Journal des débats 1994-avril-11 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): The students from the only French adult high school were out in droves last Friday. They visited the office of the Minister of Housing and then came and visited me. Some 200 out of the 1,200 students attending the adult high school were very upset. They were protesting the closure of such a school.

Laissez-moi vous assurer que la fermeture de cette école, la seule école secondaire de langue française en Ontario pour les adultes, et qui doit fermer ses portes au mois de juin, va détruire l'avenir de ces adultes pour la simple raison que 70 % de ses étudiants sont des immigrés, et leur école, c'est leur survie.

Je peux assurer le ministre de l'Éducation qu'il doit agir dès maintenant pour sauver l'avenir de ces élèves-là. Sans ça, ces gens-là vont se retrouver dans la rue et sur le bien-être. L'argent comptant épargné aujourd'hui va sûrement nous coûter encore beaucoup plus cher lorsque ces gens-là se présenteront pour recevoir des services sociaux.

Alors, j'implore le ministre de l'Éducation de rencontrer le superviseur de la tutelle du secteur public et de tenter de trouver une solution le plus rapidement possible, afin de permettre à ces étudiants de continuer leur éducation.

GEORGINA LEIMONIS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Only six days ago, the Just Desserts café was the target of a crash robbery. In a vicious and senseless act, Georgina "ViVi" Leimonis was shot and killed. She was a young, innocent, beautiful woman. This morning ViVi was buried in the wedding dress she would never use. Thousands were expected to attend to pay their respects, and we join the Leimonis family and the Greek community in mourning ViVi.

The shock and outrage of the people of this city is overwhelming. Over 200 gathered this weekend to protest the increased violence in Metro and to call for changes to the justice system. There have been three offers in a cash-for-guns scheme to get guns off the streets and, in a touching response, the café has become a shrine, with hundreds dropping off bouquets, cards and notes in ViVi's memory.

It is increasingly evident that crime is of a major concern to our citizens. It is incumbent upon governments of all levels to cooperate in strengthening the justice system so that there is a strong deterrent. We must show the political will to respond to the demands of our law-abiding citizens who want their city back. People must be made to feel safe in their communities and we have to show the leadership necessary to make our society a safe one in which to live.

As ViVi's brother Tom pleaded, "It's got to stop here."

OXFORD COUNTY FEDERATION OF AGRICULTURE

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Last Friday I had the pleasure of participating in the Oxford County Federation of Agriculture's annual conference with its local elected officials. Many groups were represented: livestock and commodity producers, agricultural societies, the Women's Institute, Agriculture in the Classroom and the Ontario Ratite Association, which represents ostrich and emu producers, the newest members of Oxford's agricultural family.

This year's theme was Oxford 2000, a chance for these producer groups to discuss what they see as the future of agriculture in Oxford as well as across the country. Understandably, they expressed some concerns, including the national supply management system and how provincial allocation is not based on that province's consumption, an issue raised particularly by chicken producers.

Yet overall there was a sense of optimism that Oxford farmers would be able to meet the new challenges posed by new trading arrangements under GATT and NAFTA. The day ended with a stress on how important agriculture is to the economy of Ontario and that self-sufficiency in food production is important.

I want to remind the members of this Legislature that Ontario agriculture plays a key role in our province's economic health. While less than 3% of the population farms our land, the agrifood industry is one of our largest industries, creating direct and spinoff jobs across the province. In closing, I want to congratulate the Oxford Federation of Agriculture and others who participated in this important discussion.

FOOD BANKS

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): Yesterday I attended the opening in my riding of the Pavilion Foodbank, a food bank that has never been needed before. It's sad that these are the kinds of invitations we're receiving now. Where is the promised social assistance reform? At the same time as I was attending that opening, the Daily Bread Food Bank here in Toronto was suggesting that there was no way they could reach their targets this year.

I bring to the attention of the House once again the standing committee on social development report on food banks of April 1990: a report the NDP signed in April 1990, a report they had requested, a report whose recommendations have been completely ignored during this entire mandate.

Where is the response to the recommendation that the ministry further refine a strategy to remove the need for food banks? Where is the response to the recommendation that the supports to employment program, STEP, be provided with sufficient resources and actively seek private sector support for it so that all those eligible will have access to its incentives to employment?

No answers, no response, no reform for the people of Ontario who must use food banks, many more, I underline, than when this report was presented in April 1990.

SEXUAL ABUSE OF CHILDREN

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I am reintroducing in the House this week a private member's bill which will require persons convicted of a sexual offence involving a child under the age of 14 to register with the police within whose jurisdiction the person lives. The public will have access to information in the register and will therefore know if convicted paedophiles are living in the neighbourhood. The police will have the power to disseminate the information in the register and can notify neighbours or schools in extreme cases. The public has the right to be informed when a convicted paedophile is living within their boundaries.

The time has come to take action to deal with the dangers associated with high-risk repeat offenders, especially paedophiles and sex offenders. We as legislators must take responsibility for the fact that the existing law allowed Joseph Fredericks, an eight-time-convicted child molester, to be free when he abducted Christopher Stephenson and allowed a repeat sex offender to be released into the York Mills community upon completion of his prison term, even though the Ministry of Correctional Services considered him to be a high-risk release and psychiatrists suggested that he would strike again.

I urge the Attorney General to approach the new Solicitor General of Canada to explore ways of reforming the legal system. Public security must take priority over the individual rights of repeat offenders deemed to be high-risk releases.

1340

NEWSPAPER ARTICLE

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I want to stand in my place today to commend Mr Thomas Walkom of the Toronto Star for his very thought-provoking column in last Saturday's Toronto Star. Recently in this House we have witnessed the neo-right-wing agenda of the Conservative Party on a daily basis. But I want to quote Mr Walkom. He said:

"Margaret Thatcher's Britain and Ronald Reagan's America have provided glaring examples of what happens when meanness is permitted to overwhelm social policy. It did not take long to create the unemployed louts, hooligans and thugs that the British still call Thatcher's children."

Mr Harris and his like over there, who are so anxious to stick it to those folks who are on welfare, should not only read Mr Walkom's column; they should have it hung in their offices where not a moment of every day they are not reminded of just what happens if their brand of meanness is allowed to take over Ontario. Shame on all of you.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): The Minister of Health, as you know, did not present her new cancer strategy to this House, but I do want to respond to it here.

Firstly, we want to congratulate the ministry on the appointment of Dr Les Levin as cancer coordinator. He has a deservedly high reputation and is a strong addition to ministry personnel.

We're pleased with some of the initiatives that are included and they reflect some of the conclusions that we also reached during our Liberal task force on cancer care. Our call for urgent funding for bone marrow transplants has been recognized and we welcome the $8-million commitment from the government which will bring hope and life to many who have been waiting for bone transplants.

We are also pleased with the steps to bring the patient into the planning circle, with the emphasis on increasing excellence in clinical care and monitoring the effectiveness of care throughout the continuum.

We are disturbed, however, that the new central coordinating committee, which is called the provincial network, has a short life, less than a year. We believe that a permanent central agency must be put in place if we are ever to have a comprehensive cancer control strategy in this province, and we regret the limited nature of this body.

Further, we are also deeply concerned that there's no government commitment to new radiation equipment to meet the needs of patients in four or five years. The process of putting that equipment in place is a lengthy and complex one, and the time for action is now. Without that commitment and without that action, one in five cancer patients will not receive the care that they need by the year 2000.

ORILLIA PERCH FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): The Sunshine City of Orillia has quickly become one of Ontario's busiest and most popular recreation centres. Situated just west of the narrows connecting Lakes Couchiching and Simcoe, the city of Orillia provides a tremendous environment for boating and swimming as well as a prime location for thousands of anglers who are expected to visit the Sunshine City for the largest registered fishing derby of its type in North America.

The 13th annual Orillia Perch Festival, from April 23 to May 14, is sponsored each year by the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce. It's great family fun: You just have to fish to win.

It's time to get the line wet again, get the kids out into the fresh air, win a few dollars or prizes and catch lots of the finest-tasting pan fish in all of Ontario. Catch tagged perch that are worth $500, win a deluxe fishing boat package, big-screen television, power equipment and hundreds of great prizes of fishing, camping and outdoor equipment, as well as daily, weekly and grand prize awards for adults and kids.

