Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

VIOLENCE FAITE AUX FEMMES

M. Grandmaître : Je lève mon chapeau aujourd'hui aux organisateurs de la Campagne des rubans blancs qui a lieu cette semaine. Le ruban blanc est le symbole de l'appel des organisateurs à tous les hommes pour qu'ils déposent les armes de la guerre contre les femmes, nos soeurs.

Il est en effet effrayant qu'il ait fallu attendre que le massacre à l'École Polytechnique se produise pour que les hommes prennent conscience d'un événement qui peut se passer à tous les jours chez les femmes. Ces événements incluent le viol au foyer ou lors d'une sortie, des coups que les femmes reçoivent sans pouvoir se défendre, du harcèlement sexuel au travail ou à la maison, des agressions sexuelles contre les enfants et des menaces qui peuvent finir par des meurtres.

Les femmes ne peuvent plus se sentir en confiance lorsqu'elles sortent le soir, et maintenant elles ont peur de se promener toutes seules pendant la journée après ce qui s'est passé au Collège Humber en fin de semaine.

Il est important que les hommes sachent qu'ils sont partie intégrante du problème et de la solution. Je les incite à porter un ruban blanc, d'attacher un ruban blanc à leur maison ou dans leur lieu de travail. Je les invite aussi à lire la déclaration des organisateurs et de participer à cette campagne dont le slogan est «Rompons notre silence d'hommes pour mettre fin à la violence faite aux femmes.»

J'espère que je n'aurai pas à faire d'autres déclarations comme celle-ci au cours des années à venir.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Carr: I have an open letter to the NDP government from the Burlington Chamber of Commerce. It starts out:

"When is enough enough?

"The NDP government is planning a major overhaul of Ontario labour and employment laws. It has been said that many of these laws must be changed to level the playing field between management and labour. The NDP government says these drastic changes are an integral part of the government's vision of a partnership....

"Ontario already has North America's most comprehensive labour and employment laws. We urge this government to review the chart below which compares only a few of the proposed amendments, and some existing conditions, with some of the other industrial provinces of Canada and selected American states which are presently attracting Ontario business. A review of the chart leads to one inescapable conclusion -- Ontario does not need an overhaul of these laws. Existing businesses cannot afford additional costs and restrictions....

"The people of Ontario will most benefit by efforts by the government to invite and retain employer investment in Ontario.... Let's avoid giving prospective investors one more reason not to invest in Ontario.

"Please -- enough is enough!"

It is signed by the Burlington Chamber of Commerce, ACS Plus, Bailey Canada, Ball Packaging, Bonar Inc and all the other members of the Burlington Chamber of Commerce.

VICTIMS SERVICES OF HAMILTON-WENTWORTH

Mr Morrow: I am pleased to help announce the opening of Victims Services of Hamilton-Wentworth. It was on May 1, 1990, that the member for Hamilton West asked the former government to fund the program. I am happy to announce that my government has recognized this need and funded this group.

This venture, funded jointly by the regional municipality of Hamilton-Wentworth and the Solicitor General, along with the co-operation of the regional police department, breaks new ground in services for victims of crime. The office of this program is located at the headquarters of the police department at 155 King William Street.

The community board brought together lawyers, workers in transition homes, information counsellors, community developers and concerned citizens to make the original submission.

With the recent hiring of a project supervisor and support staff, a process and manual will be developed to recruit and train volunteers to work with victims of domestic violence, sexual assault or traffic accidents. They will also set up a protocol for agency referral to help people in these circumstances. It is hoped that in 1992, after the framework is completed, a 24-hour service for victims will be funded.

During this commemorative week of the Montreal massacre, I am glad that my government is using local solutions to help women who have been victims of violence.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr McGuinty: This week marks the second commemoration of the Montreal massacre. This tragic event reminds us all of the violence directed against many women in our society. The official opposition shares in the pain felt by women who have faced violence as well as the pain felt by those left behind, especially by their families.

Today we would like to join with the men and women of Canada in extending our commitment to all those women and children who have faced violence and to those who might face it in the future. We are committed to working with all Canadians to ensure the safety of women in this province.

Nearly two years ago 14 women students in Montreal met a violent death on a quiet December evening. This horrible act of violence and anything remotely similar to it must never be allowed to recur in our society, because in a just society one act of violence against even one woman is one too many.

The Montreal massacre emphasizes in a terrible way how crucial it is that violence against women be stopped. Our hearts, our thoughts and our prayers go out to the families and friends of these young women whose lives were filled with great promise.

Regardless of our political views, I feel certain that all members of this House will agree that violence against women must cease immediately. We challenge the government of our province to work with us, with women and with the many good men who oppose such violence to educate the public as to its role in bringing about an end to it.

Much of this needs to occur in the form of public education and we, the official opposition, are committed to doing whatever we can to help others understand that they must not only speak up against such crimes against women but encourage others to speak up as well.

1340

GOLDEN HAWKS FOOTBALL TEAM

Mrs Witmer: I rise today to congratulate coach Rich Newbrough and the Wilfrid Laurier University Golden Hawks football team. On Saturday, Laurier defeated Mount Allison University 25-18 to capture the Vanier Cup, symbolic of supremacy in Canadian intercollegiate football.

This was a particularly rewarding victory for Wilfrid Laurier University, a small school of about 5,000 students in my riding of Waterloo North. The team commenced its journey to the Canadian championship by defeating its long-time rival, the University of Western Ontario Mustangs, at the Ontario final played in London. One week later, Laurier came back from a huge half-time deficit to defeat Queen's University and gain a well-deserved spot at the Canadian final. In Saturday's Vanier Cup victory, Laurier running back Andy Cecchini closed out a remarkable career by scoring three touchdowns and earning selection as the game's most valuable player.

On behalf of all Laurier alumni and all residents of Kitchener-Waterloo, I would like to congratulate the Laurier Golden Hawks on a thrilling season. Your accomplishments have been a great source of pride for your school and our community and I wish you continued best wishes in your future endeavours, both on and off the football field.

CANADIAN AUTO WORKERS LOCAL 200

Mr Hayes: On the weekend I attended the 50th anniversary celebrations of the Canadian Auto Workers Local 200, along with my colleagues the member for Windsor-Riverside, the member for Windsor-Sandwich and the member for Windsor-Walkerville. I stand in the House today in recognition of this landmark.

I joined that local in 1964, long after the founders of the movement achieved great human and civil rights victories through courageous and often selfless determination. Born, as all unions are, out of often unfair and undemocratic treatment in the workplace, Local 200 was one of many unions that won victories such as gender employment equity, job security, seniority and hospitalization benefits, pension plan and health and safety regulations. To reach these goals many men and women risked not only their jobs but also the mental and physical health of themselves and their families.

Unions, especially Local 200, have toiled for much more than just the membership. As a long-time community activist, Local 200 has been a driving force behind the United Way fund-raising, supporting and developing housing and fighting poverty and assisting the unemployed.

I am very proud to be a member of CAW Local 200, because it was through my involvement with Local 200 that I learned the true meaning of social justice. I now would like to publicly congratulate CAW Local 200 on its 50 years of dedicated service to workers and the community of Essex county and the city of Windsor.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Mr Offer: Today I would like to commend the men of the white ribbon campaign and those who join them to stand up and publicly denounce the violence that occurs in society against women. Today we would like to join with all Canadians to work towards a society where violence against women is not tolerated and is dealt with in such a manner that the victim has the necessary support to recover not just physically but mentally.

We invite Canadians to work together by speaking out when violence against women is seen, by encouraging those living in violence to speak up and seek support and refuge elsewhere and by making it clear among colleagues and friends that this simply cannot be permitted or tolerated in our society.

The white ribbon campaign was so accurate when it titled this year's campaign Breaking Men's Silence To End Men's Violence. Those who are in violent situations are often made to feel that by speaking out they would be the offenders. In many cases women lack the necessary emotional and financial support to speak up against their circumstances. In other cases, those who do speak up but lack sufficient support are often victimized once again.

The willingness to speak out must not be from women only. It must not occur only in isolated groups. Men and women of all nationalities must join together and speak out so that women feel safe once again.

UKRAINIAN INDEPENDENCE

Mr Jackson: I rise today to mark a momentous occasion in the lives of all Ukrainian Canadians and all Ukrainians worldwide. On Sunday, December 1, the people of Ukraine voted unanimously in favour of independence from the Soviet Union. Many polls reported that as many as 80% to 90% of voters supported independence. What is also most significant is that the Russian and other minorities in Ukraine likewise voted in favour of independence.

Ukraine now becomes the fifth-largest country in Europe, with extensive industrial and agricultural resources at its disposal to re-establish firm links with the West which it once enjoyed as the breadbasket of Europe. As a member of the United Nations, Ukraine has been and will continue to be a great pioneer in the promotion of international understanding and co-operation. Ukraine will continue, for example, to remain solidly behind the removal of the UN resolution which equates Zionism with racism.

As someone whose Ukrainian ancestors arrived in this country almost 100 years ago, I join with members of our Ukrainian community in celebrating this great and long-awaited occasion. I now join with the free Ukrainian government in calling on all nations, and our Canadian government especially, to recognize Ukraine's independence as a fact and as the expressed will of the Ukrainian people.

To the members of the Ukrainian Canadian community I say congratulations, and to the citizens of Ukraine I say [Remarks in Ukrainian].

SUSAN CHIN

Mr Malkowski: I attended the class of 1991 graduation event at Marc Garneau Collegiate Institute in York East riding on November 22, 1991. Susan Chin, a young deaf student, received four awards: outstanding leadership, academic letter, outstanding achievement and the Loyal Order of Solomon, which I was very proud to present to her on that evening. Susan is an extraordinary example of educational achievement and leadership.

Susan is currently a student at the University of Guelph, studying environmental engineering. This university is an excellent environment for education and employment equity. To show its commitment to equality, the university this year addressed the importance of equal access to education at its third Abella Lecture. I am sure we all wish Susan the best of luck in the future.

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, I believe we have unanimous consent to speak about the white ribbon campaign at this time.

The Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent?

Agreed to.

VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

Hon Mr Hampton: I want to say a few words today about violence against women in our society. As you may have noticed, my male colleagues in the House today are wearing white ribbons and will continue to wear them until Friday, December 6, the second anniversary of the Montreal massacre.

These ribbons symbolize our desire, as men, to lay down our arms against women, be they our partners, our sisters, our daughters, our mothers, our colleagues or simply our friends. For too long our community has ignored crimes such as rape, battering and sexual harassment. Each day women are the victims of savage, brutal and often unspeakable acts, and the sad truth is that most violence against women is committed by men they know.

An equally insidious side to abuse against women is a more subtle one. Through comments and gestures women are made to feel inferior, vulnerable and harassed, ending up psychologically and emotionally battered. Members may ask themselves what kind of men would do such things. It is men of every social background, every colour, every age and every interest. It is men on the factory floor and men in executive offices. Simply put, it is all of us.

Today is not the first time this government or this House has called attention to the appalling way men often treat women. When launching Wife Assault Prevention Month in November, the minister responsible for women's issues told this Legislature, "Just as no man has the right to assault a woman, no one" -- and that includes men -- "has the right to ignore the reality of assault." One of the campaign's TV ads shows a man confronting his wife-beating friend at a backyard barbecue. Confronted by his friend, the wife beater falls silent. He knows that what he did was wrong, but hearing it from a friend is what makes the appalling effect of his violence clear to him.

It is horrific to contemplate that one in four women will be battered in her lifetime. What that means is that each of us, whether we are aware of it or not, knows women who have been physically battered, psychologically abused or sexually assaulted, and we have been silent. We can no longer remain silent while women are made to feel inferior, vulnerable and harassed through comments and gestures made by male colleagues at work. We can no longer remain silent while women are being assaulted by their partners in their own homes. We can no longer remain silent while women are sexually assaulted as they walk to and from work or school. We can no longer remain silent while women are being killed.

1350

Because men are central to the problem, men can be central to the solution. Every one of us is chiefly affected by the people we know and the events we personally experience. So I ask my male colleagues in this House, you in the public and press galleries and you watching at home, to make a commitment right now to the women in your lives. In a show of support and concern, start speaking out about the indefensible problem of abuse and violence against women. Only by speaking out can we change a culture where the women we love are imprisoned by a cycle of violence. This week we can start speaking out to our friends, our colleagues and our relatives.

This Friday, on the second anniversary of the Montreal massacre, members of the government will find a forum to talk in their communities and members of this Legislature will find a forum to talk in their communities. Between 4 and 5 pm we will be distributing materials, white ribbons, and the message that it is not okay to threaten, intimidate and batter women. We invite all members of this House to take part. Indeed, we ask everyone to stop, pause, contemplate and start talking about how to end violence against women. It is a very important start, but our efforts must continue every day of the year.

When we see someone behaving inappropriately, whether that means making sexist jokes or making degrading advances, challenge him; ask him to stop and think about what he is doing. I urge every man listening to seriously consider speaking out. I would like to commend the organizers of the white ribbon campaign for speaking out. I know what choice many of us have made. That is why we are wearing white ribbons.

Mr Phillips: In joining our party in support of the campaign, I think there are some things in life that one rages against and says, "I wish I could do something about it." I think the minister's statement today and the campaign show us a road to do something about it. All of us -- I have a wife and a 27-year-old daughter -- do rage against this. I was struck by a comment I think Edmund Burke made, that all that is needed for evil to triumph is for enough good people to do nothing. I would like to think that Ontario is filled with good people who will not do nothing, but who will do something.

In just the last couple of days I was struck by three or four things that indicate the things we can do. The minister mentioned the commercial, which I thought was quite effective, that shows an individual speaking out and doing something about it. I was struck by that commercial.

Yesterday I had the chance to be with some people in the Greek community the Premier would be familiar with: Bishop Sotirios and someone called Lucy Gregoriades. The two of them spearheaded a program on wife assault in the Greek community. It had the full support of the bishop and of the church and of the community, and there is an example of a community that is doing something about it.

I think it was one of the labour leaders who just a few days ago said: "Several years ago I would sit and listen to sexist jokes and do nothing. Then I removed myself when I heard them and now I speak out against them."

Those are three examples for all of us of how we as individuals, as we rage against this, can do something and take at least some measures to attack this most significant problem.

On the other levels, I would encourage the government to continue to apply the full weight of the law to correct it. There are certain things we as individuals can do, and certainly all of us will attack it, I hope, to the best of our ability. We will be supportive of the government as it moves in a legal sense to tackle it. I would hope that as the time goes by in this Legislature, the need will decrease over time. We have a long way to go. We in this party fully support the campaign that is being launched today and have many examples of things we as individuals can do to tackle it. As I say, we will support the government as it takes collective action on behalf of the people of Ontario to eradicate a blight on our society.

Mr Jackson: I am also very pleased to be able to stand in the House this afternoon in support of the white ribbon campaign. It is a conscious effort by men to begin combating the violence perpetrated against women by members of their own gender.

The need for men to join with women in this battle has never been more compelling than it is today. Today we recall the horror of the Montreal mass murder that claimed the lives of 14 women, and today we also recall the tragically short life of Nina de Villiers and Leslie Mahaffy of Burlington and countless other women who have died tragically at the hands of men.

Violence against women is unlike any other crime that exists in our society today. Unlike other forms of violence, violence against women is rooted in the values and assumptions of a society which is controlled by men who have tipped the scales of power between the genders in their favour. The psychology of male domination views women as objects, as male property and as extensions of men. Those of us who have been to the altar to be married know of the offensive connotation, the possessiveness of being referred to as "husband and wife" or "man and wife," denoting possession. Male socialization therefore has traditionally reinforced this attitude and has even been used as a basis for affirming a form of male identity. Pornography, along with other sanctioned means by which women are continually denigrated, promotes this form of male socialization as a legitimate enterprise behind the subtle cover of freedom from censorship.

The symbol of the white ribbon also runs the risk, however, of being overly simplified at best and problematic at worst. The wearing of a white ribbon does not even begin to address the problem of male-dominated values and of our institutions in society if it is left simply at this symbolic level. Many women wonder how far men are actually able or willing to separate themselves from their privileged position of domination in society in order to begin to address the suffering experienced by them at the hands of men who tend all too frequently to see acts of violence against the females as individual acts, unconnected to wider society values and of their gender role conditioning.

Women have a role in helping men understand how their positions of power and domination over women are a source of oppression for both genders. Men must begin to see what they lose as human beings in their relationships to themselves and to women as a result of their possessive and abusive attitudes towards women before they can start to assist with the reorientation of their own sense of self.

1400

Towards this end, we must begin to practically realize a goal of our educational system which I was pleased to put forward during the deliberations of the select committee on education -- I placed this 14th goal of education in Ontario in the name of my daughter Amy -- and that is to develop an awareness of those stereotypes and assumptions that contribute to the unequal position of women in contemporary society. Today I remind the Minister of Education that it has been on the books for two whole years now, and we are hopeful that curriculum changes are coming immediately to address this issue.

The white ribbon is also a call to men to lay down their arms, which they continue to use against women. These arms include not only guns and other physical means of inflicting harm, but also the weapons of officially sanctioned attitudes of male domination buried in our laws and in the men in our legal system who deliver uneven justice to abused women simply because they are women, including the attitudes of any government which is afraid of taking decisive action against hard-core pornography, or to hear the cries of battered women seeking access to basic shelter and support. The very fact that men are beginning to take a collective responsibility for their gender and for violence against women is a positive step in the right direction.

It is now time to move from ribbons to legislation and from legislation to program implementation, to practically begin addressing violence against women and its root causes in our society. The fact that Ontario is the only province in Canada without a crime victims' bill of rights sends just one more message that the rights of men who are the perpetrators of violence against women enjoy greater protection in our courts than those of the women victims.

For the truly sobering reality of violence against women is that it is the only form of violence which has more subtle societal sanction in its favour than against it. We, as legislators, therefore have a greater responsibility than most to move quickly and decisively to ensure a speedy resolution to this societal crisis.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Hon Mrs Boyd: I would like to report to the House today on the two-part strategy I have outlined to the child care provider community over the past few days.

First, I am pleased to be able to tell this House that staff in non-profit child care services across the province will receive, within the next few weeks, up to $2,000 each in wage enhancements, which were announced last January. The child care wage enhancements will affect all staff, including child care workers, office staff, cooks, drivers, cleaning personnel and others employed by non-profit child care services. These enhancements will be paid from the $30-million fund announced by my predecessor. The payments I am announcing today will be prorated and retroactive to January 1, 1991.

Second, this government is allocating up to $75 million for a variety of initiatives in the child care service sector. These are designed to facilitate the conversion of for-profit child care operations to non-profit services and to strengthen the non-profit sector. Because of difficult financial times and because our child care system is under increasing stress, this money will be allocated in a strategic way over the next five years so that the needs of families for high-quality licensed care can be met effectively by the non-profit sector.

