tobacco. It is going to ensure that when they go over to cross-border shop, they will buy gasoline. It is going to ensure that they will buy more alcohol. It is going to ensure that they will spend more disposable income across the border. It is going to ensure that this government will make the farmers that much more unhappy and insolvent, and it is going to ensure that this government fattens its coffers to a very small degree.

When you analyse this tax and stack up the negatives against the positives, it seems to me there is only one argument left and that is the health argument. If that is my friends' argument, which a number of members have made, then I suggest they make the argument, they introduce a ban, they go forward and ban this, because if that is their point, what they are doing today is not servicing anyone. They are hurting cross-border towns, they are hurting farmers, they are hurting manufacturers, they are hurting union jobs, they are hurting the companies that produce this product, all for a minor gain in their tax revenue.

I will close. I do not think there is a tremendous amount of thought in this, other than the fact that this government was very short of money, it was very short of ideas, it had a $10-billion deficit, it had a 13.5% increase in spending, it had expanded the civil service to the tune of some 14% in payroll, and it seemed like the easiest thing for this government to do was to tax tobacco, alcohol and gasoline. This government taxed the three of them. It was probably the wrong tax, not very thoughtful and clearly the easy way out. I do not particularly think it was the right choice.

1610

Mr Johnson: It heartened me to hear the member for Etobicoke West say he does not blame this government entirely for all the state of taxation we are dealing with in this province right now, the present state of taxation we find ourselves under. That heartens me.

I have to say that I too am not a smoker. I think it would be wonderful personally -- and I speak personally now -- to eliminate cigarettes altogether. It would mean we would have healthier people and the costs to the health care system would be diminished. I think that is a positive thing. But the implications of doing that are very complex and quite profound, and I see the member agrees with me.

The member mentioned some things that concern me with regard to these items being less expensive in the United States. He said, "Why don't we ban tobacco?" One of the implications certainly would be that Ontario cannot do that. It is not within Ontario's jurisdiction to make these laws. Only Canada can make laws to regulate trade and commerce in the country. I suggest this is not a responsibility we have.

I might pose a question to the member. I might ask him --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member direct his comments to the Chair, please.

Mr Johnson: Yes, Mr Speaker. I would like to ask the member what he would like to cut. I hear him mention some things with regard to the government making cuts, but the people of Ontario want their services and they want them administered properly and efficiently. I think if we make cuts, then the people of Ontario will not get what they want. I think this would be most unfortunate.

Mr Sterling: I listened with interest to the member for Etobicoke West. He talked about the whole issue of banning the sale of tobacco, or the consideration of that. I think that was half in jest, quite frankly, because I think our lesson with prohibition during the 1920s showed that it was a very difficult goal to achieve.

I think what is important in terms of the growing of tobacco is that governments getting this tremendous source of wealth from tobacco taxes -- over $1 billion -- should offer the tobacco producers an opportunity to get out of that business and into something else.

At the present time, there are over 500 tobacco producers in Ontario who are lined up at the gate to take advantage of the Redux program. This government and the previous Liberal government have not funded a program in order to offer any money at all to these tobacco growers who want to get out of the business. There was a $45-million program that was instituted in 1989 and now has run out.

I think it is absolutely essential that when a government takes this much out, $1 billion, and is putting absolutely nothing back in -- that is totally unfair to the communities. Whether or not we could ban this would probably involve criminal law, if we are talking about the actual banning of it, and therefore those offences would properly fall under the federal government.

Mr Carr: I want to rise and compliment the member on his part of the debate. It is interesting when we look at his background. He is somebody who has been fighting taxes at the municipal level for many years and is known as somebody who has a respect for the taxpayers' dollars. I have seen very clearly that what he says when he comes to this particular Legislature is exactly what he talked about doing.

I say to my friends opposite who talk about the taxes and say they had to do it, the fact of the matter is that where they have to start is to control spending. It is not an easy process to do that. It is very easy to play Santa Claus, as they did in the last election campaign, and give to everybody what they want when they want it and say to this group, "You can have what you want," and to that group, "You can have what you want."

Unlike some of the backbenchers who honestly thought the money would fall out of the sky for all these programs -- and I honestly say that a lot of them thought there would be enough money; most of them did not have the experience -- my criticism to the Premier was that when he made those promises he knew the money was not going to fall out of the sky for them. So now we have the tax increases, I say to them that what they need to do is look at spending.

On that point, I will just say very briefly in the time I have left that tomorrow morning we are going to be having a particular piece of legislation, which is basically known as a sunsetting provision, introduced by myself. If the members opposite are truly interested in the tax situation, tomorrow I hope I will have their support in the sunsetting laws controlling spending, because that is where it starts. They need to control spending before they can reduce taxes, and this government has shown very clearly with the 13.5% increase that it does not know how to control spending. Tomorrow morning we will be looking for their support, and I want to thank my colleague the member for Etobicoke West for a very fine statement earlier.

Mr Stockwell: I want to thank the member for Carleton and the member for Oakville South for their kind comments.

Mr Johnson: Mine were kind too.

Mr Stockwell: They weren't that kind.

I have sat here and listened and I have heard really nothing in response with respect to how hopefully the tobacco farmers can look forward to the future. I will read a paragraph or so from this document called An Agenda for People. It speaks about farmers in here, not specifically tobacco farmers, but farmers in general.

"New Democrats propose making long-term debt financing available" -- and here we go -- "to farmers at the government's long-term borrowing cost. Up to $100 million would be made available."

That to me --

Mr Hope: Excellent.

Mr Stockwell: That could be very well, I do not know. We should debate that one day in the House when the piece of legislation comes through.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Chatham-Kent may recognize the significance of this yellow card. I would certainly appreciate your co-operation by listening to the comments.

Mr Stockwell: Those are the kinds of things that I think farmers today are looking for. When the government takes $1 billion out of the system from tobacco farmers, farmers are looking for some kind of give, something on the government's part. Not once has any member from the government caucus stood up and told us or the farmers what they are going to do for them. Not once during this debate have I heard anything that the minister said he would do to help the farmers. The government told them in the election that it would lend them $100 million at preferred interest rate -- a pipedream. They told the tobacco farmers they were going to increase taxes, that they are going to help them with rebates and farm programs -- another pipedream.

Rather than standing up and mouthing words, maybe the government could do something if it is going to suck this much money out of the system.

1620

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure to stand in my place here this afternoon and take part in this debate. I am at somewhat of a disadvantage in that I spent Monday and Tuesday in the standing committee on administration of justice and had to follow what everybody said through Hansard; that makes it a little bit difficult to speak succinctly.

On Sunday afternoon, in my own riding, I was at the opening of a new separate elementary school, very wonderfully named the School of Mother Theresa. We were there and it was one of those wonderful things that happens in your community. The children were lined up and they were in their best clothes and they were singing songs like "We Are The People." There was the junior band in the background playing some wonderful uplifting music. After the ribbon was cut and all the speeches were made, we adjourned to the lounge and had tea, biscuits and little pieces of cake baked by the parents of these children.

In that period of time, I was able to mingle with these families and inevitably the talk centred on what a wonderful facility had been built in my riding. Indeed it was. It is a credit to everybody who participated in it.

Inevitably too, we touched on what schools like this cost, and I said, "It's wonderful to have all these facilities but they cost money, and the only way the government can get money is through taxes, through you, you and you, to create this." They did not really want to listen to that. It just seems that people want things, but there is a price to be paid.

I bring that up in this debate because the tax that is being raised on this tobacco is needed in Ontario at this time for many reasons. We came into government expecting the books to be balanced and, alas, they were not. There was even supposed to be a surplus, but we found ourselves in a huge deficit position.