Everybody is catching spring fever in Orillia. The Sunshine City offers anglers an attractive combination of scenery, history, recreational facilities and a wide selection of quality food and shopping establishments.

For more information, call the Orillia and District Chamber of Commerce at 705-326-4424. Bring the whole family and come and perch in Orillia.

RACE RELATIONS IN KITCHENER-WATERLOO

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to tell the members of this Legislature about the official opening of the Kitchener-Waterloo Race Relations Committee office, which took place March 25, 1994, at the new Kitchener city hall.

The Race Relations Committee consists of a group of concerned individuals who work together to encourage good race relations in our community. They are a group that will help if you are experiencing racism in Kitchener-Waterloo or if you want to work for the elimination of racism. The committee supports individuals and groups who are victims of racial intolerance and bigotry. The committee will help with receiving complaints, providing information to individuals, helping individuals with referrals to appropriate contacts and to follow up on referrals.

The Kitchener-Waterloo Race Relations Committee is made up of individuals and representatives of various groups, organizations and churches in the region. To name a few, there are representatives from the Kitchener-Waterloo Multicultural Centre, the city of Kitchener, the city of Waterloo, the Waterloo regional police force, the Global Community Centre, Heritage Canada, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record and representatives from the various levels of government.

There are also many individuals, such as Chloe Callender, Ashraf Beg, Rabbi David Levy, Philip Fernandez, Marcia Smellie, Theron Kramer and Rev Vincent Smith, to name a few, who are also involved in the committee.

To all of these individuals and groups I would like to say congratulations on your efforts and, on behalf of everyone not only in the Kitchener-Waterloo region but also in the province of Ontario, to thank you on your combined efforts towards the elimination of racial discrimination and racial actions.

May your efforts, combined with the efforts of our community as a whole, yield a community where individuals do not live in fear of harassment because of their racial, cultural or religious differences.

ORAL QUESTIONS

FIRE SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question is for the Premier. Last week we were trying to get your Minister of Housing to take action in the wake of another lost life in a basement apartment fire, which, as you will know, is the fifth fatality this year.

Premier, your Minister of Housing has absolutely refused to deal with the fact that simply legalizing basement apartments will not make them safe. In answer to the questions we keep raising, the minister keeps talking about the new regulations that will be put in place. But I ask you, what good are regulations if they can't be enforced? Regulations that exist on paper and can't be enforced will not do anything to prevent more people from being killed in basement apartment fires.

So, Premier, I put the question to you today: Do you not agree that simply legalizing basement apartments will not ensure that they are safe to live in, and are you prepared to do what your minister has absolutely refused to do, and that is to take the necessary steps to ensure that basement apartments are not only legal but safe to live in?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that question to the Minister of Housing.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): The prime objective of the bill which we have before the Legislature, the residents' rights legislation, is to ensure that there will be a framework within which the safety and health of residents of apartments in houses can come to pass in this province.

The situation currently is one in which over 100,000 units are illegal simply because of municipal zoning. The bill proposes to remove municipal powers to create an illegal situation for apartments in houses through zoning. Once we have removed the situation in which these apartments exist in illegality, where they are part of an underground situation, then it is possible to start dealing with health and safety matters.

No one has ever proposed that apartments which are no longer illegal because of zoning would immediately become acceptable in terms of health and safety standards, and for the Leader of the Opposition to suggest that is simply misguided.

1350

Mrs McLeod: Although the Premier has referred the question, I'm glad he is at least in the House today to hear the way in which the minister absolutely refuses to deal with the issue that we are raising time and time again in this House because of our very real concern with exactly what the minister has said: our recognition that making the basement apartments legal is not going to do anything to make sure that they are inspected and that by being inspected, they can be required to be brought up to the regulations of the safety code.

Our primary concern has been with the 100,000 or more basement apartments which are now illegal and which become legal under your legislation. You absolutely refuse to tell us if we are being misguided in our proposals to have these basement apartments registered and therefore ensure that they can be inspected as a result of being registered. If you believe that is a misguided approach, then will you tell us how you are going to know where those 100,000 illegal basement apartments are, how many of those illegal basement apartments, which will now be legal, are in fact going to be inspected, and how you are going to ensure that those apartments are brought up to safety and fire regulations so that they will be safe places to live in. Don't just tell us our approach is wrong. Tell us what you are going to do to make these apartments safe.

Hon Ms Gigantes: The Leader of the Opposition says that to remove the question of zoning illegality does nothing to improve health and safety. It is the first and necessary step. It's the one she doesn't like but it is the first and necessary step. I hope that she will come to see that.

Once that is done, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could tell us how passing a law in the Legislature of Ontario requiring registration improves health and safety. Perhaps she could tell us how.

Mrs McLeod: I would be delighted. If the minister is prepared to consider a system of registration to be followed by a system then of inspection, and to give municipalities the ability to put the registration and the inspection system in place, I would be more than happy to tell the minister how we believe that system could be made effective.

You've suggested that some form of registration is what will happen with new basement apartments because of building permits. That will allow you to ensure that if somebody builds their basement apartment with a building permit, it can be inspected. Therefore, it makes sense to say registration can be effective.

The question you seemed to be raising last week was, how are you going to make sure that the illegal basement apartments would in fact be registered so they can be inspected? We have suggested that there be a provision that would require that property owners report any basement apartments to their home insurer, and that any failure to indicate on your insurance policy that you do indeed have a basement apartment and that you have registered it would void the owner's home and fire insurance policy. I think the loss of insurance would be a very significant incentive to make sure that every illegal basement apartment that now became legal was in fact registered and accounted for and inspected.

I ask you today, if you're prepared to support the legitimacy of a registration process, would you be willing to work with the insurance industry to create that kind of insurance-based requirement for both the registration and inspection of basement apartments?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The insurance industry I'm sure will be interested in any claim made by a property owner who has not told the insurance company that there is a basement apartment or an attic apartment or a side apartment. I'll leave that aside for the moment.

What is going to make this system work? What is going to make this system work, according to the Leader of the Opposition, is that as soon as we have said that zoning no longer makes the apartments in houses illegal, we make a law that makes something else say that they're illegal so that they continue to exist in an illegal situation where property owners won't step forward and get advice, find out requirements and do the work that's necessary, and where tenants won't make complaints because there's a continuing situation of illegality. This is a fantastic, unnecessary, duplicative, bureaucratic, silly approach.

What we've proposed is a very straightforward system. Property owners who have existing apartments in houses now have an obligation, once Bill 120 is passed, to meet the fire code requirements for apartments in houses and to meet the building code requirements for apartments in houses. That's pretty straightforward. It's pretty clear to everyone, and we don't need --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- all this extra layer of falderal that they want to attach to it.

The Speaker: New question.

Mrs McLeod: I can't quite believe that the proposal we've just made could have been more simple, less bureaucratic, less costly or more guaranteed to prevent future tragedies from occurring, and I'm appalled that this minister can't understand that.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The government and the minister announced with considerable fanfare about two weeks ago that it was going to hire some 270 investigators to search out welfare fraud.

I hope we would agree that the concern, surely, is to make sure that the dollars that are going to support people who need social security support are going to those people who most need it, from the very beginning.

Our concern with the approach the government has chosen is that it is attacking the wrong problem, that the problem that needs to be attacked is the mismanagement of the system, and that problem is a problem this government has allowed to get completely out of control. It was this government's decision to eliminate home visits so that proper assessments could be made to begin with. It's this government that has failed to monitor whether students on welfare are actually attending school. It's this government that has allowed a 12-month backlog on appeals to grow, and that has tied case workers' hands.

The government's only response has been to hire investigators to go through every file to find out if they have the information that they should have had at the beginning. I ask the minister, why are you simply dealing with this problem at the end of a process rather than dealing with it at the beginning?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I suppose one could say how things change from week to week around here. I thought the last time the Leader of the Opposition was up on her feet asking me a question about abuse in the welfare system, she was in favour of our doing everything we could to ensure that there was no abuse in the system, and that is exactly what we're doing.

I would go further and say that in the three examples she has cited in terms of mismanagement of the system, I would just say to her that we need to be careful about ensuring that the information we put in front of questions is actually factual.