The estimated expenditures will include $16 million for non-profit organizations to allow them to purchase toys and equipment from for-profit child care services wishing to convert to non-profit; $31 million to staff of child care services that have converted to non-profit so that they receive the benefit of full direct operating grants and the $2,000 salary enhancement once the conversion process is complete; $10 million for replacement of for-profit services which may close as opposed to converting; $10.8 million to assist non-profit services currently in financial difficulty because of declining enrolments, attributable partly to the recession and partly to our current distribution of subsidized spaces. The remaining money will be available for such things as legal fees for the incorporation of new non-profit organizations and assistance to new non-profit boards of directors.

The funding I have announced reflects this government's determination to focus government spending on non-profit child care services. This government has a long-standing conviction that taxpayers' dollars are best spent in the non-profit child care sector. We will continue to work towards pay equity solutions for all low-wage women workers but will honour our commitment to accelerate the wage redress for staff in the non-profit child care sector.

Our intention with the conversion strategy is to provide provincial assistance to facilitate the conversion of up to half of all existing for-profit child care operations in the province to non-profit over the next five years. Our funding will be carefully targeted to ensure that conversion occurs most expeditiously where no non-profit spaces are available. Once conversion is achieved, the new non-profit organization will be eligible for enhanced government funding through wage adjustment and the full direct operating grants.

The ministry will continue to license for-profit child care centres where they meet licensing requirements. Those centres, however, should base their funding and their business plans on non-reliance on government funding. For-profit centres which currently receive direct operating grants will continue to do so. Those for-profit centres currently having subsidy contracts with municipalities will continue to be eligible for subsidy payments. After January 1, 1992, however, we will ask municipalities to agree that any new fee subsidies be directed to non-profit child care programs unless the municipality is able to show the ministry that non-profit child care is unavailable.

As well, the ministry, in consultation with the for-profit sector, will develop mechanisms to ensure that financial and program information is accessible to parents whose children are served by those providers. In this way we will address the persistent problem of accountability to consumers in the service sector where those served are highly vulnerable children.

The government recognizes the considerable contribution the for-profit child care sector has made and continues to make in this province. Prior to 1981, when this ministry began funding new non-profit child care services to help with startup costs, most non-profit services were municipal or charitable organizations. Historically, for-profit organizations filled a vacuum in the absence of government funding and policy. Even today in some communities, for-profit child care services are the only services available.

For-profit child care providers have made a substantial investment in time, effort, dollars and care for the children in their charge. We understand their concerns and we will make every effort to take these issues into account in our deliberations with for-profit services wishing to convert.

1410

RESPONSES

CHILD CARE SERVICES

Ms Poole: Obviously the minister's announcement today does not come as a surprise. I too can read the newspapers. I also remember when the previous minister made the same announcement about the $30 million 10 months ago. That $30 million to improve child care workers' salaries is long overdue.

We must all acknowledge that child care workers are terribly underpaid, but if we agree that our children deserve quality child care, then surely we must also agree that their care givers deserve a salary that compensates them fairly and recognizes the important contribution they make. That is why the Liberal government targeted $60 million to enhancing child care workers' salaries in both the non-profit and commercial sectors.

Perhaps we should put this more in perspective. If you look at our highest-paid professionals, our physicians, our doctors, they received $484 million from this government. The average doctor in Ontario is making $125,000 and the average increase was $12,000. I do not begrudge the doctors anything, but I wonder where this government's priorities are, because it gives $30 million to child care workers, who are the lowest-paid professionals in the province, earning an average of $19,000. That $2,000 they will be getting is not an average. The highest amount they will be getting is $2,000.

While I am pleased the minister was finally able to extract this money from the clutches of the Treasurer, I am dismayed by the cynicism and arrogance that has been displayed. First of all, the government stalled for 10 months after announcing last January that it would provide this money for child care workers. The workers waited and waited, and until now they have not seen a dime. Then on the eve of the annual lobby for the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care, the minister came through. What a surprise.

I can tell members that the reaction the NDP caucus received in the coalition's lobby this morning would have been far different had that announcement not been made. I also doubt that the Premier and 11 cabinet ministers would have shown up at the coalition's lobby had that announcement not been made. At the same time, the poor Minister of Community and Social Services was left to fend for herself at the lobby with the private child care operators. The Premier and the cabinet ministers did not want to show up for that one.

That leads me to my second point. The minister has also announced that the NDP government will be spending $75 million to convert commercial child care centres to non-profit. What the minister and this government have done is to declare war on the private day care sector. Just as this government's rigid ideology has thrown the housing sector into chaos, just as it has threatened to eliminate the private sector involvement in auto insurance, this NDP government has now set out to destroy the jobs of 6,500 workers in the commercial child care sector. The worst part of this particular war is that it is being waged on the backs of children.

The real problem with this announcement is that it totals $105 million, yet it will not put one more child into the child care system; it will not help one parent get back into the workforce; it will not create one subsidized space and it will not create one job. Not only will it not create one job; it has the effect of losing 6,500 jobs.

What about the NDP's much-vaunted desire to consult before making major changes? There was no consultation. In fact, the minister did not even have the grace to let the private sector know it was out of business in Ontario before she made the announcement. They found out because the media came to them and asked them what was happening. The minister admitted today that to include the private providers would have been a pretence. She had no intention of compromising. She had made up her mind and did not want to be bothered with the facts.

What this government has to realize is that child care providers, parents and children across this province are not content with piecemeal solutions and offerings. We want a long-term strategic approach so that our child care sector will not be thrown into chaos.

Mr Jackson: Words cannot express how angry we are at this declared war the government has undertaken with the private child care sector, its workers and the children who benefit from its services.

I am pleased that the Premier and Treasurer are here in the House today, because I want them to realize one important element of this: Not one job is going to be created with this injection of almost $100 million that the government is now committing; not one more child will gain access to a day care centre in this province with that expenditure. In these economic times, one would clearly have expected that this government's priority would be to improve access for children and their families who do not have access to these day care spaces.

When he campaigned in the last election, the Premier said he was going to bring in pay equity for all day care workers in this province. When the Premier campaigned, he promised 10,000 subsidized day care spaces per year. Last year he announced, "We've changed our minds." He did not lie about it; he simply changed his mind. He said, "We're now only going to pay day care workers in non-profit centres."

This government decided it was going to discriminate against these 6,500 women in this province, and then the Premier said, "By the way, we've got only enough funding for 5,000 day care spaces instead of 10,000." Here we are a year later. He did not give the money to the day care workers in the last year, as was promised, and I understand the 5,000 subsidized spaces are something in the order of 3,100 or 3,400 spaces because municipalities are not taking up the program. Where is the sense of real commitment to day care in this province?

Now we have a Premier who tells us he is going to spend $30 million to pay for back salaries for a year. I want him to know there are dozens of day care centres in the non-profit sector alone which have gone bankrupt and gone under and collapsed in the last year. There are hundreds of workers in welfare lines or on unemployment insurance who will not get the benefit of this payment. Why? Because this government played politics with those women workers. This government said they were expendable in its campaign to drive the private sector out of social services. That is what this government has achieved with this money.

A year ago the Minister of Community and Social Services said they were going to develop a fund to help convert the private sector into non-profit. She did not lie. She actually believed the Treasurer was going to give her the money. When we asked, we found out there is no money. How can we believe that today's announcement is any different from what the minister said at the time of the election, what she said a year ago to day care operators and parents in this province or what she said during estimates of her own ministry, that she in fact was going to help? She has not; this ministry cannot.

Earlier last week I indicated there were Orders and Notices questions that have been sitting there for seven months, basic questions about which centres are closing, private and non-profit, and the sizes of their deficits. Do members know what this government says? "We don't keep these statistics." Yet we are led to believe the Treasurer is going to spend $10.8 million to help out of their morass the non-profit centres that are going bankrupt. This government cannot even tell us how many are in trouble and how deeply they are in trouble, yet it is going to throw that kind of money at it. This government has no accountability, no sense of understanding about how these day care centres are trying to survive.

In the last year, this government has spent millions of dollars in Hamilton to build seven new day care centres, yet 12 day care programs collapsed in Hamilton in the last year. How can this government abuse taxpayers' dollars in such a cavalier fashion? These centres are sitting there today half empty, and all that money was spent allegedly in the best interests of the taxpayer.

The truth is this government is throwing millions of dollars down the drain. Not one job will be created with this announcement. Not one child will gain access. This is an expensive, made-in-Cuba day care policy, and this government shall be held accountable for driving 6,500 workers out of the marketplace and for driving 600 predominantly female owners of businesses out of business in this province. The minister should be ashamed of her announcement in this House. It is nothing for her to be proud of.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT POLICY

Mr Bradley: I have a question for the Premier. The Treasurer is bothering the Premier at this time, but I am going to try to ask a question of the Premier.

I would like to refer to the secret NDP memo which was leaked last week in the name of the chief government whip, the one that had to do with the Consultation Central Co-ordinating Committee, which I call the political consultation committee, the one, as members will recall, that talks about how the government could increase its profile using taxpayers' money.

It says in the document that on December 3 this is going to the NDP caucus. This committee, which was to maximize the government's profile, was to establish a new base or a broader base in Ontario and it was for mailing out documents, keeping lists and using names creatively. It was all to be based on the budget committee approach of last summer, which is very interesting. When caught in the act, the Premier fired Jill Marzetti, who is the NDP secretary, from this particular committee.

I ask the Premier, now that he has had the weekend to reflect upon this -- he has had a week in fact to reflect upon this -- will he either discontinue this committee completely, or will he at the very least replace the NDP political operatives on the committee with public servants who can carry out an appropriate, non-partisan consultation with the people of this province?

Hon Mr Rae: The government is going to continue to try to consult with as many people as it can across the province. We are going to do this in a fair way. Of course, there will be people who are on ministers' staffs who are involved in this, as there will be people who are public servants. It is only natural that this take place in the life of a government.

Mr Bradley: Also last week in this House we talked about polls. One would not have expected this action with this committee on the part of the government from what we heard in the election campaign and certainly in all the years in opposition. Nor would we have expected this government to be spending money on public opinion polls, mainly because the Premier, when he was opposition leader, indicated that he was opposed to governing by public opinion polls. He had all the answers then and he had all of the policies that were necessary for Ontario.

Again, having reflected over the past weekend about this issue, is the Premier either prepared to go back to the policy he enunciated in the opposition of not conducting public opinion polls with taxpayers' money and then keeping the information for himself and the NDP caucus or, at the very least, if he is determined that he is going to abandon that particular policy, prepared to table immediately today the results of those public opinion polls so that all the people in the Legislature and all the people of Ontario who paid for them can see the results?

Hon Mr Rae: Again, the policy and practice of the government are clear. When the material is ready, it will be tabled in the House in the ordinary course of events.

Mr Bradley: My final supplementary deals again with the policy that one would have expected. I know many of the NDP members who are sitting in the House today ran on a policy of openness and allowing expression of opinion among government members of the Legislature.

When the member for Lincoln exercised his right to vote against a bill which in fact was bad for his constituents from his point of view, and when the member for Welland-Thorold expressed a viewpoint in the standing committee on administration of justice which was contrary to the line put out by the Premier's office on Sunday shopping, both of them were turfed from the committee, one as the Chairman, with a loss of over $9,000 in pay, the other as a member of the committee.

Again, upon reflection, is the Premier now prepared to reinstate these individuals -- they have been in the penalty box long enough -- and demonstrate to the people of Ontario that the Premier's office is not going to use a sledgehammer on all government members who dare to dissent from him and his group in Toronto?

Hon Mr Rae: I am delighted to respond to the question by saying to the Leader of the Opposition that he knows our House leader has made a proposal to the other House leaders, with respect to intensive work we want to see carried on over the next few months with respect to parliamentary reform, which will deal with a number of issues he has touched on today.

Mr Bradley: The only thing that has to be reformed is the attitude of the Premier to this particular issue.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Bradley: Now that the Premier has recovered from the jet lag from his trip to Europe that obviously plagued him last week, from the answers he gave in the House, I would like to ask a neo-isolationist question. I am a neo-isolationist -- I plead guilty to that -- because I am someone who is more concerned about London, Paris and Oxford, Ontario, than I am about those same communities in Europe.

The province received more bad economic news on the weekend. Statistics Canada said that the national economy shrank in September for the second month in a row. Canadian consumers spent only 0.2% more in the third quarter than in the second. If things are that bad across Canada, we can be sure they are that bad in Ontario.

In this province, October business bankruptcies were up 36%. Dylex, one of the province's largest retailers, decided to close its Town and Country women's stores across Canada, including 23 in Ontario. IBM -- you will be interested in this because you are from Toronto, Mr Speaker -- announced the elimination of 2,000 Canadian jobs, 80% of them in Toronto.

While Ontario taxpayers watch credit agencies threatening to lower the province's rating, the Premier seems to be content to float as his main economic initiative antibusiness legislation that will only drive more companies away. What does the Premier say to the 470,000 Ontario workers who are without jobs and who are wondering where the government's economic renewal plan is and why the Premier is not getting them back to work?

Hon Mr Rae: The government is working with all sectors of the community and other governments across Canada to ensure we do have a strong renewal taking place across the province. I know it is the job of the Leader of the Opposition to run everything down, and perhaps he may feel that way, but there are companies across the world choosing to invest in this province. There are businesses around the world investing in Ontario and increasing their investment in Ontario.

The Leader of the Opposition cannot have it both ways. He cannot condemn us for economic policies and at the same time ask us to spend even more money than we are now investing in the economy. We are investing as much money as we possibly can and we are engaged in as much work as we possibly can be with other governments and our private sector partners to ensure we have a healthy and strong recovery in Ontario.

Mr Bradley: To get the economy moving again, this government must gain the confidence of the business community, which is the main employer in Ontario. Instead of gaining their trust, the Premier is driving companies away with his NDP policies, his legislation, his regulations and his rhetoric and that of his ministers.

Groups from New York state which are interested in economic development say they are getting many calls from Ontario companies asking about moving to the United States. More than 35% of the Canadian companies actually going to northern New York state are high-employment manufacturing companies. In Ontario, 36% of small companies say they might relocate in the United States because of the policies of the Rae government.

As more employers complain about the government's economic program, can the Premier tell the House what policies he has in place that will attract new investment to this province and keep those employers from thinking of closing their doors and heading south?

Hon Mr Rae: It is interesting to hear the former Minister of the Environment. It is the first time I have heard him speak in the House with such certainty about various statistics and information being passed around with respect to the policies in the province.

We are working very closely with the private sector in a number of areas. I can point to examples where our policies on training, our policies with respect to research and development, our policies with respect to new investments in the province and our policies with respect to worker investment -- our policies in place today -- are helping not only to save jobs but to encourage new investment. If the Leader of the Opposition has the time I could go through a list of companies that even as recently as today have decided they want to invest in the province.

1430

Mr Bradley: Business continues to talk about a crisis of confidence with this particular government. They look at a government that has had to cut and delay its spending in order to meet its bloated $9.7-billion deficit target.

Interjection.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer should listen to the question. Business looks at a government that has increased capital spending as part of its anti-recession package and then cut capital spending to stay within that forecast. They look at a government that goes on a spending spree and then when the cupboard is bare starts slashing indiscriminately. Business people, taxpayers and workers are all wondering whether this government has any idea, any inkling of how to run its finances.

With companies already nervous about Ontario as a place to do business and competition for the investment dollar at its fiercest, is the Premier aware of how many employers, particularly large employers, are seriously contemplating closing down their Ontario operations, with disastrous consequences for various communities and the workers? If not, will he meet personally with the presidents of these companies to determine what it will take to keep them in Ontario? The Premier should mark my words: There are companies in this province that are going to close their operations with thousands of jobs gone unless he does so.

Hon Mr Rae: First, with respect to public finances, it is passing strange to hear such comments coming from members of the Liberal cabinet who went to the electorate last summer telling them there was a surplus in the budget. That is the way they campaigned in the last election. That is the basis of their last election campaign. Their last election campaign was built on sand. In answer to the Leader of the Opposition's question, I have met already with dozens of business people --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the Premier take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Before anyone issues a writ, perhaps we could hear the response from the Premier.

Hon Mr Rae: The Leader of the Opposition no doubt is not pointing out the fact that the largest commitment the Ford Motor Co made anywhere recently was with respect to its expansion here. He has not noticed the fact that Chrysler has made its major decision with respect to expansion in Windsor and Brampton, which is a very substantial contribution to the province, or the fact that General Motors has decided to locate its methanol production in terms of new cars in Ontario.

It is important to take a balanced view. Yes, our economy has had a rough year, there is no question about that, but it is also important to stress to the Leader of the Opposition that we are taking steps and doing everything we can not only to keep businesses here but to expand the amount of investment in Ontario today.

CHILD CARE CENTRES

Mr Jackson: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services, but I could not help but take note of the Premier's shot at the Liberals having their election campaign built on sand. I want to assure the Premier that the province is quite aware that his Agenda for People was built on quicksand. My day care question will illustrate that point very well, I hope.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Jackson: Seven months ago I put a couple of questions in Orders and Notices asking the minister to tell the members of the House and the media just how many day care centres have closed in this province. I asked her to advise us how many were closing, by profit and non-profit sectors, and I also asked her a series of questions about the size of their deficits and how much financial trouble some of these centres are in.

Could the minister please give this House the benefit of any of those statistics, to which, I might add, as per my point of order the other day, we are legally entitled to under the House standing orders? Could she just honestly bring forward that statistic for us right now, please?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The answer to that order paper question was initially signed by my predecessor, and I re-signed it when I became minister. It was rejected by the opposition because our ministry does not collect the kind of statistics the member was asking for in the way he was asking for them. The answer is that we cannot get the kind of financial information he is asking for from the for-profit sector because, of course, they do not have to report that. That is one of the reasons we are directing our funding at the non-profit sector.

Mr Jackson: Just for the record, nobody rejects an answer he does not get, and we are still waiting for this information.

The point simply is this: The minister's field offices are allocating subsidized day care spaces according to need, so they say. Perhaps they are not telling the minister that they have these data; they are just unwilling to share it with the public. But the concerns of all day care centres in this province, regardless of whether they are for-profit or not, are legitimate, and I might point out that the Treasurer has given the minister $10.8 million to bail out those centres that are in difficulty.

How is it that the minister can stand in the House and throw around nearly $100 million today in her announcement, yet by the same token can say she does not have a handle on the kinds of financial information required to spend that money? Is this not of concern to the Premier and the Treasurer? In these economic times, we do not have that kind of money to throw around. How can the minister announce that she is going to bail out centres when she herself does not know which centres are in difficulty or how deeply they are in financial difficulty?

Hon Mrs Boyd: In the non-profit sector we do know and we can direct those funds in a strategic way. That is exactly the point. In the non-profit sector we are able to get that kind of information and be very clear about the way in which we are doing it.