I have great difficulty standing here this afternoon and listening to the self-righteousness of the third party. There are not many of them left now, but at one time of day there were many of them. Notwithstanding the fact that the faces have changed, the philosophy is still there. I would like to just touch on perhaps the biggest tax hoax that was ever perpetrated on the people of Ontario, and it was done by the third party through -- most of us do not remember -- the ad valorem tax that was placed on tobacco.

Probably a lot of people who are listening do not know what I am talking about, but we had taxes set at budget time by the third party in those days and they were not satisfied with that tax. They are self-righteous and talk about how -- the member has gone now who said, "We are for tax reductions, tax fighting, we went all over the province on a bus." They perpetrated the most insidious form of collecting taxes. They had their forces of tax inspectors, which numbered about 30, fan out all over the province --

Mr Ruprecht: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I have listened to the comments very carefully and I had assumed that when the Premier and many of the ministers are getting up almost daily in question period and saying: "There shall be absolutely no finger pointing. We shall be having an easier time in this Legislature" --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. That is not a point of order. Will the member for Parkdale please take his seat?

Mr Ruprecht: -- "and we shall be much more easy with each other and this member still keeps" --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. Please take your seat.

Mr Ruprecht: -- "finger pointing every minute of the day."

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I would remind the --

Interjection.

Mr Ruprecht: What's positive about you? You just drag us guys down. What is your policy?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind the member for Parkdale to be a little more respectful vis-à-vis the Chair. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: Why I am giving this slight history lesson is -- as the member for Renfrew North gave a history lesson talking about Bill 118, the Power Corporation Amendment Act -- I just feel that I have some obligation to talk about the history of tobacco tax in Ontario.

As I was saying before I was rudely interrupted, the tobacco tax inspectors fanned out over Ontario gathering the prices from all these stores so they could be put into some sort of computer and then come up with an increase in taxes every three months.

I can tell the members, some of whom are too young and do not remember, that discount stores were out of bounds because if you went to a discount store you might get a slightly lower price and that would not reflect a tax increase, and for goodness' sake they could not come back with a tax increase.

We just look at this dismal litany of tax increases, when the third party stands there so self-righteous today. They increased tobacco tax in May, July and October, 1981; January, April, May, July and October, 1982, and January, April, May, July and October, 1983. They stand there with audacity and talk about this government raising taxes to take up the slack from the deficit position that it inherited from the official opposition.

While I am on the subject of tobacco tax inspectors, I would just like to say a word about that fine band of people. There have been 30 of them in Ontario, and they do an absolutely first-class job trying to contain tax evasion, tax fraud, and keeping a lid on the tax collection in this province. I must say that there is not a finer bunch of people working in the government of Ontario than those people, and they are led by some very fine superiors, too.

I looked in Hansard and saw that the member for Ottawa East asked some questions: Is the tobacco marking system working? It is my understanding that it is working very well and that it has really stopped a lot of the fraud and circumvention of the tax act that was taking place.

This went on, and then when the opposition came in, it formed that government in its brief spell at the top. They recognized that this ad valorem tax was a terrible thing, and to their credit they abolished it right off the top. But that is not the end of the story. They saw fit to increase taxes on tobacco in January, April and July 1984; in January 1985; in January 1986; in January 1987; in April 1988; in January 1989, and in January and April 1990, so their record as tax fighters does not stand up to much scrutiny.

I want to talk briefly to the amendment proposed about reasonable and probable grounds to enable detentions of vehicles for searches. I can speak with some experience of that. It has been a flaw in the legislation for months, and it really prohibited these fine inspectors from carrying out their job efficiently because they were hampered by that flaw in the legislation. A change was set about through the Johnson v Ministry of Revenue case, which said the section contained no requirement of reasonable and probable grounds or even of probable suspicion. So this amendment sets that right and will enable the inspection staff to better carry out their duties.

In closing, I want to speak about farmers. A lot of farmers in my riding of Durham East were tobacco farmers, but in their enlightened view of what was going to happen in Ontario they switched their operations to tomatoes, cucumbers, carrots, potatoes, bedding plants and all manner of things.

I do not think they can really blame the government about the decline in smoking. It is a fact of life that smokers are declining, albeit the tax may be one form of a gentle way of making people give up smoking, the facts are out there. The health data are out there and people are giving up smoking by the hundreds on their own intuition that it is not healthy.

When I was a young man we did not know that smoking was not healthy and we smoked, but now in the schools and everywhere we go, young people are getting the message that smoking is unhealthy, and I do not see, as the member for Etobicoke West argued, that we are out to set smoking aside by reason of taxes because it is unhealthy. We do not have to do that. People are getting common sense, so I applaud the farmers in my riding who are using alternative methods for their land and are doing very well at it.

In closing, I would like to be part of a government that does not see any need to increase taxes, members should believe me. I have great empathy with the folks out there, the working people and everybody who has to pay these taxes, but the fact of life is that society demands a level of services that have to be met, and unfortunately in these times the only way we can meet the demands upon society is through the tax revenues: tobacco, cigarettes, gasoline or diesel.

1630

Mr Ruprecht: I have listened to the comments of the member for Durham East with great interest, and while we have a certain respect for him as one of the senior men in the NDP government, I would only say that he should also consider listening to his own boss, the Premier, and to some of the ministers when they say that in order for this Legislature to be more effective -- in this case, of course, we are talking about special taxation -- and to be a kinder and gentler place, let there be no finger-pointing.

While the member for Durham East is quite open in his criticism of opposition, I would like to caution him and all members of his government that simply to criticize what the tax policies were previously, and simply to say, "They were adding on tax after tax and got us into trouble economically," is taking away from their own policies, taking away from their own sense of justice and their own sense of making a significant contribution to this Legislature in terms of the formation of tax policies.

I would like to ask the member for Durham East a question in terms of his own point: Are these taxes this government is now proposing on tobacco really sin taxes, or as he says are those taxes inclined to nudge and encourage and influence people to stop smoking? Which of the two is it going to be?

Mr Sterling: I heard with some amusement about the distaste the member for Durham East has for the ad valorem tax. I only remind him that the bill we just debated prior to this bill, Bill 83, which was a surcharge on the income of high-wage earners and high-income people in this province, is in fact an ad valorem tax in itself. The whole argument as to ad valorem taxes was a bit of a bogus argument in terms of comparing one with the other. The retail sales tax is in effect an ad valorem tax. All the taxes that depend upon an escalating value and inflation, for instance, in the prices of goods each year, as we have seen from year to year over the last 10 years, leads to a higher amount of income the government gets and is in effect an ad valorem tax. It is a percentage of what is there, and if what is there increases, so does the tax take. It is a bit of a bogus argument.

What I find extremely humorous about the member for Durham East is that I know his job before he became a member of this Legislature. Surprise, surprise, it was as a tax collector. Is it not amazing? When a person is a tax collector, he finds a great deal of trouble with the government's suggestions as to a change in tax policy, like the ad valorem tax, but when he transfers from being the tax collector to sitting in this noble chamber he can defend the tax very easily. I understand his defence, as a former tax collector but now a legislator, of the government's increase in taxes because the member no longer has to collect them.

Mr Hope: It is always a pleasure to listen to the member for Durham East when he speaks, because he speaks of a lot of history. To us young lads who are sitting in this House today and the people who are viewing the proceedings, it is very important for us to understand the system that has been in place -- I think he eloquently put it -- and the increases that were laid upon it.

That brings me to the comment about the effect of this issue on the tobacco farmers. A lot of the tobacco in my area is exported; very little is used for import. The member for Durham East talked about the taxation policies of previous governments, and then we heard from the opposition. As the member so clearly put it, it is because past practice made a lot of damaging things. Take a look: Since 1981, the government before the previous one, the Conservative government, implemented a lot of changes and put in 90% and 100% increases in taxation. It was not talking about the care of the farmers then.