The number of students who are on welfare, she knows very well, is about just over 8,000 across the province. The 12-month backlog on appeals does not exist. We have a situation in which the maximum amount of time on average that it takes to get a decision is about seven months, and that's in unusual situations, and we are looking at things we can do to deal with that. But we are doing and we will be doing more things to try to better manage the system.

The other point I would make in terms of the home visits is that there is no prohibition of home visits. That is still something that is available, and where the supervisor deems that it's appropriate to do, there are steps to be taken that can be taken to ensure that is done.

We are in fact taking some steps to ensure that our system is better managed, because we need to do that, and that's something we're going to continue to work on.

Mrs McLeod: I have been consistently in favour and I will continue to be in favour of ensuring that the people who need support are the ones who are getting it from the beginning rather than trying to get money back from people who should not have had it in the first place. Clearly, that is not what's happening.

According to documents we've obtained -- and, Minister, we have done our best to make sure that this is absolutely accurate information documented by your own ministry -- overpayments to welfare recipients now total over $247 million, and that's what's known and documented to date to the end of December 1993. Last March, three months later into the year, the overpayments were at $124 million. That means that in nine months, the amount of money mistakenly paid out to welfare recipients has doubled. In fact, overpayments are four times more than they were when this government took office.

I ask the minister, how can you explain a system that has allowed overpayments to reach such a degree that $247 million that could have gone to family support, where it was needed, was needlessly wasted instead?

Hon Mr Silipo: I can explain it very simply. I can explain it in two ways. The first is that it might interest the Leader of the Opposition to know that until we became the government there was no central tracking of overpayments. In fact, the practice that used to exist, of collecting that information centrally in days gone by, when the Conservatives were the government, was let go of when even they were the government, was certainly let go of when the Liberals were the government, but is the practice of the Ministry of Community and Social Services now that we are the government. We are taking steps to collect those overpayments.

That is something that, I think again, the Leader of the Opposition would be well advised to make sure of, that she has her facts straight before she lays blame, because sometimes the blame doesn't rest with this government; it rests with her government when it was the government.

1400

Mrs McLeod: I would equally ask the minister to deal with the documented facts of the case. The case load for welfare recipients, I will agree, has gone up since the time this government took office, it has doubled since the time this government took office, and I will not go into the varied reasons for that, but the fact is that overpayments are now four times what they were when this government took office. The case load has doubled and the overpayments have quadrupled. How can this minister possibly say that the problem of mismanagement rests with anybody other than his own government?

The problem is this government's mismanagement. They are the ones who removed the requirement for home visits, they are the ones who failed to respond to escalating case loads when they saw that happening, and the only response of this government recently has been to hire people to go through every file as if somehow the people on welfare were to blame for the problem.

Instead of blaming welfare recipients for a system that is so badly flawed, why don't you turn your attention to fixing the problems that have allowed this situation to get so far out of hand? Why do you not put your money and your effort into making the system work instead of policing it to find at least $247 million worth of mistakes after they've been made?

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, I'm sure that if the Leader of the Opposition would have read from the rest of her notes, they also would have indicated that there was, I think, a figure of something like $50 million in overpayments which have been collected. Clearly, steps are being taken to collect those overpayments. There's no denying that those not only have to be collected, but that we will continue to take steps to collect them.

We are looking now at whether in some circumstances it's reasonable to request a higher repayment for some of those, but I don't think there's any denying that the system over the last few years has indeed grown beyond proportions in terms of the number of people who have had to rely on social assistance. We, in taking any actions to control and better manage the system, have always had and will always have as our basic bottom line the protection of the system for those who need it.

We do believe that it's important to continue to do that and to continue to ensure that people who are legitimately entitled to receive benefits do so. That also means taking steps to control welfare fraud and it also means taking steps to ensure that the system is run more effectively and more efficiently, and that is also what we are doing.

PENSION FUNDS

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): My question is for the honourable Minister of Finance. It's my understanding that the province's share of the public service pension plan will actually be $1 billion less than projected. Do you intend to take this money and apply it to your own deficit instead of paying down the debt of the pension plan itself?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I will refer that question to the Chair of Management Board.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member is likely making reference to stories seen in the press about negotiations that are going on with OPSEU.

As a result of the passage of the amendments to the Crown Employees Collective Bargaining Act before Christmas, pensions are now negotiable with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union. We are at the table having some discussions on a whole range of pension matters. There have been no negotiations concluded at this point and therefore no decisions made about any matter in relation to the pensions.

Mr Cousens: If I had wanted to ask him a question, I would have asked him, rather than the Minister of Finance, because what I have to say really draws into the job that this Minister of Finance should be doing. When it comes to negotiating, I don't think there's any doubt that anything's on the table as far as you're concerned, including such things as those things that cannot be purchased.

Anyway, the auditor soundly reprimanded you and your government for cooking the books. The auditor even refused to endorse your books. Now I've been told, and you've just admitted it, that you're negotiating with OPSEU to do exactly what you did with the teachers. You intend to take the projected cash that is not needed for the pension and apply it to the provincial debt, instead of paying to the plan itself. You're simply robbing Peter to pay Paul.

I ask you, are you so desperate to find a way to make your deficit look better that you will cook the books for the fourth year in a row at the expense of the province's fiscal wellbeing?

Hon Mr Charlton: Two things, very quickly, in response to the member: Firstly, the auditor did not refuse to sign the audited statements of this province. Secondly, as I've already said, the member can refer to cooking the books all he likes; we are in negotiations with a legally recognized bargaining agent around its pension plan, and to date there have been no matters resolved at that negotiating table. It is difficult to respond in the context of what we will or won't do until we reach a negotiated settlement with that legally recognized bargaining agent.

Mr Cousens: Ah, so in that case you may cook the books again. What you're doing is taking a billion dollars of today's money and putting it into the future for some other government to have to pay for. That's what you're doing. You're spending tomorrow's money today. If you did this in the private sector, you'd be looking out from behind bars.

By trying to make today's deficit appear smaller, you and your Minister of Finance -- you're all in this together -- are putting off our debt of today for future governments. Investors won't be fooled, the auditor won't be fooled, and the bond raters will not be fooled. Last week the Canadian Bond Rating Service put this government on notice that unfunded liabilities will be taken into account when it looks at the province's fiscal house. If you don't clean up your act, we could be looking at another costly downgrade.

Will you or your Minister of Finance guarantee that you will not play deficit roulette with this budget?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite obviously doesn't understand the whole nature of pensions. The unfunded liability to which the member refers is an unfunded liability which originated with the Davis Conservative government in this province, which slid through an administration across the way. And, to give credit where credit is due, the Liberal administration, even if everybody doesn't agree with how they did it, took the initiative to ensure that that unfunded liability would be taken care of over the next 40 years.

A major part of the negotiation with OPSEU is in fact about assuring the future financial viability of that pension plan, and not, as the member would suggest, to use that plan inappropriately.

1410

HEAD INJURY TREATMENT

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. Five years ago, the Ontario Head Injury Association held hearings to discuss the challenges and to find solutions for persons living with the effects of injuries to the brain. Today they are again holding hearings to determine what, if any, progress has been made on this critical issue. Minister, when the head injury association issues its report card on your government's actions, do you really think you deserve a passing grade?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): Yes, I certainly do.

Mr Jim Wilson: As far as the families of head-injured persons are concerned, your government has failed and you've failed, because you are allowing ideology to stand in the way of compassionate, community-based care. There are a number of quality private facilities right here in Ontario that are capable of caring for persons who suffer head injuries, but you won't fund the patients who go to these facilities.

At the hearings this morning, Valerie MacLean of St Catharines told of how her son was forced to travel to the United States for treatment, and 10 years later she still cannot get adequate rehab services in Ontario.

Two weeks ago, Mike Harris raised two more examples of families separated from their loved ones because you won't fund private clinics here but you will fund clinics south of the border at a cost of more than $500 a day more per patient.

Minister, in the name of cost-efficiency, community-based care and compassion, will you abandon your ideological stubbornness and immediately agree to fund private facilities right here in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I'm tremendously proud of our publicly funded, publicly run health care system in this province, a system that our party long ago was a leader in creating.