The member talks about the current distribution of subsidized spaces and the problems in the child care sector. We certainly do not deny that there are problems. That is why we are embarking on this full review of the child care policy with a view to really forming a child care system, which we have never had in this province; it has been a piecemeal, grow-like-Topsy kind of situation. We are doing that within the context of a non-profit child care system, and that is exactly what the announcement today was focused on doing.

Mr Jackson: The minister is missing the point. The point is that you cannot throw millions of dollars at a problem if you do not understand the problem. We are not asking for anything, at this point, other than accountability.

I know the minister attended the coalition meeting on Friday, but on Saturday, Kim Rudd, who works at Cook Day Care Centre, which is a non-profit centre, rose during the convention and spoke to the delegates and shared this information. She said that another non-profit centre had recently called her for advice. The centre's board had quit en masse on Thursday, just two days earlier. Apparently the Receiver General had not received the moneys that were owed under the law. Vacation pay for staff was not paid. The centre was not insured, nor was it incorporated. This centre wanted to know what they should be doing about it; they were calling another centre for advice.

1440

The minister announced $10.8 million to bail out these centres. She states she does not know which centres are in trouble. I ask her again, how can she solve this problem, how can she prop up this problem if she does not have any basic understanding of which centres are in financial difficulty? When the for-profit centre goes under, it files bankruptcy. Eighty-five per cent of the operators are women; some are losing their residences because they mortgaged their businesses. But the non-profit centres just walk away and the kids are left standing there. How can the minister make this announcement when she does not know which centres are in trouble in this province? We call that financially irresponsible. What is she going to do about it?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I call that a statement with a little question tacked on the end.

The member is quite right. If there is any kind of lack of accountability in the system, it should concern us all, whether it is profit or non-profit. I could not agree with him more.

We will simply not be putting any of the $10.8 million into any centre until we have a clear handle on its accountability process. We have made it very clear that it will be a strategic focusing of the dollars and that we want to use them to improve the accountability in the system. It is a very important point of what we are planning to do and I think it is very important that we have the support of our communities while we do that.

EMPLOYMENT EQUITY

Mrs Witmer: I have a question for the Premier. On May 29, 1990, as Leader of the Opposition, he introduced a private member's bill, Bill 172, that would have required all companies with annual payrolls of more than $300,000 to develop employment equity plans which would identify barriers to employment and set targets for their elimination. His model gave trade unions full rights to participation in the development, implementation and monitoring of employment equity plans.

Last week, the Toronto Star revealed that the Workers' Health and Safety Centre, originally established by the Ontario Federation of Labour, has used personal connections as its main recruitment practice. Attractive $57,000-a-year positions were not advertised to attract applications from all qualified candidates. Instead, these positions were offered to family and friends of board members. In the Premier's opinion, is this a classic example of systemic discrimination?

Hon Mr Rae: The Minister of Labour has already indicated that the matter is under review by his ministry and by the Workers' Compensation Board.

Mrs Witmer: It is unfortunate that the Premier did not respond to the question, but I will continue. Last week at its convention the Ontario Federation of Labour passed a resolution that calls on the Ontario government to introduce mandatory employment equity legislation. Mandatory legislation would dictate hiring practices to the private sector, when clearly the federation of labour's own hiring practices are not in order.

We have here a publicly funded agency that is rampant with nepotism. Does the Premier not feel it is hypocritical for the Ontario Federation of Labour to call for mandatory employment equity legislation on the one hand while exhibiting discriminatory hiring practices on the other?

Hon Mr Rae: It is important to notice that the Minister of Labour has asked that a review take place. I understand that the deputy minister is meeting tomorrow with the co-chair of the occupational health and safety commission, and I think it is very important that all public agencies, all agencies receiving public funds and everyone act in a way that is fair and non-discriminatory. That is a policy I would promote.

Mrs Witmer: The Premier talks about the review the Minister of Labour has ordered to review the hiring practices. To me that sounds like an internal whitewash, because both Ontario Federation of Labour President Gord Wilson and Ontario Public Service Employees Union President Fred Upshaw, who both sit on the hiring committee, have already publicly denied any wrongdoing with regard to their daughters working at the centre. Since the serious allegations concern senior board members, will this government be sending in an independent third party to examine all recent hiring decisions at the Workers' Health and Safety Centre?

Hon Mr Rae: Under legislation promoted by the previous government and the previous government's policies with respect to the health and safety agency, we now have a health and safety agency. They have a job to do with respect to ensuring that public money is effectively spent and that the practices of various agencies under their jurisdiction carry on their work in a fair way. I am sure all this information will come out.

CHILD CARE

Ms Poole: I would like to place a question to the Premier about how such a terrible error could show up in his householder that he claimed his government had brought in pay equity when it had not, but I know he cannot and will not answer it, so instead I will ask a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The Minister of Community and Social Services' reannouncement today of $30 million to enhance child care workers' salaries was certainly welcomed, particularly since it has been nearly a year since the original promise was made to child care workers. We will be monitoring the minister's implementation of this commitment. She has promised child care workers they will have additional dollars in their pockets by Christmas and we hope that this time the government keeps its promise.

However, the minister's announcement has sealed the fate of many child care centres in Ontario which will no longer will be able to operate. At the same time, it has failed to address the two major issues, accessibility and affordability. Announcements will not help the thousands of families that are on the waiting lists in Metro and in Ottawa, and in fact there are 100 families in her own riding of London Centre that cannot afford to pay for child care services, that cannot afford child care. How long do we have to wait for the minister's plan to help make child care accessible and affordable to the families of Ontario?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I wish there were a simple and quick answer to that. I am not going to be sucked by the member of the opposition into trying to state a date, except to tell her that we have made a commitment that by the end of this first term, through our consultation process and our strategic planning, we will have developed a system that will work towards the provision of affordable and universally available child care.

It is extraordinarily difficult in this time of financial restraint to predict with certainty how quickly we will be able to move towards that. I can tell the member that we certainly intend to work towards it as quickly as the financial situation allows and as quickly as the need is apparent. A member of the third party last week was talking about the uneven distribution of spaces, which is causing vacancies in some centres, and that is one of the issues we need to tackle so that we know exactly how large our problem is.

Ms Poole: It is not a matter of my trying to sucker her into a date. There happen to be families right across this province that are suffering. They do not have enough money. They cannot afford it. The minister must know that across this province there are many vacancies, and those vacancies are there because there is an inability of parents to pay those high fees. The spaces are there; the subsidies are not. The fees for infants in 1992 will be $200 per week. I challenge the minister to show me how a family with a total income of $45,000 can afford to pay this fee.

1450

Has the minister considered that many centres are facing deficits due to vacancies that are a result of these high fees? Should this continue, we have heard from many participants, including people at the conference for the Ontario Coalition for Better Child Care this weekend, that if the situation does not change, then centres will be forced to close. This is a real problem and we need real solutions. How is the minister going to ensure these empty spaces are filled so that children can receive the care they need, so that staff can continue to work and not be unemployed, so that parents can continue to work, job-search and access training, and so that these centres do not close?

Hon Mrs Boyd: We will be working thoroughly throughout the entire process of the next year, during the consultation period on child care reform and through the strategic directions I have announced today, to try and readjust the distribution of those spaces. What the member says about the cost of child care is absolutely true. It is becoming financially difficult for many parents to afford those fees, particularly since they have to be paid up front. The tax credit, which is fairly substantial, comes in later. That really affects the cash flow of families and we recognize that.

Unless we get a strategic hold on planning for the sector, it is going to be extremely hard for us to turn this situation around. We insist on doing that within a context we can manage in terms of accountability, which is the publicly funded non-profit system.

LARRY FODOR

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Solicitor General and has to do with violence against women. We noted the Attorney General's statement earlier, very eloquent comments from an Attorney General who will not bring in a victims' bill of rights, which could significantly help female victims of violence. I am sure the Solicitor General is aware that more than half of all women murdered in Canada die because of domestic violence.

Is the minister aware of the case of Constable Larry Fodor of the Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police who was convicted of assault against his wife? He broke his wife's nose. It is the second incident of this individual being convicted of assault against a woman. Following a suspension, he is going to return to street patrol next year, a job that involves handling domestic disputes. The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police chief, Robert Middaugh, has no qualms about putting Fodor back on the street. His former wife needed plastic surgery to repair the facial injury she suffered.

Is the minister aware of this? Hopefully he is. If not, I would certainly like to know why not. What is he doing about it?

Hon Mr Pilkey: Just as a point of clarification before responding to the question, is this a matter from the Hamilton police department?

Mr Runciman: The Hamilton-Wentworth Regional Police.

Hon Mr Pilkey: This would be a case where there would be a regional police services board, over which I have no direct authority. I am not familiar with the case the member cites. While I do not have any particular knowledge of this local matter, I would like to believe the police services board responsible would review the contentions that have been raised and see that the appropriate response is given.

Mr Runciman: Obviously a lot of attitudes need changing in this House. This matter was brought to my attention by the Hamilton Spectator, but the minister should be aware of it. His ministry went in last year to examine the police role in responding to domestic complaints and gave its stamp of approval to this force. The assault on this lady was the culmination of an ordeal which included grabbing, shaking, threatening, kicking, hair-pulling, punching, slapping, throwing furniture, hitting her with an ashtray and finally breaking her nose.

If all of these eloquent words are going to mean anything today, the minister should be prepared to stand up on his feet and say: "Yes, I'm going to take responsibility. I'm going to look into this and take action." Let's hear that response.

Hon Mr Pilkey: I certainly am prepared to do just what the member requested. If the comments that he alleges are in fact the case, they do require investigation and review and I am prepared to undertake that.

I know the member will be very pleased to hear this information: We as a government, with our concern about violence against women, have of course involved ourselves considerably in wife assault prevention initiatives and in sexual assault prevention and victim services. We would hope that these kinds of initiatives will go a long way to eliminate and stamp out any abuses, whether we find them in Hamilton or anywhere in this province or across this nation of ours.

WILDLIFE PROTECTION

Mr Duignan: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Last week the federal Minister of the Environment announced, as part of the Green Plan, a program designed to protect Canada's wildlife. I was wondering if the minister could indicate to this House what impact, if any, this will have on the work being carried out by his ministry.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Wildman: The former Attorney General is tempting me to refer to other elements of my life.

The federal government's national wildlife strategy is a welcome start for the protection of wildlife in Canada. It is in keeping with our initiatives with regard to a new wildlife strategy in the province. As the member knows, the Wildlife Working Group just recently reported and made a number of recommendations that we have consulted about across the province. We are committed to developing and bringing in a wildlife act. The federal plan calls for about $35 million to be spent over a six-year period across the entire country. Ontario is expecting that we will get a share of that funding for research to develop more information on the protection of wildlife in this province.

Mr Duignan: While I am encouraged by the minister's answer and while it is encouraging to see some progress is being made in this area, I feel a lot more is needed from the federal government if we are to begin to tackle the task of increased protection of our natural resources. While I am aware that the ministry under his direction has been working on a number of initiatives to achieve similar goals, will the minister outline what concrete steps are being taken by his ministry?

Hon Mr Wildman: As I indicated a moment ago, consultations are developing and continuing with regard to the development of a wildlife act in the province. Last week I introduced the amendments to the Game and Fish Act, Bill 162, which will make substantial changes to the act. It will bring in widespread protection for wildlife other than game species. I am confident the approaches we are taking with regard to public consultation will be complementary to the wildlife strategy that is being developed.

Members know we are also involved in reviewing the consultation on the wetlands policy, which we hope to bring in in the new year. We are working diligently on the endangered species project of the World Wildlife Fund and improvements to the Endangered Species Act.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. Is he here for a question? I would be pleased to pose it.

The Speaker: Which minister?

Mrs Caplan: The Minister of Municipal Affairs. He was here a minute ago.

1500

EMPLOYMENT AGENCIES

Mr Curling: Some ministers are ducking. Let me try another minister in my question here.

I want to ask a question of the Minister of Labour. I have tried another minister before; let me try this minister now. The Minister of Citizenship had promised specifically to produce legislation governing employment agencies, including tougher auditing of agencies, by the end of June and typically nothing happened.

Last month, following an appeal by the chief of the Ontario Human Rights Commission to the government to enact stricter laws governing employment agencies, I asked the Minister of Citizenship to keep that promise so that minorities and women are not denied access to employment opportunities.

At that time, instead of legislation the minister talked about conferences and also said she would be developing other guidelines, but nobody has ever seen them. Because the Minister of Citizenship would not come clean with me, I ask the Minister of Labour when he will keep his promise to introduce new, stricter legislation governing employment agencies.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: The question of the employment agencies is one we are currently looking at and, as soon as we are prepared to move, we will bring in the legislation.

Mr Curling: I think this government has more eyes than action. They keep looking at things and we are not getting anything done. The minister is really unable to provide me with any specific answers. If the minister is working on it, and I know it takes time -- obviously this commitment has been broken by the government. In the meantime, doors are being slammed in the faces of victims of discrimination; not only that, but we have seen the unions practising nepotism and discrimination. This is not acceptable. We need a government that acts. We need a minister who acts.

I have asked the Minister of Citizenship before and I am asking the Minister of Labour now if he will do something. If the minister will not keep his promise, he should introduce new legislation. There are regulations with regard to employment agencies. I am asking him to use his authority to enforce what is already on the books. I direct him to the Employment Agencies Act, clause 7(a).

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I want to tell the honourable member across the way that I do not know of any other government, in terms of workers' matters, that has acted as much as this one.

ONTARIO ECONOMY

Mr Sterling: My question is for the Treasurer. People invest money to make money. In the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and most of the 1980s, corporate profits were at about 10% of gross domestic production. Presently corporate profits are at about 4% of gross domestic production. Does the Treasurer agree corporate profits must increase dramatically in order to attract much needed investment and the resulting jobs?

Hon Mr Laughren: I thank the member for Carleton for that very helpful question. He is quite right. As a matter of fact, I was musing about that very problem with the governor of the Bank of Canada this morning, how corporate profits were about 50% the level they were 10 years ago. We were concerned about the need to have not only existing companies in this province increasing their investment but also companies from outside Ontario increasing investment and creating new investment in the province. The member is quite right. We are concerned about it and we are doing everything we can to encourage that kind of investment.

Mr Sterling: I understand from the Treasurer he agrees that corporate profits must increase. I see a nod in the affirmative from the Treasurer.

Governments in Canada seem to be doing everything within their powers to minimize the profits of corporations. The former Liberal government introduced an employee payroll tax, there was a commercial concentration tax for this area, and by offloading down to municipalities and school boards there have been higher property taxes. The government has brought forward labour law changes that are only going to increase the cost of doing business here in Ontario, whereas the present rate of return in the United States is about 6.3% to 7% on gross domestic product.

Can the Treasurer tell us what he is going to do to increase corporate profits, or does he believe we can still attract investors to Ontario and pay them a lower return?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mrs Caplan: You're against profits.

Hon Mr Laughren: If the member for Oriole would allow me to answer I will make every effort to do so. I know the member for Oriole is agitated, but perhaps she could contain herself.

In response to the member for Carleton, I say that the best encouragement for investment in the province is to create the kind of environment that says to the business community: "You are welcome here. We have a skilled labour force that will help you in your attempts to produce productively and deliver services productively."

We believe, and we are told this time and time again, that the quality of our educational system, the quality of our health care system and the quality of the environment have a lot more to do with creating investment in the province than does picking out one particular tax or another and saying, "That particular tax is higher than a tax in another jurisdiction."

If the member puts all of the taxes together that the corporate sector pays in the province and compares them with those south of the border or compares them with jurisdictions in the rest of Canada, he will find that this province is as competitive as any jurisdiction in the world. As a matter of fact, I think it is the best place in the world to work, to invest and, yes, to play as well.

ONTARIO WASTE MANAGEMENT CORP

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. As the minister knows, residents in my riding of Lincoln have been fighting a proposal --

Mr Carr: Ron, ask the Premier why you got fired.

Mr Hansen: Are you giving the go-ahead, Mr Speaker?

The Speaker: Go ahead.

Mr Hansen: Thank you. As I was saying, residents in my riding of Lincoln have been fighting the proposal by the Ontario Waste Management Corp to build a toxic waste facility in Lincoln. The proposal is currently being debated before the Environmental Assessment Board. Last week the Provincial Auditor said that OWMC spending practices were less than satisfactory according to the provincial standards.

What has the minister done or what is he prepared to do to make sure the financial abuses outlined in the report do not continue?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am glad to have the question and I too applaud the member for Lincoln for his strong concern about the Ontario Waste Management Corp and his ongoing interest in the work of my ministry. I am happy to be able to tell him that I share his concern about the way in which OWMC has been operating.

Long before the auditor's report became a public document, I had indicated to OWMC that I expected restrictions on overseas travel and scrutiny of consultants and legal expenses as though it was a ministry of the government as opposed to being a crown corporation, as it had been established by the members opposite.

On receipt of the auditor's report I met with Dr Chant and indicated to him very strongly that in a time of restraint, and in fact at any time, expenditure of public funds is something that has to be done most carefully and that the kinds of incidents reported by the Provincial Auditor were not acceptable.

Mr Hansen: Over the past five years I have been very active with the Toxic Waste Research Coalition. I have spent over $10,000 fighting this proposal. I realize the proposal is currently being reviewed before the Environmental Assessment Board and the process should not be prejudged by the government.

Can the minister tell us what measures she will take to ensure that all the money spent on the Ontario Waste Management Corp is spent responsibly?

Hon Mrs Grier: In response, I can take the kind of day-to-day administrative measures I have outlined in my response to the member's first question. I am pleased to be able to add that OWMC will be following the Management Board guidelines with respect to the letting of consultant contracts and the salaries of senior management, as though it was a line ministry and not a crown corporation.

In addition, I would like to make it very clear that should the Environmental Assessment Board approve the current proposal made by Ontario Waste Management Corp, that does not indicate automatic approval of construction of that facility. I have said that publicly. I have told the corporation that the approval of this particular project is one decision. The decision the government will then have to make, should the proposal be approved, is whether or not to proceed with the project as planned.

1510

TORONTO ISLANDS COMMUNITY

Mrs Caplan: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs in my capacity as critic for the waterfront. Last week the minister and the NDP announced they had solved the Toronto Islands issue at no cost to taxpayers, but there are a growing number of questions from people such as myself who have been supportive of an island community about the fairness of this deal the minister has struck. He stressed fairness at his press conference.

The minister knows that even though market rents were projected to be about $1,000 per month, this deal allows for rents of $30 to $40 a month for current residents. Some are saying that is not fair. The fact is that rents are obviously not based on income levels and the ability to pay, because 15% of the island population earn in excess of $70,000.

In light of the fact that island residents have not paid any rent for the past decade -- and people say that is not fair; taxpayers are going to have to cover that cost -- will the minister explain whether the $30 a month these island residents are paying is the same as other tenants are paying in government-owned leases and properties? Is that fair? Is it the same?

Hon Mr Cooke: I certainly appreciate the support in principle that the member expresses for the people living on the island and the solution we have come to. I would like to point out to the member a couple of things I think are important to remember.