It is very important that we as a new government look at strategies. I know the minister and the parliamentary assistant are looking at strategies to try to help the local farmers, which the member for Durham East talked about. A lot of the farmers are changing their product, looking at other products to produce on their land. We are making sure there are initiatives there to assist them in this. I know the minister and parliamentary assistant are looking at long-range programs and following the Agenda for People, which we put out during the campaign.

I must reiterate that it is not something new currently devastating the tobacco farmers or devastating the people of Ontario. One good thing was that we never went after their paycheques and made sure we were not hitting them there.

Mr Runciman: The reality is that fewer and fewer people are drawing paycheques in this province as a result of initiatives of the former Liberal government and this current government.

The member for Durham East talked about the tax on cigarettes, going back to Conservative years and Liberal years. I can only go back to mid-1985, when the Conservative government left office after 42 years of good government in this province, and I do not think we had the situation we currently face with respect to cross-border shopping, where tobacco purchases are a major element of the incentive for people to cross the border to make purchases on that side. Of course, another major element, which we have heard in this debate as well, is the question of smuggling.

If the member for Durham East really believed in the argument he was making, the government would initiate a total ban on cigarette sales, with respect to the health care costs associated with smoking cigarettes.

The member for Chatham-Kent mentioned a 100% increase, I believe, for the Conservative government. I would like to have him stand in his place and spell out when that may have occurred. Certainly those of us on this side cannot recall any such increases ever taking place.

Obviously tobacco farmers are suffering in a significant way, but I think we also have to take a look at the tobacco companies in this country and this province who make a contribution. We can look at the DuMaurier Jazz Festival, the Rothman's International and the Player's International tennis match. They get involved within the communities where they operate and make a contribution which all of us benefit from. That is another side of the equation that is rarely talked about and that has to be given some consideration.

I think we have gone beyond striking a fine balance for what is an appropriate taxation level in respect to cigarettes. We have taken it beyond that point, to where it now is really encouraging people to either break the law or cross the border and hurt the economy of Ontario.

1640

Mr Mills: I really appreciate all the comments on the few things I had to say. I would like to speak specifically to the member for Parkdale. I must say that my own personal view -- and it is not necessarily the view of the Premier -- is that, yes, when the government increases taxes on cigarettes, at the price they are today, $30 or $40 a carton -- nudge, nudge -- maybe it is best to give up. The saving that we will effect is in health care. That is my own personal view.

I think back to that hot, sweaty day, I think it was in June, when we had the big tax revolt out here. All these people from Bay Street were standing there with their little phones and their Rolex watches glinting in the sun, and I went out there. There was a fellow standing there with perspiration running down his face, and I said: "What's the matter? What's the big deal here?" I did not know what was going on.

He said, "It's the taxes." I said, "Well, what's wrong with the taxes?" He said, "We can't take it any more; we've had enough." Where were those people in 1981-85 and 1985-87?

[Applause]

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I remind the members of the public in the gallery that they are not to participate. The member for Durham East.

Mr Mills: Thank you kindly, Mr Speaker. I thought you were cutting me off and I hurried up, but I would just like to say again --

Mr Sterling: There wasn't any reason to be there in '81.

Mr Mills: There was no reason because the people were not organized. Had they known what was happening to them in those years, they would have blocked the Queen Elizabeth Way and every road into these Parliament buildings to protest the way they were operating here.

M. Poirier : Merci, Monsieur le Président. J'aurais bien aimé que Madame la Ministre soit présente parmi nous cet après-midi, parce que j'aurais voulu pouvoir m'adresser directement à elle. Mais, puisqu'elle n'y est pas, je suis certain que ce soir, avant de se coucher, elle aura l'occasion de lire le Journal des débats pour prendre connaissance de ce qui a été dit et de comprendre notre frustration avec une situation toute à fait particulière.

Avec ce genre de projet de loi pour augmenter les taxes sur le tabac, il est évident qu'on pourrait faire très facilement une discussion philosophique, à savoir la responsabilité de l'État à charger, oui ou non, des taxes sur les produits tels le tabac, mais aussi la philosophie du consommateur, et surtout, en ce qui a trait aux fumeurs et aux fumeuses, à savoir leur réaction face à l'utilisation du tabac, le tabagisme, mais aussi à comprendre et accepter, pas seulement le coût de la cigarette, mais les coûts que le gouvernement doit débourser pour offrir des soins de santé à ceux et à celles qui abusent du tabac.

Je me rappelerai toujours d'avoir eu une discussion, il y a quelques années, avec la ministre de la Santé lors de notre gouvernement. Je lui avait posé une question: «C'est évident que nous récoltons un certain montant de taxes sur le tabac, et selon les chiffres que j'ai vus récemment, on s'apprêterais à récolter cette année plus d'un milliard de dollars en taxes sur le tabac.» Elle m'avait dit, «Pour chaque dollar que nous récoltons en taxes sur le tabac, le ministère de la Santé doit débourser quelque 3$ en soins de santé pour les maladies liées au tabagisme.»

Évidemment, les fumeurs et fumeuses, lorsqu'ils voient augmenter la taxe sur leur produit favori, rouspètent, et c'est bien normal. Je pense qu'il n'y a aucun député, peu importe le parti, qui va recevoir une lettre de félicitations d'avoir augmenté les taxes sur le tabac, l'alcool, etc. C'est normal. Après sept ans, je ne me rappelle, moi-même, d'avoir reçu aucune lettre de remerciement.

M. Grandmaître : Ou de félicitations.

M. Poirier : Ou de félicitations, bien sûr. Mais, par contre, il faut que les gens comprennent que ça vient de la même recette, de la même poche de revenus: les dépenses de soins de santé versus les recettes pour les taxes sur le tabac.

Je rappelle à mes amis fumeurs et fumeuses, et j'en suis un moi-même, que, puisque nous sommes en minorité, lorsque -- pas si -- nous aurons besoin des soins de santé reliés à notre tabagisme, ce sont les contribuables non-fumeurs qui vont, d'une certaine façon, subventionner nos soins de santé. Puisque eux et elles ne fument pas, et leurs taxes vont contribuer à payer nos soins de santé.

Mais il faut que le gouvernement comprenne, également et surtout, lorsqu'il taxe à ce niveau-là, que nous sommes voisins d'un pays, les États-Unis, qui n'a pas le même niveau de taxes sur la vente de tabac dans les magasins. Il est évident que cette différentiation-là entre deux pays voisins, ça cause un problème particulier. Je me rappelle, il n'y a pas si longtemps, l'année passée, en voyage au New Hampshire, j'ai acheté deux paquets de cigarettes et j'ai demandé à la dame combien c'était. Elle m'a dit, «C'est 3,10$.» Donc, j'ai mis 6,20$ sur le comptoir. «Non, non, monsieur, c'est 3,10$ pour les deux paquets.»

Évidemment, pour un fumeur c'est la superbe occasion; on croit que c'est l'aubaine instantanée. Mais, malheureusement, je suis certain que les fumeurs et les fumeuses de cet état, ou de tout autre état américain qui n'a pas une tax élevée sur le tabac, lorsqu'ils auront des problèmes de soins de santé, ils feront mieux de faire une neuvaine pour s'assurer qu'une compagnie privée accepte bien de couvrir leurs assurances-santé. S'ils n'ont pas d'assurances-santé, ils pourraient facilement faire face à une note de santé, via une facture de l'hôpital, qui pourrait atteindre 100000$, 150000$ ou 200000$. Je suis certain que si c'est le cas avec ce fumeur du New Hampshire ou d'ailleurs, qu'il aurait peut-être préféré acheter son paquet au Canada, et avec le niveau de taxes du Canada.