Our approach with respect to the issue he raises is one that I explained to his leader a couple of weeks ago, of making sure the people of Ontario finally, after decades of having to go to the United States, find the treatment they need here in Ontario.

Since 1990, there has been $7 million spent in enhancements to our services here in Ontario to treat people. I would agree with him that there are still some people who have to go outside the country for specialized brain-injury treatment. Our objective, our goal and our policy is to make sure we have here in Ontario the capacity to serve those people just as soon as we can.

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have six families who are in the United States with head trauma injuries. One of them is a 25-year-old resident of Burlington who is in a Detroit facility, part of the Margaret Montgomery Hospital in Detroit. You're paying, through your ministry, $966 per day in US dollars. Five of the six residents in that facility are from Ontario. The counsellors who supervise my constituent have basic high school education, and they provide basic transportation, companionship and supervision -- for that kind of money.

Yet here in Hamilton-Wentworth region, we have a proactive rehabilitation opportunity, which is a head trauma care facility. It is a much higher level of support, with accredited professional personnel. These people have university-level registered nursing certificates, university training in psychosocial support, including speech therapy, yet there are three empty spaces available today in Hamilton-Wentworth region for my constituents at half the cost.

Minister, why is it that you don't even have the capacity to consider the three elements of this case we're trying to bring to your attention: that we can get a better level of care for Ontario residents, recognizing the professional service --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- that we can get care close to home for the families so they can be supportive and part of the solution and part of our long-term care vision; and finally, that they will get better value as taxpayers because you can treat two Ontarians at home for every one you're paying for in the United States.

Will you open your mind and look at this program? It is much better and of less cost and greater care for our citizens. Please.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I think I've acknowledged in my response to questions on this issue, there are still some services that we are not equipped to provide in Ontario which people go out of Ontario to receive. If there is a comparable service in one of our hospitals here in Ontario or as part of our long-term care system, then of course I would agree with the member that it makes a great deal of sense to provide that care here in Ontario.

I don't know the specific cases he's referring to, but I have not at this point found a case of somebody who was in the US receiving services that were already being provided here in Ontario through our hospital health care system where we did not make every effort to bring that person back close to home. That's the objective.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Halton Centre.

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I suggest, as a follow-up to the previous question, that the minister look into this issue, because there are indeed alternatives that have not been followed.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question, however, relates to cancer and the cancer care strategy which the minister announced last Friday. The paper indicates that the Ministry of Health, and I just want to quote here, "will play a more active role in setting the research agenda and the Ministry of Health will identify priorities for cancer research in the province."

I wonder if the Minister of Health would advise the House today how this new ministry involvement will impact on the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and on the Ontario Cancer Institute, each of which has specific research mandates, each of which follows established research protocols, including peer review, each of which participates not only in provincial clinical trials but in international trials; what effect the new intervention of the Ministry of Health in research will have on these bodies.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): The creation for the very first time of a provincial strategy with respect to cancer and the fact that that strategy deals with the entire spectrum, from prevention to early detection to treatment and to support services, will mean that all the interventions and activities of the government through the cancer network, which is going to be broadly representative of all of the stakeholders in the system, will mean that we will be doing the research that supports that system, that improves the quality of life of the people with cancer and that makes sure that the consumers of the system have a voice in what both the priorities and the kinds of treatment and support services required are, something that people with cancer have been asking for for many, many years.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister clearly did not respond to the question I put. The question I put was specifically with respect to new interventions by the Ministry of Health in determining the priorities for cancer research in Ontario.

We would be very interested in knowing from the minister what specific expertise exists now within the Ministry of Health to define and prioritize cancer research; how many new people will be hired, because it seems to us that that expertise does not exist within the ministry; how much new money will be added to Ministry of Health research activities; and how many resources, both human and financial, will in consequence be removed from the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation and from the Ontario Cancer Institute as a result of this new policy.

Hon Mrs Grier: The spectre of removal of funding from the cancer treatment system or from one part of the system that the member raises is not very helpful as we attempt to have a constructive dialogue, as her party's task force had I think done some months ago, about how to deal with a real and very growing problem. Obviously, the specific questions she asks will be answered as part of the network's work and one of the work groups of that network.

With respect to the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation, let me remind her of the quote in one of the newspapers after I released the strategy, from Dr Charles Hollenberg, who "said that he was 'very pleased' with the government's new strategy." He called it "very imaginative and very badly needed to successfully resolve the pressing issues facing the cancer system now and in the future." That's what our government has done, that's what people have been calling for, and that's the kind of progress and action that will take us forward into the future.

METROPOLITAN TORONTO POLICE CHIEF

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Premier. I would like to ask you about one of your political appointments. It was reported in this weekend's Toronto Sun that Susan Eng, your appointment to chair Metro Toronto's Police Services Board, would like to see Chief Bill McCormack retire as soon as possible.

Premier, do you support this junior tax lawyer's position that Chief McCormack should no longer continue as chief of police for Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would refer this question to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): The honourable member knows very well that decisions of that sort are the responsibility of the local police services board, and this situation is absolutely no different. I don't know what it is he's trying to achieve by that question.

1420

Mr Harnick: Might I tell you that the public stands firmly behind Chief McCormack, and given a choice, the public would choose Chief McCormack over Susan Eng in a skinny minute.

It has become obvious that policing in Toronto is suffering due to the never-ending conflict between Susan Eng, whom you appointed as chair, and Chief McCormack. At the time when our city needs the cooperation of all those responsible for policing, will you listen to the public and ensure that Police Chief McCormack is reappointed and that Ms Eng is retired?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say this with regard to that question. First of all, on a personal note, let me say that I have an excellent working relationship with Chief McCormack, as I have attempted to do with all of the chiefs of this province in my capacity as the Solicitor General. I have the highest regard for him and his professionalism, and I have an equally high regard for the job Susan Eng is doing and the members of that police services board.

These are extremely difficult times. We are very much moving to community-based policing, a relatively new philosophy that requires a new dynamic between police and police services. The Metro leadership, given the circumstances that are in front of them and the difficulties they have faced, are doing as good a job as one can expect. In many ways, the work they are doing on a day-to-day basis is pioneering the new kind of community-based policing that is supported all across North America.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The Chair of Management Board has a reply to a question asked earlier by the honourable member for Mississauga North.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): That's correct. I'd like to respond to the member's question.

During the Liberal administration, the Macdonald Block and many of its rooms sat empty a large percentage of the time. Fortunately, that's no longer the case. The meeting rooms in the Macdonald Block are presently operating at well over 90% of capacity. It was not possible for the social contract secretariat to conduct its planning meetings at the Macdonald Block because they were booked full. Other locations were investigated by the secretariat, and they decided on the Eaton house.

Second, the facilitator negotiated a contract for a flat fee, not a per diem rate, as the member alleged. His contract included all preparation, conducting the seminars and any follow-up work that may be necessary as a result of the sessions.

Intense planning sessions were needed because, if the member opposite is not aware, the social contract secretariat oversees 7,000 local collective agreements affecting 800,000 employees in this province. If we weren't planning, the member would be on his feet. Now he's on his feet because we are planning.

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): What the minister has said is very interesting, but he has not responded to my question.

The question I posed, which the minister has now had two weeks to respond to, is why did all the people in the social contract secretariat have to travel for a two-day retreat to the Eaton Hall inn and conference centre? Why did they have to go with a facilitator? How much money was spent, when all these individuals work in the same office under the same roof? Why was it necessary that they had to expend this money for that amount of time when so many other things could be done? What is the justification for the expense, which you have not yet told us, for the social contract secretariat to move in bulk from one place to another for a two-day retreat?

I've given you two weeks to answer. The least you can do is inform this Legislature how you can justify this type of retreat when so many other people are asking the same question: where the priorities of that government happen to be.

Hon Mr Charlton: First, I've said and said clearly that there were no accommodations available here that were adequate. Second, and I sometimes think it is an occasion when anger is not the best response, but those rascals across the way oversaw a rise in operational government spending in this province of 61% between 1985 and 1990. In the first two years this government was in place, we reduced those operating costs by 11%. The Liberals' transportation costs rose 53% during their administration. We've reduced those travel costs to which he refers by 20%. We reduced our overall telecommunications budget by 4%. But most importantly, on the issue he raises specifically, when it comes to the rental of accommodation and space, we've reduced the cost by 53%, by good management.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question, the honourable member for Simcoe East.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): Thank you, Mr Speaker --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Whoa.