First, the people who live on the island are not going to be able to pay the $36,000 to $46,000 for the land leases in upfront cash. They are going to be mortgaging that money, like the member or me or anybody else in the province would. If that amount of money is mortgaged over a 25-year period, we can look at the cost of the mortgage being more in the neighbourhood of $5,000 to $6,000 a year to the residents. In addition, the residents will be paying property taxes. We also expect the residents on the island will be expending considerable amounts of money to bring the homes up to standard so we have a good, clean, affordable community on the island.

Mrs Caplan: Obviously the minister's answer is that the $30 to $40 rent a month the islanders are paying is substantially less than other tenants are paying for government property and homes. There are many who think that is not fair.

There are a number of outstanding disputes regarding the ownership of the residences on the island and who will benefit from this deal the minister has struck. How is his legislation going to resolve the ownership dispute and the tenure in the existing island homes in a way that will be seen by the taxpayers of this province, as well as people who have an interest in the properties, to be fair? How is the minister going to make sure the disputed ownership is fair and that the taxpayers of this province see it to be fair?

Hon Mr Cooke: The member reiterated her claim that the cost of the lease was going to be $30 to $40 a month. That is simply not the case. When the financing takes place, the monthly costs are going to run more in the neighbourhood of $333 to $425 a month. In addition, there will be the cost of the property taxes, which any tenant in the community would also be paying, plus the cost of sewer, water and other services that are provided to the island. It is quite conceivable that the cost of living on the island under our plan will be very comparable to the cost of living on the mainland when all those services are put into place.

I am not quite sure what the member is suggesting. Is she suggesting the land leases should go for $100,000 or $200,000? If she is suggesting that, then the island proposal would not be feasible, the island would not be affordable and her support for this idea in principle would not be worth the time it took her to ask the question.

EDUCATION LEGISLATION

Mrs Cunningham: My question is for the Minister of Education. Bill 125, An Act to amend the Education Act and certain other Acts relating to Education, has raised a number of concerns with interested parties and many parents. I am sure other members in the House can boast this kind of mail on this one piece of legislation. There are many parents who believe their existing right to request religious education for their children will disappear if section 50 is deleted from the act.

Is there any special way the minister is going to deal with this bill? If he has any special plans for section 50, it would certainly help all of us in answering our mail.

Hon Mr Silipo: I too, like the member and others, have received mail about that particular section of the bill and others. What I can say to the member is that the provisions of Bill 125 are ones I am looking at now with my officials. We are still trying to deal with this bill between now and the end of the legislative session. In fact, my office, if it has not already been in touch, will be in touch with the member as the opposition critic, as well as the Liberal critic, to discuss some possibilities around this. My hope is that we can resolve this and some other issues in this legislation before the session is over.

Mrs Cunningham: As the minister has been so co-operative on the first question, I will dare to ask a second one. There are other sections of the bill causing great concern. It helps all of us to hear the minister respond to these questions in the House.

There are some 18 separate and unrelated changed to the Education Act. Extremely controversial are some of the school transfers under Bill 30. The other one I am getting a lot of mail on is the compulsory senior and junior kindergarten programs.

If the government is really planning to get this through before the end of this session, I hope the minister can tell the public today that we will be putting this bill out for public consultation; judging by the requests I am getting, the people will be satisfied with nothing less. Will we be publicly consulting on this bill?

Hon Mr Silipo: That also is part of the discussion I have asked to happen that we want to have with the opposition critics and, obviously, through the House leaders' offices. I know various sections in the bill are of concern to people. My sense is that we can address a number of the concerns, as I have heard them, even in the time between now and Christmas, but if we get a different sense in the discussions we have been having and will continue to have over the next few days, obviously that is something I would like to be able to give some clear indication on to the House and my critics in the days to come.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Minister of Community and Social Services. I do not think I am going to get a supplementary, so, please, a little bit of indulgence, Mr Speaker. I am going as quickly as I can, but this is an important issue for people who live down in Niagara.

A week ago today a kid appeared in young offender court. He received a disposition of 60 days' open custody. Nobody quarrels with that. The family is grateful to the presiding judge and feels it is appropriate. The family wants to participate in the treatment, rehabilitation and counselling for this kid. He is a child. That is why he was in young offender court and undoubtedly why the judge gave him 60 days of open custody. The family wants to participate. The family are good, hard-working people, but they are not rich people.

The kid is sent to David S. Horne up on Highway 20. There is no room at David S. Horne, so they move this kid from Welland to Hamilton, to Dawn Patrol Group Homes. There is no room at Dawn Patrol. Where does this kid get shipped? The kid gets shipped to Windsor. Nobody is quarrelling with the 60 days of open custody. Everybody, family and friends, are hoping it is going to be fruitful and beneficial to the kid's wellbeing, but the parents cannot participate in the rehabilitation and counselling process; the kid is removed from family and community. Everybody is fearful that the 60 days is going to be time ill spent rather than being productive and beneficial and that the kid is simply going to suffer more because he is being pulled out of his community. Nothing against Windsor, but Windsor is an entirely alien community to the kid.

The Speaker: And the question?

Mr Kormos: Does the minister really think that shipping kids from Welland all the way to Windsor, away from their families and community, is conducive to the rehabilitation we should expect from open custody facilities? What can the minister do and what will the minister do to help this family and make sure that kid gets open custody treatment and counselling in the community where he deserves to be?

1520

Hon Mrs Boyd: I share the member's concern. Certainly the policy of the ministry is that wherever possible, a young person will be placed in his or her own community. Certainly there is no question that rehabilitation does occur better in the community, especially when the family is prepared to participate. There is no question about that.

We obviously are in a situation in some parts of the province where places may not be available upon the disposition of the cases, in which case the authorities look at any kind of shift being the shortest possible length of time. I would assume that in a case like this, because it is a very short sentence, the decision was made on those grounds. I cannot tell the member how frequently this happens, although my information is that it happens as infrequently as possible. I can tell him that I share his concern and the family's concern and will do everything I can to ensure that this happens as seldom as possible.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Curling: I want to give notice to the Minister of Labour to answer further my question. As I pointed out to him today, I feel it was inadequately addressed, and I now give notice that I would like to have him address those questions.

The Speaker: I trust the honourable member will file the necessary document at the table.

MOTIONS

STATUS OF BILLS

Hon Mr Cooke: I would like to move the following motion by unanimous consent. I have shared the motion with the opposition House leaders and they have agreed.

Mr Cooke moved that with respect to all government and private members' public bills remaining on the Orders and Notices paper following the meeting of the House on December 19, 1991,

(a) the office of the legislative counsel shall, as soon as possible

(i) revise the bills to refer to the Revised Statutes of Ontario, 1990, and to include French translations of any provisions that are in English only,

(ii) reprint the revised bills, and

(iii) provide the reprinted bills to the Clerk of the House as each bill is reprinted, and

(b) after a reprinted bill is provided to the Clerk of the House, the reprinted bill shall be deemed to be at the same stage of business for the House and its committees that the bill was at before it was reprinted, and all further steps taken by the House or its committees with respect to the bill shall be based on the reprinted bill.

Motion agreed to.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Following the member for Scarborough North, I had risen on the same point and you failed to recognize me and went directly to Mr Cooke. I too wish to serve notice of my dissatisfaction with a response from the Minister of Community and Social Services and would be pleased to file the necessary documents with the clerk.

PETITIONS

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Drainville: It gives me great honour again to come to this Legislative Assembly and present on behalf of the constituents of Victoria-Haliburton a petition which is to the Legislative Assembly and to the Solicitor General.

"We, the undersigned citizens of Bobcaygeon-South Veralum police district, Victoria county, are concerned about the increase of incidents requiring police attention in our community. We feel that the Ontario Provincial Police are not currently able to provide adequate services for these problems. We are concerned both for the safety of the citizens in our community and for the safety of the Ontario Provincial Police officers who patrol this area. We feel strongly that our community would be better served by a greater police presence in the form of additional officers to be added to our Lindsay Ontario Provincial Police detachment and we look forward to your immediate attention to these concerns."

There are 1,400 signatures here, Mr Speaker, and I have affixed my own signature.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr Kormos from the standing committee on resources development presented the committee's Report on the State of Emergency and the Income Crunch in Ontario Agriculture and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr Kormos: It is important to acknowledge the participation of any number of people: farmers and their representative groups across the province, and also people who participated in the committee -- of course, the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay as Vice-Chair, the members for Wellington, Cornwall, Windsor-Sandwich, Sarnia, Lanark-Renfrew, Huron, Sudbury, Mississauga North, Timiskaming and Cochrane North. A special contribution was made by the staff: Harold Brown as clerk and Tannis Manikel as clerk, Lewis Yeager and Lorraine Luski.

Once again, this is a report that flowed from members' concerns about the state of crisis, especially in the southwest of the province, where drought this past summer created real hardship for a lot of hard-working, honest farmers who have been looking to government for a long time for some relief from the difficulties they face.

The report is an interesting one. It contains a number of recommendations. All of us on the committee are hoping the Minister of Agriculture and Food and, more important, the Premier, read the report and give effect to those recommendations and make sure they become realities.

The report is available to anybody who is interested. I urge farmers, farm families and people in rural farming communities to write to their MPP or to the office of the Clerk here at the Legislative Assembly, Queen's Park, to receive a copy of it.

I thank those people who participated in the hearings. I am proud of the committee and of the report it has prepared, and I am proud to be able to present this report to you this afternoon, Mr Speaker, hoping that farmers working so hard to grow food to feed our families will get some relief from the hardship they endure through no fault of their own; let's not forget that. It is incumbent upon government at all levels to come to the aid of those very same farmers.

On motion by Mr Kormos, the debate was adjourned.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 85, An Act to amend the Fuel Tax Act, 1981 / Projet de loi85, Loi portant modification de la Loi de 1981 de la taxe sur les carburants.

Mr Cousens: This debate will come to an end shortly. Even though many of us will have stood in our place and spoken against this bill about another tax increase in the province, the government, without considering these points or any other points, will go ahead and vote for it. None the less, I feel constrained to speak out and, once again, to challenge the government to consider what it is doing and to consider the impact.

I know the member for Welland-Thorold is capable of thinking for himself. I wish he could get a few of those other guys to do the same. It is dangerous when you have other honourable members who start to think, because in the New Democratic Party they all come in here and do it one way, that is, the way of the Treasurer or the Premier, without thinking for themselves.

To get elected, they will go out and say just about anything to win the hearts and minds of their voters. Then they will come back here and who knows what will come through? It is too bad they are not the same free agents they once were. Now they are under the control of a whip and a government forcing them to bring forward legislation that has a very serious impact on our economy.

Before I get into the bill, I would like to compliment the government for at least one part of this bill. Very often when we discuss legislation in opposition, all anyone can do is condemn the legislation as being totally bad. It is not. I think there are some aspects of this bill that are important.

I want to commend the Minister of Revenue for bringing forward some changes that will force those people who are trying to escape paying taxes to be caught up in what this bill is going to require them to do. There are a number of measures in this bill that will crack down on tax evasion. These measures proposed in the Fuel Tax Amendment Act closely parallel previous proposals that have been brought forward earlier for gasoline, but what it will do now is force mandatory registration of importers, exporters and interjurisdictional transporters, providing for separate registration for persons permitted to dye fuel and the provision for the seizure of fuel from unlicensed interjurisdictional transporters. Really what they are trying to do with this bill is clean up those practices that have allowed some people to take advantage of the loose system we have had up until now.

1530

It is too bad we have to have more and more regulations and laws. I think what has happened, though, is that there are some people who are able to interpret the existing legislation to their own advantage, in fact to such a degree that they find it easy to break. It becomes very difficult to catch them and then the province loses revenue we should have.

On the one hand, before I come along and criticize, as strongly as I can, other parts of this bill, I can go on record right now and say that I support the efforts by the government to control those who would try to break the law. This Bill 85 certainly has a large section in that regard.

None the less, in thinking about this bill, I have posed six questions. I will try in my own mind to come forward with the answers to those questions, and if the government, our honourable Treasurer -- it is not the Minister of Revenue who brings forward this legislation; it is the Treasurer and Minister of Economics for the province who determines how he is going to raise the necessary revenues for the government. I raise six question of my own and if the Treasurer had the answers to them and the answers were affirmative, then he might not bring forward this legislation. Let's just take a moment or two to look at these questions and just see if there is a good reason for another fuel tax in Ontario.

The first question I pose is, are Ontario's fuel taxes less than in neighbouring jurisdictions? My assumption there is that if Ontario is paying considerably less or some degree less than other jurisdictions, it therefore might seem natural that we are going to want to raise our taxes. If we are offering such a competitive advantage to other people who are transporting within the province, we would not want to be giving something away where we could get a little more claim to some extra revenues.

The Treasurer is coming over. Has he changed his mind?

Hon Mr Laughren: Not yet.

Mr Cousens: Oh gosh, the honourable minister. We might get to him yet.

The point we then look at is that when you see where Ontario's rate for fuel taxes is compared to other jurisdictions, the fact of the matter is that Ontario's new general rate of fuel taxes for trucks and for diesel engines in the railway system will be the fourth highest in Canada. Effective January 1, 1992, Ontario's new general rate of 14.3 cents a litre will be the second-highest in Canada, assuming there is no change in any other province.

Where that comes to, in our understanding, is the fact that this bill is really broken into several parts and I should just explain it. The bill implements the budget proposal to increase diesel fuel taxes by 1.7 cents a litre effective April 30, 1991, and by another 1.7 cents a litre effective January 1, 1992. At the start of next year then, when this bill comes into full force with the second hike, the tax from the pre-1991 budget rate of 10.l9 cents per litre will be increased to 14.3 cents a litre. This bill will also subject the tax rate applied to railway fuel to a similar two-phase increase in 0.55-cents-per-litre increments, which will push the tax rate from its pre-budget level of 3.4 cents per litre to a rate of 4.5 cents per litre as of January 1, 1992.

Our point is very simply this: Ontario is pushing itself to a new high level from previously in the costs for people doing business.

I asked the question, is the province coming in now and as a province, in this jurisdiction, charging less or more than other jurisdictions? By January 1992, Ontario will have the second-highest rate in Canada for fuel for trucks and for diesels and for railway. How can we as a province continue to attract investment or business if we are going to be in such a position as to have the highest rates?

Newfoundland has a different set of problems than we have. Ontario, the heartland of Canada, the engine that really drives the economy of this country, is being driven into the ground. You can almost say the engine has stalled. In the recession through which we are now trying to make our way, instead of there being relief, instead of there being something that opens the door of opportunity for businesses, the government continues to push down on the economy so it becomes tougher and tougher for business to prosper, to thrive, to just stay alive.

The high cost that goes into the operation of business, of the vehicles and the operating costs alone, amounts to a significant part of what a business is all about. You really see that it is approximately 75% of what it is in the large trucking companies to just maintain their equipment. When the cost of fuel is such a large component of what it is to do business, this, what seems to be an insignificant increase in diesel fuel, becomes something that is going to be passed on in the cost of goods and services that we buy in the store. It means that if the trucker has to pay more for fuel and gas taxes, then the consumers, who are receiving the delivery of those goods, end up having an escalated increased cost in the goods and services they buy.

No one can meet these costs, and these costs amount to a significant increase. I just wish I had the numbers from some of the trucking companies that would show us what it is doing to them, but I will tell members what it is doing to them. I do not happen to have the numbers at hand, but in talking with truckers from my community in Markham, I have the great sense that they are finding the increased competition from US carriers to be so large that they are ending up not expanding their operations in Ontario or Canada at all. In fact, they are giving up business to US carriers whose total costs are less than theirs.

It costs them less to buy a vehicle in the United States of America. It costs them less to feed that vehicle with fuel in the United States. Therefore, when we now have an open licensing system where there is far more cross-border traffic and when there are trucks and vehicles going back and forth delivering goods in this free trade agreement, the Canadian truckers are being disadvantaged. They are being disadvantaged because the cost of doing business in Canada -- in Ontario in particular -- exceeds what it costs south of the border in Buffalo.

The problem existed before this bill, when Ontario had the fourth-highest rate of tax for fuel. The kindness of this government should have some sense of the need for business to at least carry on, but now instead of doing something positive it has brought forward another negative, a strong negative, that makes it more and more difficult for business to carry on as before.

We are talking about the age of competition, when it has never been more difficult for business to just stay alive. When they end up having an added cost and burden to their operating costs with an extra fuel tax, this in itself becomes another one of those negatives that makes it unattractive for business to come into Ontario.

In answer to my first question, are Ontario's fuel taxes less than in neighbouring jurisdictions? no, I am afraid not. With this bill coming in come January, less than a month from now, we will be the second-highest fuel tax levier within the neighbours we are trying to do business with. For that reason, I suggest the Treasurer should not bring forward this bill.

The next question I want to ask is, is the province using the money for this fuel tax on road maintenance? We no longer have the situation where gas taxes are dedicated revenue for road maintenance and for the building and construction of roads and bridges. We do not have the position now in Ontario where we have special toll taxes on roads or bridges. It would really be a treat for drivers in Ontario if they knew some of the fuel tax they were paying was being applied to the removal of potholes.

Thank you very much. Someone sent me a candy. If I suck the candy I will not be able to talk and then it will put me to sleep. It is probably full of codeine or something. I have to watch that.

1540

Hon Mrs Boyd: You can't suck and blow at the same time.

Mr Cousens: The honourable Minister of Community and Social Services says that you can't suck and blow at the same time.

Mr Stockwell: Not from the same opening.

Mr Cousens: That is right. I am not a New Democrat.

An hon member: Thank God.

Mr Cousens: Then I get a "Thank God." This is not a laughing matter.

The moneys that are being collected through these road taxes and another fuel tax could be applied to some of the things we need. Just look at our roads and the deterioration that is going on. We should have some emphasis by this government to maintain our roads in better repair so that the system is not collapsing around us. We are dealing with an infrastructure that is in a state of disrepair. If the government does not begin to do something about potholes, signs, ruts, barriers, lights on the roads and subsidies for the municipalities trying to do their share, the roads will continue to be a greater and greater problem.

On the balance we are dealing with a stage where we have a chance right now in this jurisdiction of Ontario to do something about the infrastructure. In my community of Markham we are talking about the building of a whole new community of some 600 acres where 15,000 to 17,000 people will be moving. One of the major concerns about adding to the numbers in our community is not so much the fact that we need affordable housing -- we need that -- but the concern coming through from the community is whether we are going to have the road system and the network to allow those people who come in to the east end of Markham to hook in to Highway 407. Highway 407 is not even planned to go that far yet. Are they going to have rapid transit so they can get down into the city?

Mr Mammoliti: They don't want co-ops.

Mr Cousens: Our community is supportive of new housing and affordable housing. We are also demanding that if the government is going to be adding these homes and these extra people, it should also be building the facilities, the services and the infrastructure to make it possible for them to come in. We see the government of Ontario has not decided to invest in transportation in the way we need.