Bien sûr, les fumeurs n'admettront jamais qu'ils auront besoin d'une opération à coeur ouvert qui pourrait coûter à l'État 250000$ et peut-être même un million de dollars de soins pour la durée de leur vie. Ça, ils l'apprennent après l'operation, jamais avant.

Mais que fait-on, nous au Canada, pour avoir cette différentiation de prix du niveau de taxes? Surtout pour nous dans l'Est de l'Ontario, étant très près de la frontière américaine, je peux assurer les députés que plusieurs dépanneurs m'ont dit que lorsque la taxe a été augmentée à ce niveau-là, leurs ventes de produits de tabac, de cigarettes, tout ça s'est envolée en fumée. Excusez l'expression, le jeu de mots.

Pourquoi? Parce que tout le monde a arrêté de fumer? Non. C'est parce que, tout d'un coup, il y a des gens moins respectueux de la loi, sans grands principes, qui ont trouvé moyen de mettre la main sur des cigarettes canadiennes, mais contournées via un petit voyage touristique aux États-Unis, et qui nous sont revenues en grandes cargaisons dans l'est de l'Ontario et, j'en suis certain également, partout à l'échelle de l'Ontario pour ne pas dire du Canada.

Je me demande quelle sorte de voyage touristique ces chargements de camions de cigarettes ont bien pu faire. Mais, de toute façon, peu importe d'où elles viennent ou comment elles se rendent là, elles se rendent chez nous dans ma circonscription. Les dépanneurs crient aux méventes. Mais les gens qui fumaient, ils fument toujours, et les gens se promènent se vantant de l'aubaine qu'ils ont bien pu faire auprès de certains vendeurs de cigarettes illégales chez nous dans Prescott et Russell.

J'ai entendu dire mon bon ami le député de Durham-Est, qui malheureusement nous a quitté pour le moment, qu'il est certain que les inspecteurs font un bon travail, qu'ils vérifient bien que les dépanneurs, les propriétaires de magasins, respectent bien la loi et ne vendent que des cigarettes dûment étampées, disant que les droits d'accise ont été payés en Ontario.

Mais je pense qu'il y a quelque chose qui se passe qui est un peu bizarre. On fait l'inspection des vendeurs ayant une licence de vente. On rentre dans les magasins, on vérifie le stock, etc, mais on me dit que les gens qui vendent ces cigarettes illégales ne sont pas, malheureusement, des vendeurs licenciés, ne sont pas des dépanneurs, ne sont pas des propriétaires de petits magasins de coin. Se sont des gens, M.et Mme tout le monde. On me dit qu'il y en a même qui sont au chômage, qui ne travaillent pas présentement mais qui font des bonnes recettes en vendant des cigarettes illégales.

1650

A la demande des propriétaires de ces magasins-là, je me suis renseigné auprès du Ministère. On me dit qu'on fait des enquêtes, qu'on viendra voir, qu'on surveillera la situation. Au moment où je vous parle, les ventes de cigarettes illégales continuent de très bon train. Les dépanneurs sont toujours frustrés. Ils n'ont pas retrouvé leur niveau de vente d'avant l'augmentation des taxes. Il y a quelque chose de bizarre qui se passe.

Ce qui m'inquiète -- je ne veux pas blâmer les fonctionnaires du Ministère; je suis certain qu'ils sont débordés -- mais il semblerait que le gouvernement ne fait pas bien son travail pour s'assurer de couper à la source ces ventes de cigarettes illégales. Ça se passe chez nous et je sais que ça se passe ailleurs, d'où le dilemme d'un gouvernement.

Jusqu'à quel niveau de taxe le gouvernement est-il permis de demander des taxes si en retour la contrepartie de ça va dire qu'un trop grand nombre de consommateurs et de consommatrices, de fumeurs et de fumeuses, vont se procurer librement sur le marché illégal des cigarettes canadiennes qui n'ont pas été assujetties aux droits d'accise au Canada et en Ontario.

C'est un grave problème. D'après des études que j'ai faites là-dessus, il est évident qu'il y a un manque à gagner épouvantable au gouvernement de l'Ontario avec ces ventes de cigarettes illégales-là.

M. Grandmaître : Des pertes de taxes.

M. Poirier : Des pertes de taxes tout à fait épouvantables. Des taxes où, avec le niveau de déficit, sûrement, le gouvernement apprécierait avoir la main dessus pour combler son déficit, notre déficit global à l'Ontario et s'assurer d'offrir encore plus de soins de santé à ceux et à celles qui auront des problèmes de tabagisme tôt ou tard. C'est la seule certitude qu'on a en fumant: ce n'est pas «si», c'est «quand» on aura des problèmes de santé.

Donc, moi je m'inquiète. Je crois que ce projet de loi a été au-delà du raisonnable. Bien sûr je le dis au fumeurs et aux fumeuses qui me disent: «Je peux menacer de cesser de fumer. Vous seriez mal pris. Vous ne pourriez pu récolter, à ce moment-là, la taxe sur le tabac.»

Avec l'explication que j'ai donnée tantôt, je leur dis: «Bravo! J'espère que vous allez tous cesser de fumer.» Ça voudrait dire, pour chaque milliard de dollars de taxes qu'on perdra de la taxe sur le tabac, ça va nous coûter 3 milliards de dollars de moins en soins de santé, comme je le disais tantôt, qui sont subventionnés par les non-fumeurs de cette province.

Donc, si les gouvernements persistent à aller à des niveaux astronomiques de taxation comme ça, sans mettre en place un système beaucoup plus à l'épreuve de l'eau, d'inspections pour s'assurer qu'il n'y a pas si librement de ventes de cigarettes illégales, on va passer à côté des millions et des dizaines de millions, sinon pas des centaines de millions de dollars en taxes perdues à tout jamais.

Le gouvernement aura établi en Ontario une tradition de s'approvisionner illégalement, librement de produits telle la cigarette venant de marchés noirs. Une fois que ces systèmes-là seront mis en place -- il semblerait que ces systèmes-là sont très bien en place en Ontario présentement -- la tradition aura été établie et ce sera mille fois plus difficile par la suite d'essayer de pouvoir maîtriser la vente illégale de cigarettes qui n'auront pas été assujetties aux droits d'accise de l'Ontario.

Je voudrais dire à la Ministre quand elle lira bien mon discours dans ses moments perdus avant de se coucher le soir, qu'elle m'explique ce qu'elle va faire pour s'assurer que les enquêtes que son Ministère va faire seront des enquêtes qui sont beaucoup plus à l'épreuve du contournement de ceux et celles qui font la vente illégale de cigarettes comme ça se produit chez nous. Les gens qui en souffrent, les vendeurs qui sont honnêtes, les dépanneurs qui ont leur licence et qui ont toujours respecté la loi, ces dépanneurs qui sont à la merci de la qualité de la loi du gouvernement, attendent avec impatience sa réponse à savoir comment il va boucher tous les trous et arrêter ces ventes libres de cigarettes illégales.

Donc, voici le message que j'aurais préféré dire directement à Madame la Ministre, et j'espère que mes collègues, mes bons amis du gouvernement, pourront bien transmettre ces inquiétudes-là, et je suis certain que chez eux également, se produit cette vente illégale.

Ms Haeck: I am very glad that the member for Prescott and Russell has really raised these, I think, very valid and important issues because he makes some very good suggestions as well and puts forward some very good questions.

I would respond initially by saying that the issue around inspection has existed for many years. This is not something that occurred as of September 6, 1990. Having lived on the border for virtually all of my life, I know that on the issues of alcohol and tobacco in particular you could never have enough inspectors to take care of what comes across the border. Trying to hire more inspectors to deal with that problem obviously would open that particular situation for more comment from his own party as well as from the third party.