The Speaker: No, not yet. As unusual as it may be, my error. By rotation, it is the opposition's turn, and the honourable member for St George-St David.

Mr Murphy: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm glad to be able to point that out to you.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): My question is to the Solicitor General. I am pleased that the Solicitor General is considering my leader, Lyn McLeod's, request to refer that to committee; I hope it will be the case. In the interim, however, I hope we can continue to do certain things in the justice field.

He referred, in the question previously put, to his support for community policing, and I think we all support that. Some statistics that I think support the need for that: Between 1985 and 1993, robberies went from 2,560 in Metro Toronto to 5,265. In Regent Park, for example, in my community, there were seven shootings in seven weeks last year. Yet at the same time, unfortunately, due to cuts, each police station in Metro has a reduced police force of 10 to 18 officers, and in Regent Park, where community policing is highly effective and in fact demanded by the members of my constituency, there has been a reduction of 33% in foot patrols in recent months and years.

My question to the Solicitor General is, given that we have a budget upcoming, what will he do to commit to us and the people of Metropolitan Toronto that he will see a commitment to providing police with the resources they need to provide effective community policing?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): There is a whole host of things we have done and continue to do through my ministry. As the honourable member knows, as the critic for this ministry, my ministry does provide the procedures and the protocols and guidelines and standards for police services; however, it is the responsibility of each and every individual police service to determine how they will carry out those responsibilities and where they will place their resources.

Some of the initiatives we have implemented: In addition to providing recent standards on bias-motivated crimes, on domestic assault, wife assault, abuse, on a whole range of issues, we've also provided over $2 million for training. I recently opened up the new firing range at the Ontario Police College, which allows us to implement our use-of-force training. We have a whole host of race relations training and initiatives, which have a lot to do with the ability to have focused, community-based policing.

I would say to the member that at every opportunity I continue to work personally and my ministry officials work with the local services boards to implement and introduce the whole philosophy, in a real, meaningful way, of community-based policing.

Mr Murphy: There is no police officer who works in my riding who accepts any of that as at all being effective in reducing crime in downtown Toronto. As an example, 51 Division, between July and December alone, recorded 460 weapons offences and five people on record who have been victims of gunshot events. For the minister to say that somehow opening a weapons range is going to solve that is not quite adequate.

1430

I'd like to point to another example. It's clear when you talk to police officers that drugs play a central role in much of this criminal activity. For example, a constituent of mine stood at a corner in one area of my riding and watched cabs come in. There are 15, 16 pages recording hundreds of cabs going to a certain area, because while Regent Park has an unfortunate reputation, much of it comes from people coming from outside to commit their criminal activity.

I'd like to ask the Solicitor General, we have taxi drivers coming from all across, some of them repeated, to one corner to do drug deals, who are staying for a minute. There are literally hundreds of them. Will he work with the Ministry of Transportation and his own officials to work on the drug problem in downtown Toronto to see what he can do to assist in community policing, to talk to the taxi owners to see what they can do to help the people in my community to reduce crime?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say, with regard to the last part of the member's question, that the issue he raises is very much the direct responsibility of the Metro police service and it wouldn't be appropriate for me to suggest that I would in any way directly intrude on an operational matter that is their responsibility.

Having said that, that police service, like every other, knows that if it requires any kind of assistance that one of our ministries can provide, we're certainly available to work with it to provide it.

Let me also correct something and make sure there's not an impression left in the member's mind that's incorrect. I did not suggest for a minute that the opening of a new firing range or other facilities, or training money in and of itself, was going to solve the problem of initiating community-based policing. I was, however, expressing a clear opinion that I believe this government has been working with police services in moving forward in the transition towards community-based policing.

Let me close by quoting from the parliamentary secretary to the current Liberal Solicitor General of Canada, who says, in terms of crime prevention, "To be truly effective, the prevention of crime must involve examining the underlying social and economic factors associated with crime and criminality: the root causes of crime, such as poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, alcohol and substance abuse and family violence, to name but a few."

We would agree with that, and we continue to work with communities and police services on all the issues that affect crime so that we can have as safe streets in the province of Ontario as we can.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My question is for the Premier. Mr Premier, last week you were out around the province talking to small business and industry. Eighty jobs are on the line at Stepan Canada near Orillia. The soap manufacturer depends on the railway. There are about 140 cars of raw materials that have to come in there every year.

What steps have you taken, Mr Premier, to keep companies like Stepan Canada still in business? The 80 workers are concerned. There are thousands of others in Simcoe county who work for companies that depend on short rail lines for survival. What can we tell the people now with regard to the railways, that they will continue to have their jobs?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer this to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I can assure the member that this is an active file which is currently being coordinated between the ministries of Economic Development and Trade, Transportation and Labour. All three ministries are actively involved in seeking a solution that will in fact ensure continued service and access for the companies of those areas. We take the issue and the challenge very seriously.

Specifically, I myself, as well as my colleagues, have had a number of discussions with the community and with CN. I spoke to the head of CN in February, March 21 I had a phone conversation and March 31 I hosted a meeting in which the Minister of Transportation, Deputy Minister of Transportation and officials, Deputy Minister of Labour and officials, and deputy minister from MEDT and officials and myself met with M. Tellier and other individuals from CN, at which we explored their intentions with respect to lifting of the rail should the National Transportation Agency of Canada decision in June come down in support of CN's abandonment.

I am hopeful that we will have a positive response from CN on this. In the meantime, we are meeting with parties, including some of the unions involved, to see if we can facilitate an agreement or an approach that would be the solution for the area in Simcoe that you raised but also provincially, because, as you know, CN is looking at abandonment of lines in other areas of the province.

Mr McLean: Minister, I have a letter from the warden of Simcoe county to the Premier. You've been copied with it. The Ministry of Labour, the Minister of Transportation and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation have been copied with that letter; all the mayors; industrial development commissioners. There have been an awful lot of meetings that have taken place within the county of Simcoe over this very issue. Time is money. It's costing these people money. The warden wants to set up a meeting with the Premier and yourself immediately to discuss this very issue. What can I tell the people today at Stepan Canada? Are they going to lose their jobs or are they not?

Hon Ms Lankin: I understand the seriousness with which the member poses the question. I want to assure him that in terms of the lines, there are two or three lines that are affected by this direction from CN to abandon these particular rail lines. We have in fact met. The Premier personally met with the mayor of Collingwood and a delegation of businesses from that area, and I've had the opportunity to have discussions with those individuals and I'm well aware of the community support and the business interest and potential of a community solution to running the line in the future.

I think you can assure the people that, one, there are three ministers who are actively working on this; that I am well aware of it from the point of view of economic development and the importance in terms of maintaining jobs; that I have as recently as within the last week and a half, with other ministers, met with CN to ask them to give us the time to work out a local, provincial community solution to this problem, which, I will reassert, is a problem which has been imposed on us by a policy decision of Canadian National with respect to abandonment of rail lines. We are going to have to deal with the result of that, but we are taking a leadership role in dealing with the result of that.

I understand the importance in the community but I also say to the member that in fact this is an issue of importance to several Ontario communities, and we are looking for a provincial response.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. The minister would know that a number of people within the forest industry have been watching quite closely and actually participating in a process that the minister started in order to develop a forest renewal policy for the province of Ontario.

I know from meeting with people in my riding, the riding of Cochrane South, and some of the people from Timiskaming and from the honourable member across for Cochrane North that there are a number of people in the forest industry who are really wondering what it is exactly that this government is up to when we talk about forest renewal.

I understand that this morning you were in Thunder Bay. You made an announcement on behalf of your ministry and this government in regard to the direction of that forest renewal policy, and I'm wondering if you can share with the House exactly what you announced this morning in Thunder Bay.

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): We have been talking with the forest industries of Ontario over the past year about establishing a new business relationship with them. There are about four components to it. The first is that we want to establish a forest renewal trust fund which will set aside money every year which will be dedicated to renewing the forest. We believe that we, through a forest renewal trust fund, will be able to invest more money in renewing the forest than ever before.