The third question I want to ask is, does the fuel tax help Ontario's competitive position? One of the most cost-sensitive industries we have in Ontario is our tourism industry. How do our roads and the whole structure of roads and services right now stack up? How attractive is it for tourists to come and spend their money in Ontario right now? Tourism, as many of us know, is the second-largest business we have in the province, and yet one of the major complaints by visitors to our province from south of the border is the cost of gasoline, the cost of fuel. I cannot believe we are adding to that concern with another tax.

This is a tax that does not do anything to assist our province. What we really are doing is making it easier for people in the border areas who are going across the border. One of the first things they do is fill up their gas tanks in the United States. Here it may cost $30 or $35. If you go down there you can fill it up for under $15 and have change left in your pocket. The cost of fuel in the United States is so much less than it is here in Ontario.

What we have done is to separate ourselves even further from that competitive expectation we want to have so that people will stay here in Ontario rather than go south of the border, and likewise come north from the United States, from New York and Michigan and Ohio and other states, and spend their money here in Ontario. It is such an important part of our economy that we want to make it attractive for them to come here and spend. I think we want that.

I have friends with stores in Midland, in Markham and right across the province and they are suffering right now. There were 11 different families that traditionally came to Georgian Bay, on this one island where they had set up a common dining room and it was just a great family get-together. This last summer only one of the 11 came and spent a few weeks here in Ontario. The rest did not bother to come.

What we saw through Ontario last summer was a deterioration in the tourism industry. We are going to continue to see that kind of deterioration because we are not spending the money in the right places to draw them in; we are not making it attractive for them to come and spend their time here in Ontario. It is already costly to stay in our hotels; it is already costly to buy food and eat out. But on this issue of fuel taxes, if we had some competitive advantage, would it not open the door for people from other jurisdictions to come here?

Just the other day, in response to this bill, one of the New Democrats was saying, "The advantage of this bill is that it gives us more money in the Treasury for those Americans who come over and spend their money in Ontario." That was the most unbelievable statement. Yes, the few Americans who come will be paying a little more in tax, but the great number who stay away means there is less overall revenue for the province.

Does this fuel tax help Ontario's competitive position? The answer has to be a categorical, unequivocal no.

Mr Bradley: No.

Mr Cousens: I have to commend the member for St Catharines; he happens to agree with me on this. He and I agree on some things. It is just that when he was in power, in government, when he had the chance to do things right, he could not do it. Now that he is in opposition he is full of good ideas. But that is the way it is, is it not? That is part of the reason people are so jaundiced in dealing with politicians.

A fourth question I have is, has the government tried to cut back on other costs before levying another tax? I have to ask that question. If we had seen some effort of restraint by this government of the Premier, then we would have a sense that he is trying to do something or that his Treasurer is trying to do something, but all these people can do as New Democracts is defer the tough spending decisions. They are not able to make them now, so when we ask them what they are going to do this year to begin to face up to the economic reality that a government should be living more within its means and not having a deficit of $9.7 billion -- which is going to escalate far in excess of that. We are seeing none of the internal controls that are going to make a difference -- modest internal controls, I give some credit for that, but nothing of the type that would begin this government moving in the right direction to try to balance its budget.

All one has to do is look at what other jurisdictions are doing. In Saskatchewan they have layoffs. In the federal government, in Newfoundland and in the province of Quebec there are special limits on pay increases to the civil service. Instead of saying, "We're going to have a few modest cuts which will bring down our deficit by $150 million," if the government froze a number of the budgets in Ontario, it could save well over $450 million. It is very simple. If the government were to set an example now and early so that municipalities and hospitals and school boards would begin to understand that someone at the top is being frugal and careful, it would give them a reason to stop expecting more and more increases and making more and more demands.

What we really have to do is to see some tough decisions. Instead of the government making decisions, the taxpayers themselves are making the tough decisions today, and they are not pleasant ones. We are talking about a reduction of people's morale. We know through a recent Angus Reid survey that 42% of the people of Ontario will be spending less money around the Christmas season this year because of their concern about the future and because of the recession.

1550

Many of the people having tough times are out of jobs; our unemployment rate has never been higher. We are in a position where, in order to deal with the problem, the government continues to increase its taxes and people have no money left over for themselves; they do not have it, so they are not spending.

I think what is happening is that our Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer are looking for an economic miracle. There is not one; there is not going to be a miracle to solve the economic state of Ontario. It is something we are going to have to work through and carefully and deliberately develop a strategy for the long term, instead of talking about tax hikes next year. That is what I understand the Treasurer has indicated, that there will be tax increases next year. I have not had a chance to discuss it with some of my colleagues -- the member for Etobicoke West may well be aware of some of the increases they are talking about because he was in charge of our economic portfolio in our caucus for a while -- but there is a strong rumour now that there will be a 1% increase in sales tax and possibly a 2% increase in personal income tax next year. What a demoralizing thing for the business community, to have the government bringing in more taxes to go into effect in 1992, and then further into 1992, the Treasurer is saying, "Yes, and I will have to have further increases then."

Has the government tried to cut back on other costs before levying another tax? That is not evident. What we have seen instead is that the costs of government continue to explode. The ministries are spending more money on their offices and on their people and on their services than ever before. We are talking about an increase of 74% in office spending in the Attorney General's ministry. We are talking about the salary and wage bill in the main office of the Ministry of Financial Institutions being up by 126.7%. The salary and wage allocation for Management Board has jumped by 85.9%. We can go through different areas in this government where they spend more and more, so no doubt it needs more and more money from the taxpayers of the province. I plead with them, I implore them not to continue this escalation in taxes.

Has the government tried to cut back on its own? To me the answer is an unequivocal no. Had there been some effort by this government to cut back on its own spending, then we might well be able to justify some of the increases it is now talking about.

I want to ask also, is adding another increase to the fuel taxes of the province the correct action the government should be taking on fuel? I would like to refer to a booklet put together by our leader, the member for Nipissing. It is called A Blueprint for Economic Renewal and Prosperity in Ontario: New Directions. If anyone would like to have a copy, I would be pleased to obtain one for them.

What the member for Nipissing has said in this document is: "As the tax base shrinks, the temptation grows to increase the tax rates and impose new taxes to keep revenues steady. However, this succeeds only in reducing business competitiveness as well as the incentive to expand and invest."

He indicates in this document a number of things he would do. I would like to read into the record the policy of the Ontario PC Party with regard to gasoline and fuel tax. We have a number of other strategies outlined very clearly in this document trying to develop a long-term blueprint for economic survival and prosperity here in Ontario, but I want to read two paragraphs from this booklet, on gasoline and fuel tax.

"Gasoline and fuel taxes should be immediately cut by 10%. This would benefit all sectors of the economy, including transportation, tourism and manufacturing. Combined with a reduction in PST, these cuts would begin to address ongoing concerns and job losses associated with cross-border shopping.

"The full-year cost of a 10% gasoline tax cut would be approximately $160 million. For fuel taxes, it would be $37 million. Again, both costs are in the form of forgone revenues to government; and can be fully offset by new revenues generated by economic activity, along with expenditure controls."

There are ways in which we should address the needs of the province, and one that could have long-term benefits to the people of our province is that instead of increasing the tax, we reduce it and increase usage.

Another fuel tax is very much a consumption tax. It is a regressive tax and it is something that affects people who can barely afford to pay it. The poor in Ontario drive cars too, yet they must pay regardless.

The fact is that here in Ontario we are continuing to take a gouge right out of the whole economic sector by continuing to make our fuel rates among the highest on the continent.

I ask a sixth question: Does the government have the right priorities? If the government had the right priorities, it would begin to set an economic climate for business to begin to prosper and do better. Instead of that, we have the kind of climate where people are losing their confidence in Ontario. We are not seeing the investment in capital. We are not seeing people bring their money in and start up new activities.

Two of the great bellwethers that tell us things are going well are housing and the automotive sector. In the two of them right now we are seeing no great activity, though something is beginning to happen. Certainly General Motors is showing some signs of increased activity and we are seeing some activity going on in Ford, but we are not seeing outside investment coming into Ontario right now.

Talking just a few weeks ago to the president of the Chinese businessmen's association in Scarborough, I asked where the money is now that was coming into Ontario from Hong Kong and China just a few years ago. He used a rather good term. He said right now it is "floating." The money is there and the investors are looking for an opportunity to invest in something, but until they have the confidence in a jurisdiction they are not going to put their money down and invest.

That confidence ceases to be present in Ontario, not only because of the taxation level, and I think the taxation level is one of the severe reasons people have lost confidence in Ontario's long-term future. I know that confidence will come back, but in the meantime, the harsh reality of the way New Democrats are running this province -- an increased deficit and new taxes being proposed next year and the sense that the future is not going to be good for business in Ontario -- is closing doors. They do not want to take a chance on Ontario as long as we have this negative spirit coming out of Queen's Park.

If we had some way in which we enticed businesses to come here and showed them that there is a climate for business to invest and prosper, that the government is not going to take every cent it can from them, that in fact some of that money can be plowed back into their own business for more jobs and for more equipment -- but that is not the case.

The case here is that the province feels it has to skim off the top every cent it can. I sense it from the New Democrats. I sense that they have a disdain for business, a disdain for economic prosperity. Their agenda for a social welfare state would be commendable if we had the money to provide. What the government has to do is somehow balance off the need for the social agenda of the Bob Rae government with the reality of what we can afford.

With the announcement over the weekend of another $30 million for child care and the almost guaranteed elimination of child care as provided by the private sector -- this is a government that wants to take over everything. It is not going to have room for private enterprise. That is a signal to private enterprise that says, "We aren't going to take a chance on bringing our money into this province." If the private sector in other jurisdictions had a sense that Ontario was spending its money wisely, it might come along and do something about it.

1600

I just raise a few points. If it turns out that Ontario is going to help buy de Havilland for $150 million, is that where we should be spending our money? If it is true that the Ontario government has made a $250-million commitment to Elliot Lake for 650 jobs until 1996, using Ontario Hydro to administer the social conscience of the government, is this the kind of thing Ontario Hydro should be doing?

Is the province doing the right thing spending $5 million on auto insurance and then not doing it? I am glad they did not do it, but how much money have they continued to pour into that hole where they had an increased staff, increased reports, consultants and other people in the Ministry of Financial Institutions. Then fortunately they backed off, but how much are they continuing to spend and what decisions are they going to make?

Civil service salaries over the past year have increased by 14% in one year. When you add in benefits, it works out to an increase of 16.1% just for civil service salaries in Ontario. I will tell you, Mr Speaker, the salaries of MPPs have been frozen for this year and next. Why not pass it along so that everyone has a sense of knowing there is a lid on expenditures and expectations?

I have to be grateful to one of the members of our caucus who raised the high cost of spending at TVO, where they spent over $70,000 for 72 chairs at $700 a chair. That costs an awful lot just to sit a person down.

We saw in the Provincial Auditor's report last week further examples of a government whose spending has gone awry. We have seen it with the Ontario Waste Management Corp. In that example, we have seen high costs by the chairman and other members, yet there is still not a shovel in the ground to provide a centre to look after liquid and hazardous waste in Ontario.

As we look at the issues, we ask a few questions and we add answers to those questions: Is it going to help Ontario's competitiveness? No. Is Ontario doing a good job managing its own dollars and cents right now? No. Is Ontario going to survive into the future as a competitive, strong economic state? No, not if we continue to have this kind of overtaxation by a government that is not even able to use the money correctly.

There are many others who want to speak on this bill. It is an important bill. It is just another illustration of a government that is greedy for money from a public that is already broke. We do not have it any more. We have lost the ability to pay in the way the government is taking it away from us. All I can say to the Minister of Revenue and the Minister of Financial Institutions is: "Please slow down your spending, slow down your expectations. Give the people in Ontario a break so that some of the money they earn will stay in their own pockets and they can spend it on their own lives, their own families and their own retirement funds. May this province just slow it down and understand you are doing it the wrong way."

Mr Johnson: I listened with great interest to the debate by the member for Markham. His debate reminded me of the antlers of a moose -- in fact, I may even be quoting him: There is a point here, a point there and a lot of bull in the middle.

I have a great deal of difficulty listening to the comments from the members opposite. They are very quick to criticize but they do not offer a lot of advice that would really go a long way to help us with the situation we find ourselves in. I think it is clear that the state of the province is not the result of the New Democratic government that is in power today. It is the result of many things that have happened up to this point in time. We can certainly talk about free trade and how the global economy has exacerbated many of the problems we have here in the province, but they do not mention that.

They do not mention the fact that maybe the governments that were in power before us did not do a particularly good job of managing, and certainly they were in power when times were much better than what we find ourselves in right now. It is very difficult for the government today to deal with all the problems we face. The members on the other side will tell us we need more money to look after many of the social problems we are faced with, yet they do not tell us where we are going to get this money from. All they talk about is cutting and cutting staff, and that is not right.

Mr Bradley: I think the member made some valid points in his speech this afternoon on this piece of legislation, which is bound to be detrimental to Ontario. When the government was elected, and certainly when it was in opposition, we heard a lot about how it was going to help the trucking industry in this province, yet we have in effect a 30% increase in the diesel fuel tax, totalling 3.4 cents per litre.

It not only affects the trucking industry, which is important enough because it is under tremendous stress at the present time and every new tax or every new initiative which is a roadblock to it is going to be a problem in terms of its competitiveness, but it also affects other modes of transportation using diesel. We think of train travel, for instance, and freight that has to move.

What is happening is that this increases the cost of doing business not only directly to the truckers, not only directly to those operating trains, not only directly to those operating boats in the province --

Mr Grandmaître: And flying.

Mr Bradley: -- and of course, as the member for Ottawa East says to me, flying in the province as well.

It not only causes increases directly to those people and makes them less competitive, but it also has the indirect effect of making the cost of goods and services in this province even more. It adds up to about $4,000 a year, we think, for a truck or other vehicle, other modes of transportation which travels a long way. So this is certainly not helpful in a very competitive world. It is yet another tax that is part of the $1 billion worth of new taxes that this government is putting on the province, dampening the economy of the province at the very time when what it needs is a boost that comes about by avoiding new tax increases or cutting appropriate taxes to get the economy moving once again.

The Premier was in Europe. I thought he might pick up some of these ideas when he was over in Paris and London and in West Germany. Apparently he did not, and it is to the detriment of this province.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to compliment the member on the comments he made regarding this particular tax. There is an interesting article in the Globe and Mail today written by Mr Peter Cook. What is interesting about it is it should deal with some of the concerns that I think we as a party, and the previous member, brought forward with respect to taxes and their impact on profitability of corporations.

In the 1981-82 recession, Canadian profits as a share of national income dropped below 7%, which is a really telling figure; 7% was the floor at that point. It was very much a concern to corporations when they were getting a 7% return. Now we are faced with a return on corporate profit of some 4%. Across the floor they may think it is good that corporations are not profiting as much as they were in the past.

The difficulty is that it is much like the tax we are discussing here today. When you introduce a new tax, it erodes the profit base of those corporations that in fact need to abide by these laws, these gasoline taxes, etc. Every time you put a new tax on, it just sucks the money out of the profitability of the corporation and takes it on to the government.

The difficulty is that only profitable companies can expand or even maintain their workforce and reinvest. Profitable, operating companies are the lifeblood of any free enterprise system, because unless you are making a profit, you cannot reinvest, rehire or do any of the good things you need to do to get out of the malaise we are in today.

1610

Therefore, it is interesting the comments made by this member on this tax that will again cut to the bottom line of anybody involved in the trucking industry. What we do not need, and I think this was enunciated pretty clearly by that member, are new taxes on the citizens or the businesses in this province. If anything, there should be a look at reducing the taxes so the businesses become more profitable once again and rehire and rebuild this province's economy.

Mr Bisson: I listened with great interest to the member for Markham go on at length about the question of what happens to the confidence within the economy when such things are done. To a certain extent, what the members of the opposition are doing is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Obviously one of the things of great interest to the opposition parties is for one day to sit on this side of the House, and what better way to attempt to do that than to demoralize and take away any confidence within our economy.

All of us on this side of the House recognize that if consumers have confidence in the economy and see some positive signs, at the end of the day they will start to spend the money to buy the goods and services so necessary to build a strong economy in these days. The members of the opposition are really trying to attack, not only because they are the opposition but for political gain.

That is not to say we should not sit in this Legislature and debate questions of policy and what they mean, but after sitting one year in this House I have yet to hear -- or on very few occasions -- the members of this Legislature from the opposition try to instil some confidence in the consumers of this province.

It is interesting to note that this morning I met with a general manager and vice-president of a major employer within my riding, and also with a small business person of quite significant confidence within our business community. They said they wished for once the members of the opposition would try to instil some confidence in the consumers, because when people do not have the confidence they will not spend the dollars. Neither the person from industry nor the person from small business supported me in the last election and probably will not because their political stripes are different, and I recognize that. They said to me, "Please, people from the opposition, try to do something to instil some confidence and stop your rhetoric."

Mr Cousens: Let me start with the last speaker because that is who everyone will have been listening to last. Horrible comments. I do not think he knows where it's at when he starts making statements like those. The fact of the matter is, we sit here in opposition and see a government that is taking Ontario down the path of destruction. That is what they have been doing. They now have everybody standing up and saying what it is they are doing and how wrong it is. Blaming us in the opposition for that horrible leadership just cannot be countenanced. For the member to stand up there and make that kind of statement is just hogwash.

I think he should go back up north and have his head aired in the good northern air and have a better sense of what is going on. The fact is that what the member is saying and thinking down here just does not add up. If he talks to the people in our communities from the greater Toronto area, his government is shutting down Ontario and there is no doubt about it. They should not blame us for what they are doing. There is no doubt about it at all. And the member for Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings stole my joke. That was my joke and he has taken it. I stole it from the CBC on a Saturday morning, but never mind, that is okay. Any time something is added to this House you can always claim it for yourself.

I cannot believe I am starting to agree with the member for St Catharines. He and I have been on opposite sides of the fence for a long time, and I thank him for complimenting me on my speech. I appreciate the way he added to it and shed extra light on it. The member for Etobicoke West is brilliant and when someone from the city of Toronto has that kind of insight into business, an understanding of it, and is willing to share it with this House in such an enlightened way, I want to take, enjoy and cherish it. Let's hope there will be many other opportunities for the member for Etobicoke West to share his wisdom.

This government is sick and we are just not going to let Ontario get any worse. We are going to make sure they know the temperature, and it is going to get hotter and hotter for these guys. They have not begun to understand how angry we are with what they are doing to the province. It is our province too.