I also think it is extremely important to address the issue that virtually every country in the world has to recognize: the situation faced by the consumption of tobacco. On the one hand it is quite clear that it is a health problem. Countries like France, in particular, where they own a large share of the Gauloises cigarette company, realize that it is nice to have those tax dollars, but it is also a rather large liability to take care of large numbers of individuals who then have serious health problems and are thereby affected.

This government is facing that very same issue and has to address it. It is something that this tax around the health care issue does take care of, because you have to pay for these lifestyle issues. In the United States they have taken on the issue of the private insurers forcing workers off the job for lifestyle reasons. It is not a situation that I, personally, want to see. I think we really have chosen the best method to deal with a very tricky problem.

Mr Bradley: If the government really wanted to stop the problem from a health point of view, of course it would ban the sale of cigarettes in Ontario. Instead they see it as a cash cow, and that is the real reason.

If they were to take the money from this and allow the operating costs of CAT scanners in the Niagara Peninsula, one could possibly say that would be a good idea. But one has to suspect that there will be a diminishing return from this tax, because as people rush over to the other side of the border to purchase their cigarettes and other tobacco products, of course there will be fewer tax dollars coming into Ontario. In the very short term they may get an increase as a government in the amount of revenue that is derived from this particular measure; however, they are going to find it is declining and they will have even less money and they will be even more resistent to putting a second CAT scanner in the Niagara region.

You, Mr Speaker, live in the Ottawa region. You know how important it is, but you do not have a lineup of over five months for people to use a CAT scanning machine as a good diagnostic tool. If this were being applied directly to this particular measure, if this were a tax the revenue of which would go to CAT scanners across Ontario or other diagnostic machines, there might be some people who would say it is a reasonable tax. But we are obviously not going to have that happen from this particular tax. Instead we have a very complicated system, after people have already made a determination that there is a need for such a CAT scanner -- the dogs and cats are getting scanned in York region, but in St Catharines and in the Niagara Peninsula, other people have to wait for up to five months -- on that basis, since it is not going to that particular reason, I think that it is yet another reason for not supporting this particular tax.

1700

M. Sola : Je vais essayer de dire quelque en français. Je veux applaudir mon collègue le député de Prescott et Russell, d'avoir démontré la «fallacy» que la taxe sur le tabac peut accomplir deux choses: diminuer l'habitude de fumer et augmenter les revenus du gouvernement.

Personne ne peut prouver que la foule fume moins après cette taxe, mais tout le monde peut montrer qu'il y a beaucoup plus de magasinage aux États-Unis. Ça veut dire que le public n'a pas changé ses habitudes; il a simplement changé la source de ses achats.

En même temps, ce projet de loi a pratiquement forcé les honnêtes vendeurs à essayer de vendre des cigarettes illégales et les encourage à devenir des criminels.

M. White : Je peux donner un petit discours sur un petit sujet. Le député a parlé des chômeurs, qui sont des fumeurs et des fumeuses. Mais ces chômeurs ont des choix: ils peuvent fumer ou ils peuvent ne pas fumer. Quand ils sont mis à pied, ils n'ont pas le choix. J'espère que nous avons leur appui et que notre budget leur donne de l'espoir et du travail.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Prescott-Russell, you have two minutes to reply.

M. Poirier : Donc, il n'y a plus de temps pour les autres, n'est-ce pas? Bon. Je remercie ma collègue justement pour les suggestions, mais je lui rappelle qu'il y a une nette distinction entre la théorie de l'application de la loi, les grands principes et les faits.

Dans les faits, lorsqu'on taxe à ce niveau-là, je pense que les députés vont voir une corrélation tout à fait parfaite à un niveau astronomique de taxes avec un niveau astronomique de contrebande, ce qui va demander un niveau astronomique d'inspecteurs.

A ce moment-là ça ve devenir un cercle vicieux: plus de taxes, plus de contrebande, plus d'inspecteurs répartis partout en province avec des nouvelles méthodes, pas seulement pour inspecter les dépanneurs légaux mais les autres sources illégales:

M. Grandmaître : Les frontières.

M. Poirier : -- les frontières, les gens qui ont des commerces illégaux, qui font le commerce illégal de la cigarette juste à côté, à quelques coins de rues des dépanneurs légaux, dans les réserves, un peu partout, au nez et sous les yeux des inspecteurs qui font ce commerce-là, qui font une très bonne affaire; et pour les travailleurs, qu'ils soient au chômage ou non, le choix demeure de faire un travail légal ou non. Si les gens vont faire de la contrebande, que ce soit pour la vente de cigarettes ou non, c'est un geste illégal. Je suis certain que les membres du gouvernement et moi en tant que député de l'opposition, jamais aucun d'entre nous va supporter quelqu'un qui fait un commerce illégal, qu'on parle de la vente de cigarettes ou d'autres choses.

Donc, ce qui m'inquiète: que le gouvernement me dise comment il va mettre en poste un nombre astronomique d'inspecteurs, parce que sa taxe est astronomique et la contrebande est astronomique, pour ceux qui font le commerce légal de la cigarette légale pour qu'ils puissent continuer à survivre.

The Deputy Speaker: To the members of Mississauga East and Durham Centre, I want to let your professors know that you are doing extremely well in the Molière language.

Mr Conway: Mr Speaker, I would like to join this debate for a few moments this afternoon and I certainly want to concur in your last observation. I think the members referred to set a very good example which the rest of us ought to try to emulate.

Tobacco taxes are on the agenda today, and I simply want to say that this is certainly not the first time tobacco taxes have been raised in this Legislature and it will not be the last. I participated in a cabinet where I believe tobacco taxes were raised at least once. I probably stand corrected, because they were probably raised on more occasions than that. They were certainly raised by the Conservative government as well.

At a personal level, this tax is immaterial. I do not smoke, and they can raise these taxes to the stratosphere as far as I am concerned. I like speaking to tax bills where I have no personal interest as a consumer. I say that quite sincerely. I am in a rage about this Hydro bill because of course that is a tax that one of my places of residence is going to pay and I am not very happy. I am going to take it right in the ear in a way I have very little choice about. But in this case, I do not pay tobacco taxes and I am fortunate enough not to have succumbed to this addiction, although I do not mean to suggest I am vice-free.

In good old Upper Canada we have had this interest in and support for vice taxes over the decades. We have taxed liquor, because of course it was bad. It was worse than bad. We still tax liquor and this budget, I think also as part of responsible revenue management, continues the age-old tradition of increasing levies, namely taxes, on alcohol products by five cents a litre effective May 27, 1991. This tax of course will increase the levy on cigarettes and other tobacco products.

I want to raise a couple of points today, again simply as a local member, because I have been struck by the number of ordinary people who cite this as one of the ongoing irritations. People have talked to me about this over the last number of years, to be fair, but certainly in the last two or three years the rate of taxation on tobacco has really started to attract people's attention.

Let me say personally that I support absolutely the government's position with respect to trying to wean people away from this very bad habit for health reasons. I have watched many of my friends trying to cast off the demon weed, and it is not easy. I have seen some good friends succumb to lung cancer, which, it has been pointed out, is thought to be directly linked with cigarette smoking.

Having said that, I feel an obligation to convey to the assembly this afternoon a view expressed to me on quite a number of occasions over the last two to three years by people who say, "I know what you're trying to do and I kind of support that, but you're going to a point that may be just a little bit too far."