Secondly, the new business relationship will involve working out more flexible options with private industry. In British Columbia, by following a new business relationship the British Columbia government reduced the cost of forest renewal from $780 million a year to $250 million a year and at the same time achieved better forest renewal.

We believe there are real cost efficiencies in what we're doing. There is also a new stumpage system, something that industry has asked for and which we believe will be more efficient and more market-sensitive.

Mr Bisson: I think what a lot of people are concerned about is exactly what this new stumpage system is all about. I know from speaking to some of the people in the industry that they fear that the stumpage system is meaning to say in the end that they'll be left with a larger share of the overall responsibility but also the entire cost. They want to have some assurance from the minister of exactly what we're talking about when we're talking about a new stumpage system.

Hon Mr Hampton: In the past, all of the money from the stumpage fee system has accrued to the consolidated revenue fund. What we're talking about now is a new stumpage system which would result in a significant portion of stumpage fees being dedicated to a forest renewal fund, so those people who work in the forest would actually be funding their future jobs and the future health of the forest. We think that is long overdue, something that the province probably should have tried about 20 years ago.

1440

The new stumpage system will be market-sensitive in the sense that when forest products companies, let us say in the pulp and paper sector, are not achieving high prices, the stumpage fee will drop. However, there will always be a portion of the stumpage fee which must go to forest renewal. When companies such as the lumber industry, which is now doing very well, achieve very high prices, then the people of Ontario will receive a return on the public resources that are being used.

TRANSPORTATION FOR THE DISABLED

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. We are now in the second week of the disabled wheel transit system, and of the 139 Wheel-Trans buses, only 35 are operating. Individuals, as you know, are unable to go to work; people are unable to get to their doctor. The real bottom line is that they are denied a way of life. Mr Minister, what alternative transportation are you going to provide for these people who are out of transportation now?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): What the member opposite reminds us of, in the collective, is the human dimension, those less fortunate people who rely on the essential service that this government has increased its financial commitment to by more than 50% in the last four years, recognizing the marketplace, the number of people who are dependent on the essential service.

Because of a faulty steering column, because of recalls, because the units have to be taken off the road to ensure the safety and reliability of the system, we have worked in close liaison with people responsible for the system, people at the municipal level, to ensure that, for instance hypothetically, Ira Smith, having to go to a dialysis machine, will not be impacted.

It's my understanding that within one week, or eight or nine days max, everything will be back to normal and people will still be able, as they were yesteryear, to look to that service on a daily basis. Thank you kindly.

Mr Curling: All those people who are being denied that now are not feeling any better with all this poetic thing you're throwing around. People aren't feeling any better about that. I ask you, what alternative plans are you making?

Mr John Feld, director of Trans-Action Coalition, states that "the shutdown of services is only the latest wrinkle in the Wheel-Trans crisis." The disabled community feels that they are treated like second-class citizens, Mr Minister.

You and your Premier, I know, trumpeted the four new subway lines that would be built. Those, of course, are quite naturally for the able-bodied, which is good news to those people. But the other people are feeling, "Are we being left out in all this?"

When will you admit, Mr Minister, that your government continues to neglect the needs of the disabled community and does not serve the needs, the demands? The needs of many people today, as you know, are not being met, because even the requests for transportation are not being reached today. When will you admit that you are not doing sufficient, and that you are treating these people as second-class citizens?

Hon Mr Pouliot: It is rather appalling and somewhat shocking when the member opposite wishes to catastrophize or to portray a situation in its extreme, when the facts that are with me are the very opposite. The member, and I'm quoting him verbatim, says, "Treating people as second-class citizens," neglecting the challenge.

Let me share this with you: In 1989, the provincial contribution to the Wheel-Trans system was $13.3 million; 1991, $19.1 million; 1993, $22.2 million -- almost double in a period of four years. If this is not taking your role seriously, if this is neglecting the people who need the service the most, the figures here will speak for themselves.

We are committed. I welcome the member's opinion. It is current. The system is not only being rectified but steps are being taken to develop policy so that this kind of situation in the future will be dealt with in the collective between Metro and the province more expeditiously.

LAND USE PLANNING

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and is about the Sewell commission and about the response of the government, A New Approach to Land Use Planning.

Mr Minister, in your response and release of December 14, you indicated that planning in Ontario requires clear direction. You said that the planning process should be streamlined, you said that the approvals process should be shortened and you indicated that there should be greater local control of the development process.

I have to tell you, Mr Minister, that there's a great deal of scepticism about A New Approach to Land Use Planning in terms of achieving those goals. The home builders' association, for example, says that the policy statements will not achieve streamlining. AMO has concerns about them. The county planning directors of Ontario have indicated that they will effectively stop most rural development.

Now, Mr Minister, we have the planning focus of your government, the NDP government, which lists the Sewell commission reforms under the category of the environment.

Now the question: Is the land use planning document a planning reform document or is it an environmental document? Will it speed up planning, or is it going to slow down planning, as most people fear?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I'd certainly disagree with the statement that most people feel it would slow down planning. That certainly has not been the indication of the development industry that I've met with. It certainly was not the indication from AMO when I met with it last week.

In terms of the rural part of your question, I met only this morning with the reeves from the townships of Kingston, Pittsburgh, Ernestown, Sidney and Elizabeth. We were looking at alternative ways of dealing with some of the Sewell recommendations so that it would speed up the planning process and the development process in their areas.

Across the province, as the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will tell you, there is tremendous support for the Sewell recommendations. We intend to implement them. You will see the legislation. It will protect the environment. It will encourage development in both rural and urban areas, and it will cut down on the bureaucracy which your government created when you were in power.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that the standing committee on resources development may meet at times other than those specified in the order of the House dated April 20, 1993, and beyond its normal adjournment time for the purpose of consideration of Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is it the pleasure of the House that motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

Opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

I declare the motion carried.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): A petition to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters' advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,"

1450

"We, the undersigned, petition the Premier, Solicitor General and the Legislative Assembly to change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

It's signed by 18 constituents.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition with 133 signatures that's addressed to the Legislative Assembly.

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have signed this document.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have a petition here, addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, from my constituents in Twin Elms in the riding of Middlesex. They petition the Legislature as follows:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord;

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

On behalf of those seniors, I have indeed signed my name to this petition.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I am pleased to present a petition, on behalf of over 500 residents of Metro Toronto, to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the British North America Act of 1867 supports the right of Catholic students to a Catholic education and the province of Ontario supports two educational systems from kindergarten to grade 12/OAC;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board educates more than 103,000 students across Metropolitan Toronto and whereas this is equivalent to 30% of all students in the area;

"Whereas the Metropolitan Separate School Board is expected to provide the same programs and services as its public school counterpart and must do so by receiving $1,822 less for each elementary school student and $2,542 less per secondary school student (based on 1993 estimates, Ministry of Education and Training published statistics);

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to act now to ensure that Ontario's two principal education systems are funded fully and equally."

I have signed this petition.

VIDEO GAMES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that has been signed by residents in Waterloo, New Hamburg, Guelph, Ariss and Mississauga. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Theatres Act was amended in 1984 with the intention of keeping certain viewing materials away from children and advances in technology have occurred to such an extent that the concern for children covered by this legislation is negated as it does not cover electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games; and

"Whereas there has been a disturbing increase in the proliferation of violent and sexually explicit video games; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario should be making every effort to regulate the distribution of adult video games and ensure that games designed for adults are clearly marked as such; and

"Whereas Bill 135, the Theatres Amendment Act, 1993, a private member's bill introduced by Waterloo North MPP Elizabeth Witmer, would amend the definition of 'film' so that the electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games come within the purview of the act, particularly the classification system;

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

"That Bill 135 be passed by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as quickly as possible."

This petition was sent to me by Sheila McWilliams, and I'm pleased to sign it.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): On behalf of about 700 constituents who live in my riding and in a mobile home park in Wilmot Creek and on behalf of the other hundreds of constituents who live in various trailer parks situated in my riding, I have been asked to petition, addressed to the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas Bill 21 has received second reading in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 21 will provide needed protection to owners of mobile homes in mobile trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities; and

"Whereas many owners of mobile homes are threatened with eviction and loss of their investment in their mobile home by the action of their landlord,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:" -- and I hope the Conservative member from Mississauga is listening --

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible with third reading of Bill 21."