Mr Tilson: It is a pleasure to rise today to speak on Bill 85, the Fuel Tax Amendment Act. Before I commence, though, I would like to comment on the reaction of the member for Cochrane South in particular. It is as if he is blaming this side of the House for the problems caused by the NDP government. It will be interesting to hear where some of the transport people in his area believe he feels the province is going. The members of our caucus certainly are not criticizing the government for political gain, as the member suggests. We are criticizing them because they have a bad bill. They are creating a terrible financial situation, specifically for the transportation industry in this province.

It is not our fault at all that the government has put the province in the condition it is in. It is the government's fault. There has been a lack of confidence in investment in anything with respect to investment in the retail industry in this province. It is a most serious situation indeed when you see the tax rates that are being implemented with respect to the trucking industry. There has of course been some considerable concern by the trucking industry. There is no question some of that has been related to the federal government with respect to deregulation, but at the same time they are concerned about where this government is taking them with the increase in the diesel fuel tax in this province.

The government has increased the diesel fuel tax with Bill 85 by 1.7 cents a litre, effective last April 30, and another 1.7 cents a litre, effective New Year's Day 1992. At the start of next year the bill will have hiked the tax from its pre-1991 budget rate of 10.9 cents to 14.3 cents. That is an astounding increase for an industry that is collapsing around us, what with the comparison of the trucking costs in the United States to the trucking costs in Ontario. It is no wonder people are going out of business. It is no wonder people in the trucking industry are moving to the United States when they have to compete with the difficulties the government is creating.

As well, this bill will subject the tax rate applied to railway fuel to a similar two-phase increase in 0.55-cents-per-litre increments, which will push the tax rate from its pre-budget level of 3.4 cents per litre to 4.5 cents as of January 1, 1992. That too is going to have serious ramifications in the business community, and more particularly in the transportation community.

The bill does have a number of other items, but it is mainly the increase in diesel fuel that concerns members of the Progressive Conservative caucus. As of January 1992, Ontario will share with Nova Scotia the second-highest fuel tax in the country. Only Newfoundland will have a higher fuel tax rate of 15.6 cents per litre. We are getting very close to being the highest in the country. The tax increases imposed by the bill, it has been estimated, will raise an additional $45 million this year and $90 million in a full year.

When we hear those statistics, we have to look at where the province is going. We have seen the tremendous increase in salaries in the civil service and in other expenditures we are going to have to pay for, and the government is damaging industries as a result of that. I do not think the government has thought out specifically the effect of this tax on other industries and businesses.

My riding, which is a semirural-urban area, has some trucking industries in it: very few, but some. It will be affected seriously by this type of tax. It will destroy many of the small businesses. Small business people have already indicated what it will do to their businesses and the effect it will have on other industries that need the transportation industry.

1620

Ontario truckers objected to the tax increase, which they maintained further undermined the precarious competitive position they already were in vis-à-vis their US counterparts, and they have been demonstrating all year round. We have had the truckers surround this building. We have had the truckers surround the buildings in Ottawa, and obviously for different reasons in Ottawa. But one of the reasons they were surrounding this building was because of the tax increases that are being put forward by this government.

With respect to the tax increases, Ontarians pay two and in some cases three times more fuel tax than most American jurisdictions. The difference between what the Americans and the Ontarians pay for fuel tax -- this would be as of New Year's Day 1992 -- is rather startling. For example, in Ohio diesel fuel per litre -- this is as of January l -- will be 6.1 cents per litre; in Ontario that will be 14.3 cents per litre; in Michigan, 4.6; in New York, 5.8; in Pennsylvania, 5.3 -- all rather astounding figures. This information was in a publication known as Update, June 1991. I am sure it has been referred to.

I think we need to emphasize those statistics and the unfair competitive advantage the Americans have over people in Ontario. We are seeing that in all aspects as a result of the taxation and cross-border shopping issues. It would seem to me that what the Treasurer did and the Minister of Revenue did was sit down and say, "How are we going to pay for all these programs we are going to put forward?" They decided to pick the fuel tax as one of them. I do not think they thought out all the various effects that tax is going to have on other industries.

The Canadian carriers are reminded that as of July 1 last, the US tax on commercial heavy vehicles that will be travelling 6,000 miles or more in the US per year is due. The cost will be at a rate of three quarters of the US rate.

As a result of this government's first budget, as I have indicated, we are now going to be paying an extra 1.7 cents per litre now and a further 1.7 cents as of January 1, 1992. That, as has already been indicated, represents a 31% increase in unleaded gasoline and diesel fuel tax and a 24% increase in leaded gasoline. That is a tremendous increase for the transportation industry to bear, along with all the other problems it has had.

There is no question this is not the sole cause of the problems the transportation industry has, but it is something that needs to be considered by this government, and I do not believe it has when we start realizing what these people are simply trying to do is to survive, to compete. Why would one have Canadian carriers when they are going to have to charge that much more than the Americans? The Americans are going to be making untold profits compared to the Canadians and will undercut them substantially.

There is no question, in other words, that motorists and people in the trucking industry are subsidizing this government. The budget and spending estimates show that the province expects to collect about $2.8 billion from road users this year while they only expect to spend $1.9 billion on road and highway maintenance and expansion. That is something we need to look at: the maintenance of our roads. We are taxing our people to death as far as gasoline is concerned. I say "to death" because they are either going out of business, are going bankrupt or are moving to the US.

What are they doing about road and maintenance expansion? What they are spending on roads certainly does not nearly match what they are collecting. Take a look at that, because that is all part and parcel of it, unless it is just one big grab-bag: "Where can I grab money? Can I grab money from gasoline? Can I grab money from booze? Can I grab money from tobacco and other such things?" Is that how they are running the system? Have they not analysed the effect this type of tax is going to have on our overall economy?

Therefore, looking at those figures, when you compare the $2.8 billion that is being collected from road users to the $1.9 billion that is being spent on road and highway maintenance, that means motorists are subsidizing the government by $900 million. That is the only way you can look at it, because certainly it does not match. The additional money is going on something else, probably some of the salaries the government has increased over this past year.

When the next round of tax increases come into effect on January 1 of next year, Ontarians will be paying the highest taxes on unleaded fuel in North America and the third-highest diesel fuel taxes in North America, and I do not believe it is clear that truckers can afford these increases. Truckers will be shelling out an additional $2,000 per year per truck in diesel fuel tax. For many carriers, fuel costs make up as much as 30% of their operating costs. Given the current state of the industry, this is a cost truckers cannot afford. How can they possibly afford it? What with the recession, fewer people are buying and fewer people are shipping, yet the government is taxing them to death. The government wonders why people are moving to the United States. They wonder why businesses are going bankrupt.

The strange part of it is that because of what they are doing, there are going to be fewer people using things. There is going to be less revenue coming in. They blame it on the feds. They say, "We didn't expect the revenue would be down."

Hon Mr Pouliot: Oh, of course not.

Mr Tilson: That is what they do. They point their fingers at the opposition or they are point their fingers at the federal government. For once, why do they not look at their own policy?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Get your facts straight.

Mr Tilson: The facts are there.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I'll tell you what the facts are.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order.

Mr Tilson: Basically, this is part of the overall mosaic --

Hon Mr Pouliot: Untruths have to be corrected.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The honourable Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology will please refrain from interjection. The member for Dufferin-Peel has the floor.

Hon Mr Pouliot: On behalf of the minister, who is absent, I will withdraw the remarks, sir.

Mrs Y. O'Neill: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to ask the Speaker to verify that there is a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): A quorum is present. The member for Dufferin-Peel has the floor.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): We can get on with the business of this House -- this is what the people of Ontario expect from us -- or we can continue with meaningless interjections.

Mr Tilson: One of the concerns many of us have in this province is the number of industries moving away from this province, and it is because of policies such as we have seen in this bill that they are doing so.

There was an article quite recently -- not that recently; it was on October 4 in the Financial Post -- that gave statistics for an exodus of businesses moving out of the province. It specifically was a survey of small- and medium-sized businesses which are thinking of leaving the province is because of the New Democratic government's policies. The statistics were quite alarming. Transportation and communications are at the top of that list, along with manufacturing. Almost 55% of those surveyed give that as one of the reasons they wish to consider moving out of the province. This came from a survey of a little more than 3,500 business people in the province in which 85% of those surveyed said: "Ontario's political climate is unfavourable for business. Most businesses complained about too-high taxes, the provincial budget, a bias against business and proposed labour legislation."

1630

This bill is just one of many components of why businesses are moving out or contemplating moving out of Ontario. The federation survey said that as many as 500,000 jobs could be in danger. This is not just transportation; this covers a wide range of areas, but it is part of it. I do not think it was broken down into the specific sectors.

Mr Bulloch, I believe it was, made a number of comments. "'Of the top four problems facing small firms at present, three of them are actually under the control of the Ontario government, and one, the total tax burden, is significantly affected by provincial government policies. What is happening has profound implications for the province of Ontario and Canada,' he warned, condemning the government for adopting policies which are misguided, ideological and antibusiness."

I think that is what it finally boils down to: This is part of this government's antibusiness philosophy. To them, business is evil. If you can tax it, tax it; it does not matter what the effects are. It is a philosophy. I am saying the government should reconsider its philosophy, that business is not evil. They need business to operate this province; they cannot drive the business in this province away. They must realize that what they are doing is eroding Ontario's competitiveness. Their budget outlook predicts unemployment rates will drop by 184,000 in 1991. Their budget boosts provincial spending by 13.4%; government operating expenditures increased more than $5 billion from last year. Their budget brings business tax rates up to 30% higher than those of similar companies in Quebec and New York state. Ontario has been losing $360 million a year in retail spending due to cross-border shopping, and their budget makes the situation worse.

All these things, of which this bill is part, are part and parcel of the economic collapse in this province. I hope the government will reconsider its position after the submissions that have been made by representatives of the trucking industry. They are faced with high operating costs and difficulty competing with the Americans, because clearly the entire system that has been created and emphasized by this government is unfairly tilted in the Americans' favour. Deregulation allows American truckers to haul goods between Canadian cities, while Canadians cannot do it in the United States. There is no question that is part of the problem.

In its budget, the government has hurt the trucking industry with this tax increase on diesel fuel at a time when it is suffering more than at any time in its history. The tax hike may have been unnecessary had the government implemented wage restraints on civil servants, as other provinces have done. It did not do that. It jwent ahead and willy-nilly raised the wages of its civil servants. I suspect this is one of the taxes it is implementing to pay for those high wages it has created.

Last year there were 655 bankruptcies in the trucking industry. This is a 74% increase from the previous year. As I understand it, this trend has been predicted to expand, and it will expand if this bill is implemented and this add-on of operating costs continues.

Industry costs for trucking in Canada are 15% to 20% higher than in the United States. Again, this is not the sole cause, but it is part of it. I do not believe this government really analysed what this tax is going to do to the trucking industry. The industry was deregulated in 1988 and US truckers have had access to the Canadian market since 1989. This tax on diesel fuel should not be put forward at this time. The federal government certainly did not raise it. Minister Wilson did not raise it in his budget in February.

Mr Perruzza: The GST; you forgot about that.

Mr Tilson: The member of course is completely ignoring the downside this is having to the trucking industry, the effect this will have on the shipping costs of all industries and on all Canadian businesses, many of them facing the economic crunch brought on by the government's policies.

Those are my comments. I hope the government would reconsider this bill in light of the serious implication it is having on the economy of this province.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Before we move on to questions and comments, I want to have the record put straight. I made reference to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology being out of order. He is not present in the House, and my remarks should have been more appropriately directed to the Minister of Transportation.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I will not rise with my responsibility as minister for francophone affairs this afternoon, but more to the point the previous speaker has raised. I want to set the record straight. When we talk about fuel taxes, if there is one area where the playing field vis-à-vis truckers is level it is this subject. We are talking about an interjurisdictional carriers' agreement, if you wish. Simply put, for every kilometre a driver from Buffalo, for instance, would drive in Ontario, he would pay an equivalent price, so there is no advantage one way or the other.

Ours has not been a record of excellence, in monitoring compliance, but a record of improvement. So yes, members can take for granted that each and every driver who comes from the USA and drives rigs in Ontario pays the same price for fuels. But the member is correct when he talks about the playing field not being so level. He did not, because of the time constraints, I am sure -- or maybe he simply did not know about the negative effects of deregulation; the systematic and deliberate undermining of truckers because of free trade; the high Canadian dollar; high interest rates still, although they have been declining compared to the interest rates available in the United States, and depreciation allowance, where it takes you more than twice as long to depreciate the cost of your trucks in Canada than it does in the United States.

Some hon members: The GST.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The GST indeed -- many components, but perhaps the GST is the catalyst. It has become the proverbial straw, if you have to add 7% on the price of a truck, and that price is in the neighbourhood of $100,000. I could go on, but suffice it to say that when you set the record straight, all the components become a matter of record.

Mr Stockwell: After listening to that -- the minister may believe it. I guess the reality is that when it comes to gas tax and saying the American pays just as much as the Canadian, it never dawned on this minister or this government that before a trucker crossed the border he would fill up. Guess what? That is exactly what they do. They fill up before they cross the border. If they can make that delivery before crossing, they get into Ontario, make their delivery and get as close as they can to the border and put minimum amounts of gas in to get back, and therefore they have avoided the tax. That can happen very often. If those members do not think they fill up before they cross the border at a tremendously reduced rate, of course they do. They must realize there are ways you can move around this.

1640

With respect to the other comments made on the high Canadian dollar and the high rate of interest, those are directly tied to the amount of money you borrow. Any economist -- left-wing, centre or right-wing -- is going to tell you that if you borrow a lot of money as a country or a province, you are driving up the interest rates to attract the money to borrow and you are driving up your dollar because outside forces are buying your dollar because of the attractive interest rates. The best way to get the dollar and the interest rates down is to stop running deficits and stop borrowing money against those deficits, because then you would reduce the dollar and interest rates.

Mr Johnson: Where did you study economics?

Mr Stockwell: He asks, "Where did you study economics." He should take Economics 101. Any professor will tell you that, whether he is NDP or Conservative. Anybody will tell you that if you want to reduce interest rates and reduce the value of the dollar, the first thing you should do is reduce your deficit and debt. Then you will not have to borrow, thereby making your dollar attractive and your interest rates artificially high to attract that investment.

What does this government do? In four years they run up the biggest deficit and the most debt that any government has done in Ontario, and they wail about high interest rates and a high dollar. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr Wiseman: It is always a pleasure to follow such an animated speaker as the member for Etobicoke West.

I would like to make a couple of comments about the doom-and-gloom scenario that has been painted here all afternoon about taxes. It is not as the members opposite would have people think. In fact, there are a number of programs we are doing that are very positive and very supportive of the business community.

I would like to draw reference to, for example, the tax-supported manufacturers' recovery program, which was written about on the weekend. It is $57 million in money to Ontario-based small and medium-sized manufacturing companies. This will allow them to hire and produce more goods than they do now, especially for export. This has been written about before and I think it is a very good program to encourage the development of small businesses.

As a matter of fact, the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has a number of offices throughout Ontario that put on small businessmen's seminars to help residents of Ontario start their small businesses. On two occasions I have used their expertise to help small businesses begin in my riding and a third occasion is coming up. I have had two seminars and a third one is coming up.

I think we have to be a little more measured in the way we talk about the climate in terms of business, because I think there are a number of people out there who are seizing the opportunity now to become entrepreneurs and to start their businesses. This comes out of the taxpayers' dollars and I think it is important we see that there are positive things happening in the business community and that it is not all as doom and gloom as the opposition would have people think.

Mr Turnbull: I am absolutely alarmed to see comments being made about the GST increasing the cost of trucks. For any member in this House to suggest that shows a great intellectual dishonesty. In fact, the GST reduced the cost of trucks, because trucks were subject to a 13.5% manufacturers' sales tax. The GST reduced it down to 8%.

Mr Mammoliti: Nice try, David.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order.

Mr Turnbull: If members across the floor do not know anything better, then quite frankly they should not be in this House, because they are incapable --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The member for Yorkview lowers the tone of the debate by this type of interjection. The member for York Mills will continue.

Mr Turnbull: I have very little else to say, other than the fact that it would behoove members well to at least be honest with the taxpayers and not perpetuate this fraud.

Mr Wiseman: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it is unacceptable in this House to imply that the motive of any member is to mislead the public and be dishonest.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The member for York Mills will continue.

Mr Turnbull: I have said my piece.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Further debate? Sorry, my apologies. We can go back to the member for Dufferin-Peel for a final two-minute summation.

Mr Tilson: It is very easy, of course, for their side to point to the GST and free trade. The whole gist of what we are talking about is operating expenses. What is causing the operating expenses of the Canadian trucker to be unfair as opposed to the American operating expenses? One of the causes is taxes. The people of this province are fed up with taxes. The government has just seen what their reaction is through the last municipal elections around this province and how they are very concerned about the effect of taxation on their way of life. I can tell members that the trucking industry is in the same boat.

This is a tax of 3.4 cents per litre. It is just another tax grab. It is just another tax grab that is going to extend this recession. It is going to continue to devastate the trucking industry. It is going to pick the pockets of workers. It is going to pick the pockets of workers in industries that rely on the motor vehicle transportation system and the whole shipping industry. There will be no beneficial impact on the environment. There will be no effort to spur on the improvement of our roads -- there is some, but remember, we are still subsidizing the government by $900 million as a result of what it is doing.

I do not think the government has thought it out. In all the response that has come back from the other side, they seem to be federal-bashing. Again, the government is not looking at its own policies and the effect of its own policies on the trucking industry of this province.

Mr Bisson: I was not going to get up and debate today because I figured enough would be said on this subject with the points that were being made by the opposition, but I sat here and listened to what the last two or three honourable members said on this particular bill and there is no question that Ontarians, and I think Canadians generally, are looking at the question of taxation with a certain amount of trepidation.

One of the things I would like to point to is something we talked about in a previous debate; that is, the reason that governments in Canada have much more commitment, I think, towards the people within our society generally than what you will find south of the border. South of the border, they do not have things like health care and many other programs that we are used to in this country. Consequently, we have to pay for those programs. I think the other thing we need to keep in consideration is that the level of population for the amount of geography we have in this country is quite significant when it comes to the question of taxation. We have the second-largest country in land mass in the world, with the smallest population per capita in the world. That does have an effect with regard to the ability of the government to deliver services.

For example, it is generally much more expensive to deliver services when it comes to the construction of roads in Ontario than in the state of Minnesota or the state of New York. For example, the state of New York is much smaller than the province of Ontario and has a much larger population base, so obviously it is much more expensive to do those things here in Ontario. If we want to provide those services to the people of this province in a way that people would like to have them with regard to good service, there is a price tied to that.

The previous member spoken with regard to the unfair tilt towards the Americans when it comes to the transportation industry. I would tend to agree that this is quite right. There is an unfair tilt when it comes to doing business with people in the United States. There are a number of reasons the member failed to talk about. He did talk about one, and I was glad to hear that. The member for Dufferin-Peel spoke of the effects of deregulation on the trucking industry, and for that I commend him. For once I heard somebody in this House, from the opposition, get up and actually admit that one of the problems in this province is not because the NDP took power, but actually because there is a problem with regard to some of the regulations that previous governments have put in and the effect those have on the Ontario economy.