My own father is in that category. He would want me to say, in the presence of my illustrious colleague the member for Carleton, that he has not appreciated some of the more extreme views, in his mind, that have been advanced over the last few years, most notably by the member for Carleton. My father is now 74. He would not admit to this, but I think he has probably smoked for about 60 years and considers it one of life's little pleasures. He understands the health argument and I do not think he would fight it too vigorously in any kind of public place. But that, for whatever reason, has not yet had sufficient compulsion to have him stop smoking. He, like a lot of people I represent, has started to complain rather regularly now about the rate of tax on tobacco particularly, although I have had some of my other friends point out that the tax on alcohol and related products is attracting people's attention to quite a considerable extent.

I just simply make the point that a lot of people I represent -- I do not think I have ever met anybody who argues that we should not really tax these products -- are increasingly concerned about the rate of taxation. In fact, some some people have said what my friend the member for St Catharines has observed, "If you feel so strongly about this, why not go the full distance?" which I would not support or recommend, but they would argue: "Why don't you just outlaw it? Get it off the shelves and make it illegal." I suspect our experience with Prohibition 60 years ago will make us all the wiser and cause us not to do that.

1710

That is the first point, that there is a growing sense among smokers in my constituency that we are getting to a rate of taxation that may almost be unreasonable if we are not going to outlaw these particular products. Personally speaking, this tax does not affect me. I am glad to be talking about a tax that does not impact on me directly, though the revenues it will raise, as the member for Durham East observed, will certainly be applied to the good works this or any other government will seek to accomplish.

I was in the presence of someone the other day who said to me, "Your reliance on the so-called vice taxes is quickly going to force you to start taxing virtue, because there is not much left to tax in vice." God forbid, should the Treasurer of this or any other government start to tax virtue, then all members of this Legislature will obviously be expected to carry a much greater burden of these revenue-raising matters.

As a member from eastern Ontario, I have been hearing some of the things to which the member for Prescott and Russell addressed himself a moment ago. I am surprised at the number of people I now meet in corner stores and other retail outlets who tell me people are not buying cigarettes where they bought them before. They do not observe that there is a marked decline in cigarette availability or consumption, anecdotally, in their experience. They say to me, "Something's up," and I think something is up.

I think it is well known to the Ministry of Revenue officials, who I am sure could not and would not want to confirm this too publicly, that there is now a very significant incursion of American cigarettes coming across in two ways. I will have to confess to this: Because my father likes to smoke, I will on my return from the United States, which I do from time to time, often stop and pick up a couple of cartons of Marlboros for him. I am not alone. I see the cigarette displays around those border points and it is clear they are very popular.

My friend the member for Prescott and Russell made this point: There may be a whole raft of cigarettes entering the market in something of an underground fashion. We have a very real problem with the tobacco tax in this connection. It has reached such a level that we are now apparently creating an incentive for consumers and some dealers, I gather, to actively engage in some kind of underground market. It will be interesting to see, for example, whether or not the Treasurer will achieve the levels of revenue expected from this tax. In the fiscal year 1989-90 the tobacco tax yielded some $770 million. In the fiscal year in which we now find ourselves, 1990-91, it is expected that those tobacco tax revenues will rise by $105 million to $875 million. As a result of this budgetary change, which will affect this year in part and next year entirely, it is projected that those revenues will rise to slightly more than $1 billion -- $1.04 billion.

It will be interesting to see how much of that target we reach, because as I say, there is growing evidence to suggest that our tax regime in Ontario is creating a very active underground market as well as more and more pressure for people to cross the border quite legitimately and use the exemptions that are provided under the federal regulations to bring certain of these products, which are very highly taxed in Canada, back into the country duty-free. We are going to have to look at that. It is no secret. It has been commented by a goodly number of people in this debate that when one looks at what is fuelling most of the cross-border shopping, three things are invariably cited: tobacco, alcohol and gasoline. Again, all my anecdotal evidence suggests that is true.

One of the things I might add that quite disturbs me is that in those not ever to be forgotten budget hearings I participated in this summer, in Kingston and Cornwall, on the southeastern Ontario frontier, there was a surprising amount of testimony that dairy products were also taking a lot of people across the border. People were buying milk and butter and those kinds of products. Again, that causes me some real concern because most of us are trying to defend supply management in this province and this country at a time when there is enormous pressure in the international trade debate to lower some of that protection for our domestic producers.

I simply want to say, as someone who does not smoke and who both supports and understands the government argument about trying to use tax policy to encourage people to stop smoking, that we may have reached a point where those arguments are not winning the day to the extent the theoreticians would like us to believe. We have some growing evidence to suggest that particularly with cigarettes and alcohol we have reached the law of diminishing returns. I cannot prove that; only events will prove that. I sincerely hope the haemorrhage across the border stops, but I have a feeling that will have something to do with the price structure of some of these commodities.

As we think about the taxation of these products, I want to say that the argument rings very hollow with me when people stand up and say they would never raise these taxes. We all have raised these taxes and we all probably will at some future point.

Mr White: Our innocence is so short.

Mr Conway: It has nothing to do with innocence. It has everything to do with reality. The member for Durham East was quite correct. We all like to go to the school opening, we all like to cut the ribbon and we all like to say three cheers to the good public or social works that make us feel good about being citizens of Ontario or Canada. Unfortunately we have to tax for those things. If you are fortunate, as we were for five years, growth in the economy provides some of that revenue by simply producing a level of activity that at the existing rates produces more revenue. We were fortunate in most of our years in having that. This government has not had that pleasure. Some day it might.

The difficulty is that when a certain level of expenditure is reached, the government -- any government -- is then forced to pay for that level of expenditure, in the short term at least, irrespective of what the revenue line suggests. The revenue line is clearly in trouble. I understand that. I know why the government is beginning to retreat on Sunday shopping. I understand perfectly that people have said to the Treasurer, "Listen, if you don't do something around the holiday period particularly, those retail sales tax numbers are unachievable."

He has done what I think responsible finance ministers have to do. He has, with the support of his colleagues in council, directed the government to say: "Our policy, whatever it was on the regulation of retail store hours and whatever it was around a common pause day, is running headlong into the integrity of this budget. We want this budget to at least stand up to the scrutiny of not more than a $9.7-billion deficit and to achieve that we need nearly $8 billion worth of retail sales taxes." Anyone who knows anything about the retail trade will know which period of time, particularly in November and December, is the most active period for sales and therefore for the taxes that accrue to the consolidated revenue fund as a result.

But I repeat that these tobacco tax revenues are not inconsiderable. We rely to the tune of $1 billion this year on this vice tax. Again, I have a bit of a conflict of interest. If the virtuous succeed and we strip this terrible vice from the land, there is a practical problem. Then the Treasurer is going to have to find $1 billion worth of revenue. I can tell members, it is more likely it will be a replacement of revenue than that he will want to strip out $1 billion worth of expenditures.

1720

As I say, when I look at the numbers, and we are talking about increasing that by almost 20% over a period of two years, $770 million to $1.04 billion, that is a very considerable increase in revenue. I repeat, everything I am hearing in the corner stores of Renfrew county and around eastern Ontario suggests to me that we are at a point where people are starting to actively engage in some civil disobedience, where people are simply not prepared to pay. They are engaged in some kind of underground market or to a much greater extent are going across the border and bringing their cigarettes and gasoline back.

I was talking to a friend who came back from a social engagement in New York state just this past weekend. He said it is really interesting when you sit in the line for two or three hours at Akwasasne and see what people do, and they are all doing the same thing.

I met yesterday with some of the people from Sault Ste Marie -- and I am sure my friends opposite did as well -- the community action team, a very impressive group of people with a very good cause. I could not believe what they were telling me. The city of Sault Ste Marie -- I probably should have known this -- is reporting that it is losing $140 million annually to cross-border shopping. I think that was the figure. It is in the report they left with me. The member for Sault Ste Marie is here. He may want to correct me, but I committed the figure of $140 million to memory because I thought that was a stunning amount of money for a city of some 85,000 or 95,000 people.