I've put my name to this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, which reads:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have signed my name to that petition as well.

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My petition reads as follows:

"Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

"Whereas you should have followed the OFAH advice and grandfathered those of us who have already taken safety courses and/or hunted for years -- we are not unsafe and we are not criminals; and

"Whereas we should not have to take the time or pay the cost of another course or examination and we should not have to learn about classes of firearms that we have no desire to own,

"We, the undersigned, petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"Change your plans, grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

LAP DANCING

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition that says:

"Whereas the recent court decision has declared lap dancing legal in Canada, which involves the physical interaction between nude entertainers and patrons and includes many sexual acts commonly provided by prostitution,

"Therefore, we request that the Right Honourable Jean Chrétien, Prime Minister of Canada; the Honourable Herb Gray, Solicitor General of Canada; the Honourable Allan Rock, Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada; and the Honourable Marion Boyd, Attorney General of the province of Ontario, be petitioned to amend the Criminal Code to establish clearly sexual acts which are illegal in liquor licence premises generally accessible by the public, and prescribe definitions of conduct which are criminal, and clarify acceptable community standards which will prohibit lap dancing and its attendant activities from occurring."

HIGHWAY SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'm pleased to present one of the largest petitions I've ever presented to this Legislature in nearly 20 years, a petition signed by thousands of my constituents in the Pembroke and Renfrew county area, a petition to the Legislative Assembly which reads in part that to prevent future automobile accidents:

"We, the undersigned, would like to see an overpass at the intersection of Highways 417 and 41 near the city of Pembroke. If an overpass is not feasible, then we would like to see the following options:

"(1) A speed limit reduction to 50 kilometres per hour in all directions within a mile radius of that intersection;

"(2) Move all light standards further away from the side of the highway;

"(3) Put sand barrels around the base of all light standards."

I'm happy to sign and support this petition. I want to indicate that this petition was largely prepared by two young men, Kevin and John Neuman, whose brother was tragically killed at this intersection just before Christmas.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): I have a petition here.

"We petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We oppose the BOP tax," or the brew-on-premises tax, "initiated by the government of Ontario on August 1, 1993. We challenge you as to its legal fidelity and question the government's concern for small business development and growth. This tax will undoubtedly directly affect the survival of this industry."

As a member, I affix my signature to it.

ÉDUCATION EN FRANÇAIS

M. Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa-Est) : Je voudrais présenter une pétition qui m'est parvenue par l'entremise des adultes Le Carrefour :

«Attendu que, depuis sa fondation en 1992, la population de l'École des adultes Le Carrefour ne cesse de croître et, au cours des dernières années, de s'adjoindre un nombre considérable et croissant de néo-Canadiens et néo-Canadiennes ;

«Attendu que, depuis 1987, l'École des adultes Le Carrefour occupe un site aménagé spécialement pour répondre aux besoins de la population adulte ;

«Attendu que ce site se trouve au carrefour de la population francophone de façon très centrale, à la région desservie par le Conseil scolaire de langue française d'Ottawa-Carleton, section publique, et avec un arrêt d'autobus devant l'entrée ;

«Nous, soussignés, résidents et résidentes de l'Ontario, demandons au premier ministre de l'Ontario de prendre les mesures afin d'empêcher la fermeture et la vente de l'édifice de la rue Donald ainsi que la relocalisation du programme de l'École des adultes Le Carrefour.»

Cette pétition est signée par tout près de 1000 élèves et je me joins à eux pour signer la pétition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): I have a petition signed by the Woodslee Prayer Community, addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to refrain from passing Bill 45," the bill that was presented in this House by the Liberal member for St George-St David.

I support their petition.

HEALTH CARE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the New Democratic Party has always said it was against user fees in health care and other social services; and

"Whereas the NDP promised it would never implement user fees for health care and other social services; and

"Whereas the NDP has bowed to the pressure from the Conservative Party and is now working to implement user fees in a number of areas; and

"Whereas the NDP government is now planning to implement a number of user fees by charging for various necessary drug treatments, for annual checkups, psychiatric counselling and speech therapy for children and other necessary services; and

"Whereas the NDP is trying to fool the public by saying that these are not user fees, but rather copayments; and

"Whereas it has been shown that user fees do not make health services more accountable -- user fees only restrict access,

"We, the undersigned, urge the NDP government to reconsider its new policy on user fees and protect the integrity of our universal health care system by cancelling its proposed user fees on essential health services."

I support this and I will be signing my name.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading, Bill 143, An Act to amend certain Acts related to The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton and to amend the Education Act in respect of French-Language School Boards / Projet de loi 143, Loi modifiant certaines lois relatives à la municipalité régionale d'Ottawa-Carleton et la Loi sur l'éducation en ce qui a trait aux conseils scolaires de langue française.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Pursuant to the order of the House dated April 7, I am now required to put the question on second reading of Bill 143. Shall the motion carry?

All those in favour of the motion will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

Call in the members. This will be a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1505 to 1510.

The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will please rise one at a time.

Ayes

Abel, Allen, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooper, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please rise one at a time.

Nays

Arnott, Bradley, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cunningham, Daigeler, Eddy, Eves, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Kwinter, Mahoney, Marland, Miclash, Murphy, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Poole, Ramsay, Ruprecht, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Wilson (Simcoe West), Witmer.

The Deputy Speaker: The ayes are 58; the nays are 29. I declare the motion carried.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Mr Sutherland, on behalf of Mr Laughren, moved second reading of the following bill:

Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): This bill puts into place the changes announced in the 1993 Ontario budget.

The bill proposes --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. I would encourage you to carry on your conversations outside of the House. The member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: Thank you, Mr Speaker. As I was saying, this bill puts into place the changes announced in the 1993 Ontario budget.

The bill proposes to apply retail sales tax to premiums paid under insurance contracts, group insurance, funded or unfunded benefit plans, effective May 20, 1993. The major exemptions include individual policies for life, health and physical wellbeing and reinsurance, farm and crop insurance, marine insurance, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation. A special rate of 5% will apply to auto insurance, covering all licensed vehicles.

Tax will also be applied to charges made for parking, effective July 1, 1993. No tax will apply to residential parking.

Effective July 1, 1993, sand, gravel, clay, soil and unfinished stone in any quantity will be taxable.

A new tax is proposed on beer or wine made by persons at a produce-your-own outlet for their own consumption, effective August 1, 1993. The tax rates have been graduated over the period of August 1, 1993, at 26 cents per litre of beer or wine produced to June 15, 1995, when the tax will be 38 cents per litre of beer or wine produced. This is a flat tax applicable to the quantity of beer or wine delivered to the customer and is due at the time of delivery.

Finally, retail sales tax will be charged on replacement parts used in the repair of taxable goods under warranty and maintenance contracts. This is effective May 20, 1993. If a company performs warranty repairs on items which it sold, the tax is due on the cost of parts used in performing these repairs.

The $5 tire tax on new tires is removed, and that was effective May 20, 1993.

The Ontario -- Incredible! rebate program was eliminated effective July 1, 1993. Although the Ontario -- Incredible! program was intended to encourage tourists, less than 1% of the visitors to the province filed claims. Certain large businesses benefited by substantial refunds on business trips. Clearly, this program was not meeting its intended purpose. Significant administrative costs were involved in the manual processing of these claims.

To help combat the underground economy, some penalties under the act are increased.

Other administrative changes include a relaxing of procedures for bad-debt claims and adjustments to the interest calculation rules for both amounts owing and refunds.

That outlines some of the technical purposes of the bill, as I said, implementing some of the changes as were outlined in the 1993 budget.

I hope that as part of the debate, while no one likes tax increases or supports them, we remember the context of the budget in 1993. Of course if the government had not done anything at that time, we would have been looking at a deficit of well over $16 billion. The government took a three-pronged approach to deal with that situation in terms of what we did with the social contract and the savings achieved through that, savings achieved through the expenditure control plan and the third portion of that, of course, the increase in taxes and non-tax revenue outlined in the budget.

These were very difficult situations. We understand that not everyone was supportive of them at the time, but I think the nice thing about doing this bill at this time is that people can see the results of our efforts and that we were very successful in containing the deficit and making a substantial reduction, not only in what the projected deficit would have been if we hadn't made any changes but our successful efforts in reducing the deficit from the previous fiscal year, almost a 20% reduction in the deficit.