I was glad, and I support the member in what he is saying. It is true. I agree with him and I think everybody in this House will agree with him, along with most Ontarians, that deregulation of the trucking industry and transportation generally has been quite devastating to the people of this province and to the industry generally. For that I thank him. It is the first time I have seen a member get up and actually say something something about the reality of what is happening out there.

1650

There are a number of other things that put that tilt very uneven when it comes to competing with the Americans. We talk about a level playing field. We are witnesses now, some 250,000 jobs later, to the effects of the free trade agreement on the economy of Ontario. Of course they will say, "Let's not bash the feds." Excuse me, but every morning when I wake up, until the next general election in Ottawa, there is a Tory government there and it does have an effect on what is happening in this country. For them to sit here and try to blame all the woes of the economy on the Ontario government presently in office is quite wrong and unfair.

The reality is that we inherited a mess. A number of things have happened in our economy in regard to rules and regulations that were put in place, yes, by the federal government and by previous governments. Members should take a look at the question of taxation. It is true that people in this province, along with people all over this country, feel that taxation is quite an issue, but I would remind Ontarians and all Canadians that it was not a New Democratic government that set up the system of taxation in this country. No, 44 years of Tory rule in Ontario and another five years of Liberals have built us quite a taxation system, and many of the points the member for Dufferin-Peel raised are quite true.

Our government is attempting and working at bringing together various people from our economy, the business sector and the labour sector, the people who are generally interested in questions of the economy, in the Fair Tax Commission. We recognize as a social democratic government that if you are going to have an economy that is building, you have to have certain things there to encourage business.

Taxation is one of them, not only for the business people but for people in general. I think taxation should be fair. Most people agree that everybody should pay a fair share of taxes and we should have a progressive tax system to reflect that. I commend the efforts of our government and the honourable member for Nickel Belt, the Treasurer, for putting together the Fair Tax Commission. Over a longer period of time we will be able to come to some of the solutions.

[Applause]

Mr Bisson: The member from the Liberal Party applauded, and for that I say thanks. I hope the member will participate on the Fair Tax Commission and bring forward suggestions, and say thanks again.

The other thing I noticed today is that both Tory members talked about intellectual dishonesty on the part of this government in dealing with the problems within the province. I say again, let's get with it. This province did not end up in the shape it is in overnight. Why did it get there? Because of policies put up in the past.

I spoke a little while ago to the whole question of building up confidence within the province through our consumers. There are a couple of facts we need to remember. Roughly 90% of people in this province are still working, and because those people are working they still have disposable income. If we undermine their confidence, they will not spend that disposable income. If they do not spend their money, the small business sector will not make the money it deserves, along with the manufacturing sector, until the government has the money to pay for our services.

Members of this House and people such as Mr Bulloch and others within the business community going around and speaking doom and gloom in Ontario because there is a social democratic government are doing a disservice not only to this government but to all people in this province. After all, I would think the business parties across the way, as they purport themselves to be, would do something positive to support small business in this province in industry.

I have yet to see them do anything other than sit there and yell "Chicken Little, the sky is falling in this province" and undermine any type of confidence the people have in the economy. They are really trying to fill out a self-fulfilling prophecy. I would say again for fairly political reasons, if the members want to get up on a point of ideological difference and debate that on whatever regulation they feel, I do not have a problem with that. But when it is a Chicken Little type of syndrome, I do not quite agree.

With that, I will cede my place to other members who want to get into this debate, but there were a few points I thought were important to make. Obviously the members opposite who will get up now will find all kinds of reasons why they think what I am saying is not quite true, but I look forward to the two minutes afterwards to try to point out some of the inaccuracies they will come up with in the next two minutes.

Mr Chiarelli: Just very briefly, the member for Cochrane South seemed to indicate that the problems did not develop overnight. When we are looking at the question of the budget and the deficit, this government took over at a time when it said the books had been cooked by the previous Liberal government. They claimed at that time, and this was the Treasurer and the Premier, that really in effect there was a $700-million deficit and not a balance situation.

An hon member: Yes, they were right.

Mr Chiarelli: One of the members says, "Yes, they were right." If this government was correct, how does it get from a $700-million deficit to $9.7 billion? It is on their table. It is on their desk. Even if we accept their accusation that they came to government with a $700-million deficit, which their Premier and their Treasurer said, then they should tell the people of Ontario whose fault it is that this government went from $700 million to $9.7 billion. It is their fault, it is their budget, it is their fiscal mismanagement which gets us from $700 million to $9.7 billion.

We are getting sick and tired on this side of this government continually pointing fingers at the Tory government before us and at the Liberal government. They thought they were being cute and they were being smart saying, "Yes, we took over with this terrible $700-million deficit that Mr Nixon left with us." The fact is that there was a balanced budget, but even accepting their position when they took over of a $700-million deficit, let them tell the province how they have gone from $700 million in terms of a deficit to $9.7 billion. They refuse to tell the people of Ontario how they have got to that point.

Mr Tilson: My guess is the deficit has climbed a lot higher than what the member has just reiterated of $9.7 billion. My guess is it is much higher.

I was not going to rise and respond to this member's finger-pointing, but I must say that his comments are full of inaccuracies. I would like to remind him of three points, as a result of what his government has done since it has taken office. His budget includes $1 billion in tax hikes. If members think, two summers ago, how the members of this government went around telling what a terrible thing the Liberal government had done with its series of tax increases, yet here, in one year, there has been $1 billion in tax hikes. The provincial debt will double to $77 billion by 1994-95. Their government will collect $18.6 billion in taxes more than the Conservative government did in 1984-85.

The member should get his facts straight before he starts pointing fingers. That seems to be their way out of all their problems, pointing fingers. That is not the way to deal with problems in this province. The way they should be dealing with problems is to analyse their difficulties before they start putting forward these very regressive tax policies.

Mr Wiseman: I would like to make a few comments about the way money is spent and what the results would be if we were to just all of a sudden follow the path of the members opposite. In Michigan, for example, they elected a Republican governor, and what ensued was a 20% increase --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order, please. I have to remind the member that he must direct his comments to those made by the member for Cochrane South.

Mr Wiseman: Exactly, and I will do that in terms of, as he mentioned, the services that were involved in Ontario in terms of what our tax dollars are supporting. It is interesting to draw comparisons to other jurisdictions. For example, we would have to have a 20% decrease in the police force and the firefighting. We would have to look to decreasing all the expenditures our hospitals are making. All this money has to come from somewhere, and unfortunately we need taxes in order to get it.

1700

In my riding, for example, there is a very strong concern for the expansion of Highway 401. My residents would be particularly upset if Highway 401 were not widened to gain greater access to Toronto. We are having a hospital expansion of almost $22 million. My constituents, in a growing area, need to have an expanding hospital in order to take care of the needs. There are women who are having babies in the halls of the Ajax and Pickering General Hospital. It is important that we understand that to meet the objectives of the balanced budget and cut $9 billion out of the current expenditures, as the Liberals and Tories would do, would reap untold hardship on huge sections of the population.

Mr Bisson: I listened with interest to a couple of points that were made. It was quite interesting that the member from the Liberal caucus -- the riding escapes me; it is buried underneath the work I am doing here -- really had a selective memory with regard to the little surprise we were left with on taking office in 1990. I would remind the member that it was not $700 million; it was $2.5 billion.

What happened to the extra spending? What happened is that the revenues of the province went down because of the amount the economy went down with respect to what happened to our tax base. It is not very hard to figure out.

Mr Chiarelli: That excuse wasn't good enough for Nixon, though.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Farnan): Order. The member for Ottawa West has continuously, throughout the last 45 minutes, interjected inappropriately. You are out of order. I would appreciate having civility from all sides of the House.

Mr Bisson: Thank you very much, Mr Speaker. It is well appreciated.

Anyway, the point is that the member's memory was selective. It was not $700 million that we were left as a little surprise; it was $2.5 billion.

The other point is that as a government coming in we could have really made political hay with that. We could have pointed fingers at the past Liberal government and said, "Oh, my God, look at what they've done," but no, we understood that part of what happened there was not totally in their control. The economy started to slide in 1990, and consequently the budget forecast they made going into the 1990 budget affected the outcome and that is why that $2.5 billion was there. Let's be realistic.

The member for Dufferin-Peel talked about finger-pointing. All I can say to the member is that I certainly hope he takes the point well, and along with the rest of his colleagues stops finger-pointing and starts working for the people of this province for the salary he is being paid. It does not mean we will not disagree on some issues, but we have a lot of work to do together to make this a better province to live in.

Mr Stockwell: I will be very clear about the concerns I have specifically about this tax. We always seem to get sidetracked when debating this issue because the government members insist on bringing forward federal pieces of legislation that impact on the trucking industry -- the gas prices and so on. To be fair, there were certainly some issues in the past that have had an impact on the trucking industry in this province. But the dilemma they are faced with today is that this government has the capacity to control, refine and devise taxes that will impact the industry in Ontario.

Make no mistake about it: The trucking industry in Ontario is on the verge of collapse; it is on the verge of collapsing around us. The closures have been astounding. I think the number used by the member for Dufferin-Peel was 74% more bankruptcies -- listen to that number -- 74% more bankruptcies this year than last year in the trucking industry, and when the final numbers come in this year they are expecting that number to be up again. Surely to goodness this government and any government -- I do not care what political stripe it is -- could understand at this point that there are very serious problems in this industry.

Some would suggest that deregulation has something to do with it. I do not think we would get a debate. Yes, that has made some impact.

As I said before about the GST, there will be some argument there with respect to the reduction in the cost of manufacturing the truck and the removal of the 13.5% manufacturing tax, replaced by the 7% GST. That debate can get somewhat convoluted into the end value of the truck, but there may well be a debate there.

The tax rate on fuel and the competitiveness of the tax rate is truly an important issue we must discuss. In the United States, federal taxes on gasoline are lower than the Canadian counterparts, no doubt about it. That study was brought forward at the committee the members opposite sat on with myself. The major discrepancy involved the provincial or state taxes on gasoline. That is not a debating point; that is not something that needs to be discussed for any length of time. In cases with bordering states, the province of Ontario is charging nearly three times more in tax on a gallon of gasoline than our competitors. That is not a debate; that is a fact that was pointed out very clearly at the committee that studied the cross-border shopping issue. The discussion that took place at that time was how best we can help this industry that is struggling and having very serious problems.

Mr David Bradley, the president of the Ontario Trucking Association, who is a very knowledgeable man when it comes to this issue, has said very clearly that the quick fix for the trucking industry at this time would be to not implement the gas tax hikes the Treasurer announced in his budget. The president of the Ontario Trucking Association said, "I don't blame you for everything, but the quick fix is that you can't keep hammering the taxes on gas without seeing repercussions in the industry."

We have major trucking companies that have gone bankrupt. We have major trucking companies on the verge of closing. We have major multinational companies on the verge of moving. No one is going to suggest that the gasoline tax is universally and singularly responsible for those decisions. But although one tax will not close a company down, and one tax will not shift a company from one country to another, it has added to the malaise of tax in the province of Ontario.

We are, by some accounts -- again, it could be debated -- one of the highest tax jurisdictions, if not the highest, in North America. Even if you are not the highest tax jurisdiction but in the top 10%, you are certainly losing a competitive advantage neighbouring states and provinces would have. Free trade is often cited as an example of concern in the trucking industry. But some of these associations, some of these outfits, are not moving to New York and Michigan; they are moving to Manitoba and Quebec. The question that must be asked by any fairminded individual across the floor is, if they are moving to Manitoba and Quebec, how could free trade or the GST have anything to do with that decision? The question is quite simple. There is some impact by those, but there must be some impact and there must be some responsibility taken by the government in power in Ontario.

The frustration level is obviously getting high across the floor when you get slammed as a critic for criticizing the government. It is frustrating, I suppose, to be constantly criticized by people across the floor. That is the way this system works. There is government and there is opposition. Opposition's role, a properly elected role, and a role that party itself took to the nth degree in criticizing --

Mr Mammoliti: We did it with a lot more style.

1710

Mr Stockwell: They suggest they did it with more style. There are a number of people out there who would suggest that is not the word they would use.

It is very difficult to take the comments brought forward by this group that the biggest problem it has is that the opposition parties are undermining the confidence of the consumer, thereby making its job more difficult, and that in some cases that is responsible for the tough recession we are in today. That is laughable.

We will get an opportunity over the next few days to discuss a few of the tax measures that have been announced by this government in its budget, and again it will hear from the opposition benches. I think what we must bear in mind is that we are not federally elected politicians; we are not municipally elected politicians; we are elected in Ontario to this Legislature and there are some things we have control over and others we simply do not have control over.

It is interesting that when we debate the economy and we have trucking companies on the verge of collapse and trucking companies that have declared bankruptcy at a record rate this year and last, the response we continue to hear from this government is high interest rates and a high Canadian dollar and free trade. I am afraid this government does not have any control over the free trade issue. When it came to the GST, I thought they were going to have a public revolt in this province on the issue. They promised that, I think, during the election -- there were a number of promises they dealt with during the election -- and of course it was forgotten.

What is left? This government can control to some degree the high interest rate and high dollar problem, as I explained before. By borrowing less and running less of a deficit and less of a debt, they could certainly control the interest rate and dollar problem. Having their credit rating downgraded certainly does not help, because of course they have to pay more money in interest on the money borrowed, and a $9.7-billion deficit certainly has not helped. All these things get folded into operating in this climate.

The other suggestion is on the gasoline, that any American trucker is going to pay the same price as a Canadian trucker. That seems like a really ridiculous reason to raise taxes, but we must respond to the rationale of this government, no matter how convoluted it is. We all know full well that before the American trucker crosses the border he or she fills up, as I suggested to the Minister of Transportation, I believe. He buys his gas in Michigan and then comes across the border and does whatever he does and tries to get back as close as he can to the border, and puts in only as much gas in this province as he needs because it is more expensive.

That is what they do. We all know that is what they do. He would be an idiot not to do it. So to make the suggestion that this tax will capture American truckers doing business in this province is lunacy. It is absolute lunacy to introduce this if that is one of their motives, if their modus operandi is to catch American truckers. They have to come up with a better reason than that. Even the weakest minds out there cannot buy into that one.

The other argument would be the increase in the unemployment problem. By having employment dropping the way it is in this province, hundreds of thousands of job losses -- why are we losing those jobs? Specifically, the trucking industry is one hard-hit sector. The argument from the business community is it just does not have any confidence in this government. That makes this government mad and I am not really sure why, because at every opportunity this government has been given to prove that it has some concerns about business people in this province, it has fumbled the ball.

On a number of occasions they have been given the opportunity to prove they have the business minds to understand what it takes to operate a business in this province, and all they have done is introduce legislation that makes it more difficult to operate in this province. There is the labour legislation. They have introduced a budget to spend like no one ever has before spent in this province. They have run a deficit that is unparalleled in deficits in this province. They are increasing the debt at an alarming rate and, with this, they have lost the confidence of the business community. We have had collapses in the business community that have cost jobs and we have had taxes they find they have to increase next year to make up for the amount of money they could not collect this year.

One of the interesting articles -- I mentioned it earlier -- was on profitability. That is a word this government does not like to use, but it is another one that falls in line with the trucking industry. When the government increases the tax on gasoline and diesel fuel, it is taking that money directly from the bottom line of any trucker or trucking company. They simply do not have the capacity to pass that cost on because it is such a competitive market.

Government members themselves have suggested that deregulation and free trade have caused the competitiveness to tilt in favour of the Americans. If they truly believed that, the last thing they would be doing today would be to put the Canadian trucking industry in a far more untenable situation by increasing the tax on gasoline.

If they truly believe that, why are they supporting this tax today? Not one of them has answered that question. If they honestly believe the trucking industry is in such dire straits, through federal government policies, why are they nailing the last nail into its coffin? Because they are mad at the feds? That is a really good reason to drive the nail into the trucking industry's coffin -- because they are mad at the government in Ottawa. The government is trying to settle a score with the federal government, so it increases the tax on gasoline. That is not going to help the truckers. That is not going to help the industry. That is not going to help all those people who are out of work and create employment.

The best of all is that this government staged this tax hike under the guise of an environmental tax. We on this side of the House and those truckers and businesses out there know full well that this was a cash grab because the government was short of money. Even to hint that this is an environmental tax on cars or trucks is absolutely insulting to the intelligence of the people of Ontario.

They can shake their heads all they want, but that is what their government said. When they increased the tax on gasoline for cars and the tax on trucks, they suggested this was an evironmental concern. Let them as a government tell me exactly how much of the new money they are generating because they have increased taxes on gas and diesel fuel is going to the environment. They should break that number out and give it to us. I suggest it is precious little, if any.

It is much like what the previous government did with the tire tax. The NDP followed their lead, which I find tremendously disappointing. When they introduced the tire tax as an environmental tax to save the environment, it cost consumers and truck drivers and trucking companies money to buy tires on the explicit promise that the government would spend this money on the environment. I heard one announcement, by my count -- members can correct me if I am wrong -- about how this tire tax money was going to be spent on environmental concerns.

The government has collected literally millions and millions of dollars. This government should not start hiding tax hikes behind the environment. If they are going to do that, then I insist they have audits and show exactly how much money they collected with this tax and exactly where it was spent on the environment. They know full well they will not subject themselves to that audit, because they are treating this tax, like the gas tax, as a simple cash grab. It is a cash grab to offset the high cost of their spending.

An hon member: To feed the children, surely.

Mr Stockwell: There is high spending involved. Do not tell me it is to feed the children.

The Deputy Speaker: Please address the chair.

Mr Stockwell: This is a tax that will be used to apply to the 14% salary hikes and hirings these people did in the civil service. That is what this tax is for. This tax could be used for the salary increases they gave senior staff, which amounted to huge sums of money. That is what this tax could be used for. They have frivolous and wasteful spending and they are trying to tell us that every tax they institute, including the gas tax or the diesel tax, is used to feed children. If that were true, they might find some support.

When they did a 14% payroll increase to the public service union last year, I am afraid it just is not going to cut it with the public. This tax represents a 31% increase in diesel fuel, a very substantial increase. After pre-budget consultations with the Treasurer, he did not mention this was going to happen. Fuel costs represent up to 80% of operating costs for a truck driver in a company that works in this province, which is an interesting statistic.

1720

When they add a 31% increase on something that is 80% of operating costs, they have fundamentally stolen money from the mouths of truckers, the profit they would use to stay in business, to buy their groceries, to pay their mortgages. They take the money out of their mouths when they put this kind of tax in place: a 31% increase in fuel, which is 80% of the operating costs for a trucking person or company or whatever.