There is an argument. I think most of us in the House, certainly some of us more radically and completely than others -- I cannot help but look at my friend the member for Carleton in this connection, who in this matter is a new Puritan like no other I know. I say that most respectfully. I think there is a real issue here now that we are all going to have to look at. I hope the government, through the inspection branch of the Ministry of Revenue, is going to be monitoring the situation very carefully. I suspect this cabinet and subsequent cabinets will have to make some very tough decisions about this kind of underground activity, or whatever kind of activity it is. As I say, my evidence is just anecdotal, but it does suggest to me that we have reached a point of significant non-compliance and what the economists would call the law of diminishing returns.

Having said that, and having tried to recoup some of my father's vote, I will simply rest my case.

Mr Johnson: I listened with interest to the member for Renfrew North. He always impresses me with the amount of detail he can so eloquently project in the House. I am sure anyone who has the opportunity or takes the time to listen to him is also impressed.

The member says some of his evidence is anecdotal, and I appreciate that, because sometimes people use anecdotal evidence as fact and we know that is not correct. Smuggling is not something new. Smuggling has gone on for a long time. He suggested the rate at which people smuggle cigarettes into the province is increasing, and certainly that is something that would concern all of us. The police and provincial authorities that exist look after this particular problem, and maybe it means the problem is going to be exacerbated by the tax, as he suggests.

I also want to speak to the law of diminishing returns, which I think is something we have to be concerned about. There is a point in time when the tax will increase to such an extent that people will either stop buying cigarettes altogether or they will buy so few that the tax increase will not be of any benefit. But I would like to let the member know that at least at this time we have not reached that point, because tobacco revenues are on target at $250 million for the full year as a result of the budget change that included this bill. I thought he might find that interesting. I would suggest we are not even close to reaching that point, as the law of diminishing returns would suggest.

Mr Wiseman: I have been listening intently for the last few days on the discourse about the revenue bills that have been before the House. I found rather interesting the other day, when we were listening to the revenue debate on the surcharge on income tax, the great angst from the third party over the increases on the income of a single person who made $84,000 a year. From the calculations I have seen to determine how much that would be, it would be $11.63. It is hardly enough to fill the gas tank of their BMW or to have their Rolex watches fixed, so I am not going to bend myself out of shape over $11.63.

I would like to point out a number of things that my honourable colleague the member for Renfrew North has pointed out, and why we need to have tax revenue. In 1982, for example, the contingent liabilities of Ontario Hydro were approximately $11 billion. Today they are in excess of $26 billion. That is a huge increase. Under the fiscal mismanagement of the previous Tory regime, from 1982 to 1985, those increases went up by $4 billion, which is approximately 30% in a period of less than two and a half years.

I would also like to point out that under the management of the third party, which continues to say it is the most fiscal of managers in the country, from 1982 until 1985, the accumulated deficit went from approximately $17 billion to $25 billion. That is an increase of $8 billion, which is almost a 50% increase.

I would like to conclude my remarks by pointing out that all this information is available in the budget document.

Mr Hope: The honourable member for Renfrew North indicated one clear point that was really good, I thought: Sometimes we become victims ourselves when we cross-border shop. I was very surprised to hear that he went over there to buy a couple of cartons of cigarettes, because as we take our revenues outside of our province and we lower the revenues coming into this province in order for us to administer programs, we hurt ourselves. As a government, we have to look for new sources of revenue to replenish that revenue that is leaving our province.

I thought the honourable member brought up quite clearly that we like to be there to open the new schools and we like to be there to open up the new facilities or social programs that we have developed. We, as individuals in our communities, love them. We enjoy the benefits we have here in this province, but when taxation hits, we take the revenues outside the province. We just do not want to pay any more for the nice social programs we have. I think he brought that out clearly, and I just wanted to bring out even more clearly that we think we are saving ourselves money by taking our revenues outside the province. What we are doing in reality is hurting ourselves, because there is going to be some other place where we are going to have to find the revenue to replace the revenue that is leaving our province.

One of these areas is cigarettes. The honourable member brings up an important point, that if we keep taxing, eventually people are going to go out and purchase them somewhere else, thinking they are saving, or they start the underground. But in reality, we are going to turn around and maybe implement another tax because we have to provide the moneys for our hospitals, our schools, our programs, the moneys to keep our communities going, to build the roads, to build sidewalks, to keep the infrastructure of our towns and communities alive and to assist our farmers. As the general public, we have to take a very close look that we are not hurting ourselves by doing something else.

1730

Mr Sola: I would like to congratulate the member for Renfrew North for pointing out the fact that honest citizens are almost being forced into criminal activity by the additional taxes that we are imposing upon them. I am not blaming just the NDP government now, because all three parties that sit in this House have had their fingers in that pie and have added straws to the camel's back, but eventually we get to the straw that breaks the camel's back. This may be it.

When we read in the paper that the corner store, the one that is open 24 hours a day or from early dawn to midnight, carries contraband cigarettes, when it carries smuggled goods, then we have to start questioning whether we have reached a point where we have to reconsider what we call the sin taxes. When organized crime finds it more profitable to smuggle cigarettes than to smuggle drugs, we have to ask ourselves whether we have reached that point where the camel can no longer haul the load.

It is nice to point fingers at the federal government or at other parties. Every level of government in this country has done it and every party that has ever been in power has done it, but I think we have to start looking at how to solve the problem. All we have to do is look at the countries behind the former Iron Curtain where people were forced into smuggling by rationing. There was not enough to go around. If you wanted something legitimate like food, if you could pay more for it under the table, you did. I think we are doing that with tobacco in this case.

Mr Conway: I just want to say a couple of things. First, I would not want my friends opposite to get the idea that I am spending a great deal of my time or money outside this country. In fact that is not the case. I would think I probably have on two or three occasions, at the absolute most, over the last 10 years brought back cigarettes. I am quite prepared, at the risk of being mildly self-congratulatory, to put my local spending up against anyone else in this chamber.

As well, I think we have to look at the underlying causes for some of this movement. It may be very painful to look and see who is going and why they are going. I heard some member, I think it was the member for St Catharines-Brock, describe what she or some of her colleagues heard. I well remember what the Kingston and District Chamber of Commerce said about who was doing what vis-à-vis cross-border shopping. I do not have that data with me, but I think it is at some variance with what I heard earlier this afternoon.

The point is that more and more people from all walks of life, all income levels are crossing the border to buy an increasingly wide range of services and products. I well remember stories from places like Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay, where people in the housing and hardware business were talking about people literally buying and bringing back houses in component parts, which I thought was extraordinary.

We are going to have to look at the underlying causes for this cross-border shopping phenomenon, and I think all of us have to recognize that tax regimes have not a little bit to do with that. For that we are all responsible, and I think we are all going to have to collectively recognize that we may have to start addressing that.

Mr Sterling: I had not intended to speak on this bill because I have mixed feelings about this bill, to be quite truthful. Mr Speaker, you and other members of this Legislature who were here before the last election will understand that, because on previous occasions I called for higher taxes on tobacco. I must say that over the last two years things have changed dramatically in our world in terms of our abilities, either as provincial or as federal governments, even to make policy in isolation from what is happening around us.

When we discussed Bill 83, the bill dealing with increased income taxes for our higher-wage earners, I had some sympathy with that concept. Who can argue with the people of Ontario, that those who earn more should pay more? But there is also the counterargument to that, which I quite frankly accepted on that bill: If you tax those who are earning more and those people are the leaders, the entrepreneurs, the people who are creating wealth in the province, if you tax them more and more so that you eventually chase them out of our jurisdiction, you no longer have the kind of economy which can support the social services which we have grown accustomed to.

In approaching this debate, I am caught between the conundrum of knowing that higher tobacco taxes, in my opinion, affect consumption. Particularly, according to some Michigan state studies done by universities there, it has a more profound effect on young people who smoke. In other words, young people with less disposable income are more likely to cut down or quit as a result of a higher tobacco tax.

On the other hand, we now have a situation which has developed, particularly over the last year or two, where we discovered that our taxation regimes are out of sync with those in adjacent jurisdictions, so much so that we are asking our people to break the law, in effect, because the difference has become so great.

I remember one of my law professors at university, Professor Hubbard, saying to us once a long, long time ago, when he was talking about legislators making law, that lawmakers cannot make laws which people do not want to follow. Therefore if we sit here in the Legislature and think for a moment that we can make laws, perhaps on Sunday shopping, which the people or the shopkeepers do not want to follow, if they think we make laws dealing with very high taxation rates where people can get around those laws by doing other things, like cross-border shopping or buying cigarettes which have been illegally smuggled into this country, then they will do that if the penalty is so great on them in terms of buying cigarettes under our system.

I listened to the arguments brought forward by the member for Chatham-Kent, that we should be willing as Ontario citizens -- and I heard this in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs when we were talking about the budget -- to acknowledge that we have these wonderful social services and therefore we should be quite willing and most anxious to go out and pay these taxes. Well, I can tell members this: The people of Ontario and the people I know in my own community do not believe that politicians spend their money wisely. They are not willing to buy the argument that we are nearly prudent enough in the expenditure of the tax dollars, those moneys we collect -- I am saying in the generic way, "we" being part of the government -- that they will say to us, "Well, we will be good citizens and we will pay these taxes."

I was amused when the standing committee on finance and economic affairs was in Cornwall that the Cornwall board of trade or chamber of commerce had commissioned a consultant to do a study -- and I think, Mr Speaker, you were at that meeting -- as to what cross-border shopping was taking place across the border in Cornwall. What amazed me was that they identified, quite innocently, the group that participated in cross-border shopping more than anybody else. I could not believe my ears that it was public servants, teachers, in this community who were the greatest cross-border shoppers of all the people in the Cornwall area, people who had been receiving money from the taxpayers of this province, from property taxes, who should above all others understand the importance of the social argument of having a good education system. Should they not be the very people who should be willing to step forward and pay the taxes? No, they were the greatest cross-border shoppers.

1740

The argument was brought forward by the member for Chatham-Kent that we should understand and expect the people of Ontario to understand that we have to pay for these social services, and that therefore we can somehow convince the Ontario public that it should pay higher tobacco taxes, higher sales tax, whatever other taxes are required of us. I am afraid that cannot even wash among the educators of this province, as was proven in the city of Cornwall.

There is some good argument for higher taxes on tobacco, as I mentioned before. But unfortunately at this time with the way the world is changing, we no longer can make taxation policy in isolation from what is happening around us in the world. Therefore, my caucus decided it would not support this bill and would ask the Treasurer to consider taking some of the tremendous revenues they have received from this -- I know you pointed out in your speech earlier this week, Mr Speaker, that this government is doing absolutely nothing for the tobacco grower. They are not doing anything. They have taken $1 billion.

If they took one cent from each package of cigarettes sold in this province in a year, they would have somewhere around $10 million -- not one cent a cigarette; one cent a package. If they put that into the Redux program to get our tobacco growers out of growing tobacco, they would at least be saying to the tobacco growers, "We understand you're in a bad situation." I know the member for Norfolk is not satisfied with this government's help to tobacco growers whom he represents. I would hope that he can impress upon his colleagues that they take maybe one cent, maybe two cents from each package of cigarettes and give it back to the people who are suffering as a result of the decline in their ability to sell their product.

We have increased tobacco taxes, which I think has led to a lowering of the consumption of tobacco in this province, but we must take care of the people who have been involved in the tobacco industry who are suffering as a result of that. That not only includes the tobacco farmers; it includes those who process it and the communities that have suffered as a result of that. We know, for instance, that in the Brant-Haldimand area the decline in the ability of farmers to sell their product has decreased the value of land that has been used for growing tobacco, and therefore has skewed the whole market value system that has been put in place there. This government should step in and do something to rectify that situation.

I only hope that the Treasurer will not, in his next budget, bring in taxes without a view to what is happening in adjacent jurisdictions, will not encourage citizens to break the laws of this country, and will keep our laws within reasonable limits so the average citizen will buy his products here and pay his fair share of tax.

Mr Conway: I am glad to have my friend the member for Carleton enter this debate, but there was a certain want of passion in his speech. I know the position of the Conservative Party, as is the position of the Liberal Party, is not to approve this as part of the budgetary policy of the new government. That is why certain positions have been taken and will be advanced in a moment. However, it was interesting to hear the member in a very calm and dispassionate way advance his opinions, which I know you, Mr Speaker, have heard more often and more closely than perhaps the member for Scarborough and myself, because for those members who have not seen the member --

Mr Sterling: You haven't had to ride with him in a car, with his cigar.

Mr Conway: The member for Carleton really found religion when he found this cause and I just thought he was strangely secular today on the subject that has come to define him in this place.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve): Further questions and/or comments? Seeing none, the honourable member for Carleton has two minutes to reply.

Mr Sterling: I thought I was being passionate.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on Bill 84? Seeing none, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue, the honourable member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings.

Mr Johnson: In winding up the second reading debate on Bill 84, I would just like to touch briefly on some of the issues raised by members of the opposition. On the matter of the size of the tax rate increase on cigarettes, I would like to remind members of the official opposition that the Liberals raised tobacco taxes on four occasions during the life of their government. The tax rate on cigarettes went up during the Liberal years from 2.66 cents per cigarette to 4.83 cents per cigarette. On cut tobacco the Liberal government increased the tax rate from 1.5 cents per gram when it took office to 4.83 cents per gram by the time of the last Liberal budget.

To my friends in the third party, I point out that the federal government increased its taxes on tobacco earlier this year by $6 per carton. Our increase in the spring Ontario budget amounted to $3.34 per carton. I would also like to add that from 1981 until 1985, while the Conservatives were the government of Ontario, they increased taxes on tobacco by over 100%.

On the issue of cigarette smuggling, there is no question that this is a serious question and that any increase in the rate of tax on cigarettes at either the federal or the provincial level increases the financial incentive to evade the tax. However, tobacco marking has certainly helped to limit the extent of tax evasion, and earlier in the debate the minister provided members with current statistics on the retail tobacco inspection program.

In addition to its own inspections and investigations, the ministry works closely with federal law enforcement agencies to investigate significant evasion schemes affecting both jurisdictions. So far this fiscal year, tobacco tax revenues are in line with initial projections. There will be $250 million more in tax dollars raised in a full year as a result of amendments to Bill 84.

As the Treasurer indicated in the budget he brought down this spring, tobacco-induced diseases cause 13,000 premature deaths each year in this province. To the extent that tax increases contribute to a decline in consumption, I think the increase in tax on cigarettes could probably be justified on that ground alone.

There is one other very good reason for this tax increase, and that I think is clear to everyone: We need the revenue.

1750

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for second reading of Bill 84, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de Mme Wark-Martyn pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi84, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour -- 55

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Haeck, Hampton, Harrington, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Pilkey, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Ward, B., Ward, M., Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 28

Bradley, Brown, Carr, Conway, Daigeler, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Hansen, Harnick, Jackson, Jordan, McClelland, Miclash, Morin, O'Neil, H., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Poirier, Poole, Runciman, Scott, Sola, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson, J., Witmer.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

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

The House adjourned at 1802.