The Ontario Trucking Association estimates that it will add $2,000 in tax costs per truck per year. That is what this tax will mean. How would members or anyone they know like a $2,000 reduction in their income? That is exactly what it represents to a trucker. By increasing this tax on private haulers who are in business for themselves, by increasing the tax on gasoline, which represents a $2,000 increase in operating costs, the government has just reduced their salaries year over year by $2,000. That is exactly what it means.

I do not think they gave any of the unions that work in Ontario a $2,000 reduction in their salaries. In fact, I think it was quite the opposite. How would they expect an industry or employees within an industry to react when they just basically said, "We're cutting your salary by $2,000"? Worse than that, this is another reason exactly for the collapse of the Ontario trucking industry in Ontario.

Mark my words, the industry is collapsing. If the members opposite think this is scaremongering, if they think this is just to raise the level of debate in this House, I ask each and every one of them individually to go out and pick any trucking company they know of, any trucking company they choose. I would ask them to ask for a meeting with the president, vice-president or anyone involved in appropriating the costs of that company. I would ask the members to ask them what this gas tax means to their profitability, what this gas tax means to their ability to continue operating in this province. I would ask the members to do that. I would think that they, as conscientious members of this Legislature, would want to do that.

Mr Mammoliti: Calm down, Chris.

Mr Stockwell: The member for Yorkview is suggesting I should calm down. I am really sorry he would suggest something like that. Some tax is costing jobs, causing companies to collapse, causing people to lose their jobs from major trucking, movers, haulers, and he is saying: "Calm down. Don't get worked up. Don't get excited."

When people lose their work, which means they will lose their house or they cannot feed their family and they have to go on unemployment or welfare, that gets me upset. I think that should get him upset. The really sad part about it is that it does not get him upset. He sits in this House and snickers at all those people who have lost their jobs. That is shameful, absolutely shameful.

I put this to the member across, who says I should calm down, why does he not go into these associations, the trucking association, or go to a trucker's business? He should go there and he should ask them what this tax means, and then he should say, when they get a little excited, "Why don't you just calm down?" and see the reaction from those people when they are about to lose their jobs and he tells them to calm down.

My goodness, the reaction would be very different from mine, and it may in fact become physical at some point, because they would be so distressed with a member of this Legislature acting in such a cavalier manner when their jobs are on the line, not his.

Mr Mammoliti: Ask about what happened 50 years ago. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Mr Stockwell: It is very difficult, because you end up with a member from across the floor yelling about 50 years ago. In this debate, not only can we not stay at the provincial level, we have to move on to a federal level and then a global level because they are raising taxes, we now have to talk about things that happened 50 years ago. This member cannot even remember what he wrote in August 1990 in the Agenda for People, but he can recall what happened 50 years ago. Honest to goodness, it is a serious case of selective amnesia and it gets to be somewhat frustrating.

This will push more truckers already on the brink of failure into bankruptcy. Why not have more rigorous collection of the fuel tax charges on the US operators who fuelled up before they come over? I think that is a good idea. Why do they not do that if they want to catch the American truckers? They should have more rigorous inspections to charge them the tax before they come over. Maybe that would be a way of catching the American operators.

We could probably ask for better enforcement, thereby creating a better situation. Maybe that would be a better situation. To be more vigilant would certainly be a far better attitude to the truckers who are crossing at the borders.

If we continue to force businesses, including the trucking industry, to pay more in taxes, to pay more money to do business in the province, then we are only doing one thing. We are reducing the profitability of those businesses.

This government points with glee to its Fair Tax Commission. The Fair Tax Commission was based on one assumption before they struck it. During the Agenda for People debate, which I think was the last election, this government said there should be a minimum corporate tax, and suddenly we developed the Fair Tax Commission. I am not really sure why this could not have been referred to the Fair Tax Commission and debated and discussed over a period of time, rather than implemented today, causing trucking industries to shut down. I would much prefer to see this government shut down than I would the trucking industry, to be perfectly frank.

But here we now have a government that says the reason it started the Fair Tax Commission was a minimum corporate tax. It is getting to the point where it is a colossal waste of time to be having the Fair Tax Commission if that was its premise. Do not worry about a minimum corporate tax; you have to have profits before you can have a minimum corporate tax.

As pointed out in the Globe and Mail today by Mr Peter Cook, as I said earlier, in the 1981-82 recession, which was again a recession in this province, corporations' profits were roughly 7%. They suggested it dipped to 7%. This tax again has an impact on profits, because it cuts into the profits. They rolled down to 7% in profitability, and that was a cause for concern. That was the floor. It had never dipped so low in the history of this province. There were many corporations that were concerned about that, many businesses that had concerns and so forth.

In 1991 profits have been hovering around 4%. As pointed out in question period today to the Treasurer, across the border in the United States the profitability levels are in the 6.5% and 7% range. These kinds of taxes go a long way in creating that disparity.

Whether we like profits or do not like profits, the simple situation is that without profits, companies do not prosper. Without prospering companies, they do not hire. Without hiring, people do not work, and without working, they cannot, I believe, fulfil their dream, which is to be a valued person in society who gives back some.

1730

What we are faced with today is lowering the profitability of the corporations due to the oppressive taxes and the uncompetitiveness in our society, in Canada and in this province specifically. What is happening, having investments so fluid, with no confidence, not just by the business community but consumers as well -- consumers are not spending. They have no confidence in this economy. They probably have no confidence in this provincial government. They are not spending at alarming rates.

The government can say to everyone that it is the federal government's fault, but no one is suffering through this economic downturn more than the province of Ontario. Surely to goodness there must be some responsibility accepted by this government for why we are suffering through this recession at such an alarmingly higher rate than neighbouring provinces.

Profitability is one answer. There is only one answer when the government talks about the labour legislation it is announcing. There is only one answer from business. They do not like it. They think it goes much too far. They have not been consulted. By ramming that through, the government is guaranteeing that another nail is driven into the business community's coffin in Ontario. They are leaving. Like the trucking industry, they are leaving, in some cases because they want to get out or, in some cases -- as stated before, there is 75% higher bankruptcy -- because they cannot operate in this climate.

If that is the kind of effect the government would like to see happen in Ontario, it is achieving that. But I do not honestly believe that is something the government is asking for. I do not honestly believe that is something they are heading towards simply because big unions tend to call the shots in their caucus. They are bringing forward legislation that is detrimental to the business community, and the trucking industry in particular.

We can talk about this tax specifically. During the 1982 recession, the Conservative government at the time ran a deficit. Why did they run a deficit? There are two ways to run a deficit, and this is another point to the increase in the taxes here. You can either increase taxes, and there is no deficit; you can spend money you do not have, and then there is a deficit, or you can realize a deficit by removing taxes. That is exactly what happened in 1982 by a Conservative government.

There are deficits that have been run by previous governments during recessions, but it is how that deficit is arrived at. If you run a deficit by reducing taxes -- that is what took place. The retail sales tax, I believe, was one point, and temporary exemptions for sales tax on heavy trucks and trailer parts and labour. If you want to reduce taxes, that is good, in my opinion, to jump-start the economy; you are leaving money in the economy. But this is exactly the wrong thing to do in the middle of a recession to exactly the wrong industry. I do not think one could find six people in this industry who would say this is a good idea. I do not believe any of the unions involved in this industry support this tax. Any owners do not support it. Any owner-operators do not support it.

Mr O'Connor: Name a tax they like.

Mr Stockwell: I am not certain one could find a tax anyone likes, but at this time this is exactly the wrong tax to institute, because it is going to do one of two things: either force companies to leave to be more competitive or force them to go bankrupt because they do not have the business. It is that simple. There is not enough business to maintain operations in this province.

A lot of the business has been taken by the Americans who are coming up and doing the trucking. Their costs of doing business where they are located are significantly lower than here; it may be their drivers or maybe the taxes of the state. Our industry cannot compete. In fact, some private haulers today, owner-operators, are taking jobs they lose money on just so they can have the cash flow to stay in business. Do members realize that? Do they know that is happening? Some owner-operators are taking jobs they are losing money on just for the cash flow to stay in business.

Does the government think that is a healthy economy? Do they think that is good? Do they realize that by implementing this tax in the next month or so, they are just going to drive another nail in the coffin of an industry that is reeling, an industry that I do not believe the government has met with?

I ask again, and this should be an ongoing request for government caucus members, that every time the government is going to institute a new tax it should be required reading, required as part of the course, MPP 101, to go out and meet with somebody involved in that industry and determine exactly how well the industry could handle a tax hike such as this. The government would find that of all the taxes it has introduced, the billion dollars or so, this specific tax is the least liked, the least accepted and the least allowed tax, in my opinion, the government has some forward with. This industry, as I said, is heading down a road that I am not sure it can recover from even after this government leaves office.

I mentioned the red herring about the environmental statement. Ontario does need a very viable domestic trucking industry. It is healthy; it creates work; it creates a tremendous amount of tax that it pays, outside of this, to continue to provide the valued services we have become accustomed to in this province.

By introducing this tax, which is a cash grab, they are doing nothing to build up a rather fragmented sector. By doing so and driving these numerous companies out of business, as I said, bankruptcies were up 75%. Not only do they have to replace the losses in taxes they would have generated on this new fuel tax, they have to replace a significant amount of tax truckers would have paid simply because they did business in this province. By looking for a very short-term cash grab and driving businesses out of the province or out of business, the government now has to make up a considerable amount of money they paid in taxes before they left or closed down.

The argument put forward by the other side is, "You're always finger-pointing and creating an unhealthy feeling outside in the community." If I honestly felt that by speaking in this House and bringing forward the kind of information we have in the last few days about this tax it would make any difference at all to this government, that members would maybe change their minds or would go out and speak to somebody in this industry on a personal basis, we might find opposition critics and opposition members a little more interested in discussing these issues with members across the floor.

Clearly, as I think Mr Bulloch said, talking to this government is like talking to a tree. There is absolutely no point in talking to this government. They do not hear you, they do not listen, and from a business point of view, they do not believe you.

I invite members opposite to meet with just one person in the trucking industry -- the minister as well. I am not sure how much clout the Minister of Revenue has at the cabinet table, but if she really takes her job seriously, I invite her to come out and talk to some people in this industry. I would ask her to defend the decision that her caucus and her cabinet made with respect to increasing the gas and diesel fuel taxes. I ask them to do that. I have not seen any of them stand up and defend this decision. All I have seen this caucus and this government do across the floor is finger-point at other levels of government that made this industry into what it is today, which is not a very viable one.

That is all they have done. If they think this is a good idea, why is it a good idea? Why is increasing the tax on this industry a good idea? I do not want to hear about deregulation. It is gone. We cannot recapture that. Those licences that were sold are gone. They are licensed. We cannot protect that. Whether we agree with the GST or free trade, it is over. That debate has ended. There is nothing we can do about it.

1740

The government should tell me why it believes increasing the tax by some 30% on an industry that is reeling is a good idea. What are they going to get from this besides money? Is it going to create any work? Is it going to boost this industry? Is this industry undertaxed? Is this industry declaring huge profits?

That was what I heard a minute ago, about the profitability argument, and someone said, "What about the banks?" I do not know about the banks, but this tax is not directed at banks. This tax is directed at the trucking industry. Can any members opposite hold their hands up and tell me they think the trucking industry -- I would like to see a show of hands -- in this province is healthy, viable, a going concern, and declaring huge profits that need to be taxed? Is that the case? I certainly do not see it.

It is very amusing to hear members opposite complaining about the opposition parties and their role in the fearmongering they suggest they harbour in trying to make this government look bad, when this government is not even prepared to debate an issue in this Legislature. This government is not prepared to answer a simple question. Whenever we ask, "Why are you doing this?" we get some misguided answer about the federal government's policies in the past, provincial governments from 15 or 20 years ago or Liberal governments from five years ago. It is over. Who cares? Why is the government increasing taxes at this time in this specific economy? That is the question I would like to have answered. That is the question that has not been answered.

In closing, we have given the government the statistics. Quickly, the statistics are 75% more bankruptcies from last year. They think that level is going to be as high again. We have given them an industry, the trucking industry, that is virtually on the verge of collapsing. We have talked about a 30% increase in the tax on the trucking industry. We have talked about it representing 80% of operating costs. We have talked about major trucking firms on the verge of collapsing or moving, and we cannot even get their attention.

If anyone across the floor would like to take his two minutes and give me a brief explanation of why this tax is essential, and what benefits this tax is going to bring to the people in Ontario and the trucking industry in Ontario, I would be very interested to listen, because to date I have not heard it.

Mrs Caplan: In the two minutes I have I want to point out that this particular bill before the House today is of real concern to my constituents in the riding of Oriole. They are always concerned about tax increases, but I think people are especially concerned about the impact of gas taxes on cross-border shopping.

I have been discussing with a number of people the proposal of the mayors' task force for a differential gas tax which would permit those communities on the border to have a lower tax so they would not be enticed across the border simply by the differential in gas prices. My own constituents in the riding of Oriole would likely not be impacted by that, but they understand the devastating effects of cross-border shopping on the province. I think there is general support for anything which would encourage people to shop in Ontario so jobs would not be lost. We all know that when people cross the border and are enticed by lower prices for gas as well as consumer goods, this has an enormous impact on the economy of Ontario.

My constituents in the riding of Oriole do not feel taxes should increase at this time of recession in the province, but they are particularly concerned with the effects of cross-border shopping, that the government did not respond to the recommendations of the mayors' task force and at least try out the proposal, perhaps in a few pilot sites, to allow border communities to see if having a lower gas price would stop the flow of important dollars across our borders.

Mr Turnbull: I want to congratulate my colleague for an excellent presentation. Let's just talk about some of the things he spoke about. With respect to the suggestion by the Treasurer that this bill was brought in for environmental reasons, I have never heard of anything quite as silly in all my life. If anybody were to study the provincial government's own study on the trucking industry, he would conclude that this is an industry that cannot afford new equipment. You cannot afford to buy new equipment if you are not making any profits, and this, believe me, is an industry which is not making any profits.

We have an industry in absolute crisis. We have had many large companies collapse within the last few years and we have many independents which to make ends meet are having to work unusually long hours. There was an interesting article in the Financial Times some months ago about truckers existing on a diet of pep pills and alcohol just to keep themselves going.

Finally, on the question of tax collection, it is true that truckers from out of province theoretically get money collected, but in fact the Ontario government is doing an extremely bad job with the existing legislation at collecting money in the US, particularly from the independents. We have only two man-years of auditing done in the US as compared with several hundred by typical US states. Indeed we are forgoing the revenue that could be had by tapping into those taxes that out-of-province truckers should be paying. This government should be doing that rather than further penalizing our own truckers.

Mr Phillips: I also commend the member's statement on a variety of counts. One is the jobs, and as all of us were home this weekend talking to our constituents, the overriding concern out there is jobs, jobs, jobs. Probably for the first time in many people's lives, they are seeing the possibility that the job they thought they had essentially for life is now under threat. Here is an area where it is clear: Taxes go up on fuel and jobs are lost.

The members may recall that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs spent a lot of time and energy looking for solutions to cross-border shopping. All the mayors in the cross-border areas who were before us said, "Give us some help." There was one key recommendation the New Democratic members of that committee moved, with the support I might add of ourselves and the third party, and that recommendation was that before any new legislation or regulations were put into place, such as this tax bill we are dealing with today, a jobs analysis be done, that we look at the impact on jobs before we pass it. That was not something that had just third party support. It was something that came from the government members on that legislative committee with our support.

This particular bill, if passed, will have a profound impact on cross-border shopping. If there is one thing this government should have done, it is a jobs analysis of the impact this would have had. Certainly all parties supported that. Had we had that, perhaps we could have dealt with this on a more rational basis.

1750

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West has two minutes to reply.

Mr Stockwell: It is rather shameful that if we ask members across the floor to defend a piece of legislation that calls for higher taxes, not one member can rise and give a simple explanation as to why they are doing this, simply because they only got briefed on GST, on free trade, on deregulation and on a few other items. They did not bother to get briefed on the legislation they are passing, which increases the taxes on an industry that is literally dying before our eyes. They will not stand up and defend the decision they are taking to increase taxes.

I begged them. I said to them, "Please stand up and explain to me why this tax at this time on this industry is so very important to implement." Not one member of the government stood up and gave us a defence of this legislation, simply because unless they are prepared to talk about deregulation and GST and free trade, they simply cannot debate anything, let alone a tax on the truckers in Ontario.

Lastly, it is already available, if they want to be vigilant in collecting the taxes they are losing from the truckers crossing the border. It is available. They have got that capacity; they are just not doing it. Changing a word here and there is not going to make a difference. They have to become vigilant and collect it. In New York state they have got a mass of auditors out to collect. I think we have two.

Mr Johnson: We have to raise the taxes so we have more auditors.

Mr Stockwell: Look, if my friend is telling me he is going to raise taxes to collect from Americans crossing the border, that is one thing, but to raise taxes, not defend it and crush an industry that is dying is absolutely insane.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate? If not, the parliamentary assistant.

Mr Johnson: I would like to make just a few closing comments in response to some of the issues raised by members of the opposition parties during this debate and on other aspects of the bill that have not drawn too much attention. Most of the debate has focused on the increases in tax rates that are contained in the bill. Certainly that is not surprising. No one likes to see increases in taxes.

A number of members have commented on the impact or potential impact of the fuel tax increases on the trucking industry. I do not think anyone would deny that fuel costs are a significant component of a trucker's overall costs of doing business. However, I think most people also recognize that as far as interjurisdictional traffic is concerned, there is a level playing field for fuel tax purposes. Ontario, like all neighbouring provincial and US state jurisdictions, has in place a fuel prorate system for interjurisdictional carriers that ensures these truckers pay an amount of Ontario fuel tax that equates to their distance travelled within the province. As the member for Durham East pointed out in his comments on this bill recently, the system applies equally to all interjurisdictional carriers, whether they are based in Ontario, other provinces or the United States.

It is interesting to note that in the Deloitte and Touche study on the competitiveness of the Ontario transborder trucking industry, the main factors favouring US carriers over Ontario carriers were listed as higher equipment utilization, lower unit costs for tractor-trailers and lower overhead costs. This report states, "With respect to taxes, the Ontario-based carriers appeared to be at a marginal advantage when all major federal, state and provincial taxes are considered."

I was pleased to see that the member for Carleton and the member for Markham commented favourably on the enforcement measures in Bill 85. There are no panaceas when it comes to dealing with tax evasion. However, we believe that the provisions in this bill requiring the registration of importers, exporters and transporters of middle distillate fuels, the bonding of importers and exporters and providing higher penalties generally for violations of the Fuel Tax Act will greatly assist the tax administration in its anti-evasion efforts. These particular measures were recommended by the standing committee on public accounts in 1989.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Johnson has moved, on behalf of Ms Wark-Martyn, second reading of Bill 85.

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: I would like to make an announcement before we close the House. Because of the celebration of Lights Across Canada, the main staircase is closed. I suggest that you either take the elevators or the fire escape. Thank you very much.

The House adjourned at 1756.