I think that speaks very well of the strategy that the government outlined, and this bill is part of that strategy, but also in terms of how this government is dealing with the very serious issue of getting the deficit under control, how we're looking after the fiscal situation of the province and of the government in very difficult times, having to deal with a lot of systems that have been built up over many years by previous governments that in effect weren't managed very effectively. We're having to take the tough decisions to deal with them because unfortunately the bill has come due in the 1990s.

1520

I look forward to the debate and I look forward to knowing where the opposition parties -- I'm sure they are going to be critical because as we've heard time and time again, "No tax increases," but I would hope that while they're putting that forward, they will present options as to what they would have done in this situation.

I have a good idea where the third party has stood on some of these issues, but I'm not quite sure where the official opposition has been on its fiscal situation. The leader has said they wanted more significant cuts in spending and that they wanted no tax increases. They also wanted the deficit to come down substantially and they also said they wanted to maintain services. I think the people of Ontario are realistic enough to know that those things don't all add up.

We'll look forward in the debate to hearing what the economic strategy is, but more importantly, what the true fiscal strategy is of the official opposition. With those comments, I look forward to the rest of the debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I'm fascinated that you would know what the Conservatives think and you don't know what the Liberals think. It's one thing to stand over there and even think you know what your own government thinks, let alone assume that you could predict what the Liberals are going to do.

I am looking forward more to the debate coming up to what the Liberals have to say than even what you have to say, because they're the ones who brought in the tire tax in 1989 and they had all kinds of apologies and explanations for it. If there's anything that's going to be fascinating that comes out of the debate this afternoon, it is how the Liberals respond to this, because they had such a commitment then that one would hope there was some meaning or truth or validity to all the points they had to make.

From the honourable parliamentary assistant, I sense a touch of humour coming through him that says, "The Liberals really are hard to read." When they were in power, they went and brought this tire tax in and it was quite an imposition. It raised a heap of money.

I'd be interested in knowing, just to give you a chance to reply -- what I've said so far doesn't give you much chance to say too much except off topic, which is pretty easy for you. What I wanted to ask you is, would you be so kind as to tell us how many dollars were raised by the government since the tire tax was imposed?

The second part of the question is, how much in your estimation was spent on environmental purposes? That would be very, very helpful and appreciated, because the intention of the bill in the first place was to raise taxes, but then also both Mr Nixon and Mr Grandmaître were clear in saying this would assist the government in its whole role to fight for environmental needs. I would look forward to your comments on this matter.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further questions or comments? If not, the member for Oxford, you have two minutes.

Mr Sutherland: I thank the member for Markham for his comments. The reason I know where the third party stands, of course, is that we know they are in a battle to try and demonstrate to the people that their policies are better than the Reform Party of Canada policies. We know they're in a battle to out-reform the Reform Party, so it's very clear to know where they're at.

With respect to his comments regarding the tire tax, I don't have the exact figure, but I certainly know that when that tax was brought it, it was sold to the people of Ontario that the money would specifically go to deal with the problem of used tires. We do know that a lot of revenue came in and of course that revenue went into the consolidated revenue fund, so we couldn't track specifically where the funds went, but we certainly know that not all the funds were spent on recycling and finding other uses for used tires.

Clearly, it did not fit the mandate it was supposed to. I am happy to report to the member for Markham and to the House that since 1990 and beyond, the government has done a very effective job, first of all under the leadership of the former Minister of the Environment, the Honourable Ruth Grier, and continued under the current Minister of Environment and Energy, the Honourable Bud Wildman, who made tremendous strides on getting a handle on the problem of used tires.

Let me just say, too, that the other problem in determining the actual amount of how much came in from the tire tax was that the amounts were sent in with the retail sales tax returns. They were not shown separately, so it's very hard to get a specific amount, but treasury has estimated in the past that it was about $35 million a year.

I just want to say that I'm pleased with the efforts our government has done to get a handle on that very, very serious problem.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate?

Mr Cousens: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Inasmuch as I asked a question and it was a simple one, is there any chance that the honourable member would get me the answer before I have my turn? Your people should have that information.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): As revenue critic for the official opposition, as well as my other responsibilities as critic for the treasury board and Management Board, it's my pleasure today to begin the debate on Bill 138, which is entitled An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

I found it interesting that during his comments the parliamentary assistant made the case that now was a good time to be debating this bill. I'd like to point out to those who are paying attention that this bill was tabled for first reading in December 1993 and it was tabled to implement the budget commitment from the NDP Bob Rae government. That budget had been tabled in May 1993. So what we are actually doing today is debating for second reading, which is debate in principle, a tax bill that has been in effect for one year, and the parliamentary assistant says that's a good thing because people have now had a chance to see what the effect of the legislation is.

I would take issue with that. I don't think it's a good idea to be debating fait accompli legislation. I don't think retroactive legislation is a very good idea, although retroactive tax legislation is sometimes, and usually, a fact of life simply because it is implemented on the day of the budget and then the legislation is retroactive to that date. That's one of the traditions. Tax legislation is one of the few pieces of legislation we have accepted as part of our tradition of retroactive legislation.

The question, however, is the obligation of the government and of the Treasurer to move as expeditiously as possible to deal with legislation which by its very nature will be retroactive. In that case, the government gets a failing grade, because it should not take a year to deal with a piece of tax legislation. The reason it shouldn't take a year to deal with that legislation is that the debate here in the Legislature gives us the opportunity to explain to people what's going on, to have some real and serious debate about the effects of this legislation and to also perhaps point out some of the alternatives to this approach.

On the point that the parliamentary assistant made on the effect of this legislation, this, as well as the other tax moves contained in the budget of last spring, 1993, effectively raised taxes in this province by $3 billion, but the net effect has been to see a decline in revenue of $2 billion. What we know is happening as a result of the NDP fiscal and economic policy is to see a decline in consumer confidence, a decline in investor confidence, bankruptcies and job losses which have resulted overall. As the government desperately tries to increase its revenues, we have seen a decline overall in the revenue of this province by $2 billion.

That is extremely serious and that is one of the primary examples and reasons why I make the argument -- and I have made it before in this House and I will make it again today -- that the economic and fiscal policy of the government is misguided and that tax increases which they brought forward in last year's budget were misguided and did not have the desired effect.

1530

The government's desired effect was to increase its revenues. The actual effect was to see revenues continue to decrease and revenues to decline; and further, we know because of the important work that was done at the finance and economics committee of the Legislature that the result has also been a very substantial increase in the participation of the underground economy.

I'd like to put on the record today, as we begin the debate on Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, some of the comments that were made at the time of the 1993 budget, both those who gave advice before the budget and those who gave advice following the budget. The reason I want to do that is that I don't think their advice has changed. In fact, some of their words have been prophetic, and if they were able to stand in this House today they would probably say, "We told you so." The people I'm referring to are leading economists, leading experts in the business community and people who watch the effect of governments' budgets.

The first I would like to refer to was part of an address by the chairman and chief executive officer of the Bank of Montreal, Matthew W. Barrett. I'm not going to read the whole address; that's not my intent. I just want to highlight what he had to say about taxation. He said:

"Our [tax] burden is more than 20% higher than in the United States -- a market that now buys 25% of every single thing that is produced in this country. Raising [taxes] still higher would place the whole Canadian economy at a worse cost disadvantage in the American market. So for me, a further increase in our tax burden could make our problem of competitiveness more severe, which in turn would mean that higher taxes would not help us to reduce our deficits."

That was on page 4 of the chairman's address from the Bank of Montreal. The date was January 18, 1993, and we know his words have been prophetic and that he was right. I place that as evidence that the government didn't listen, in its vast pre-budget consultations, in its meetings and discussions with those people who knew what the impact of additional tax increases would be on the provincial economy, people who said to this government: "For every $40,000 you take out of the economy in new taxes, you kill a job. For every percentage point you increase the taxes of the province of Ontario, you affect our competitiveness in dealing with our closest trading partner, the United States."

We know this government has not met its deficit targets. We know they are off this year, by their own predictions, by some $2 billion above the $6.8 billion that was part of their deficit reduction plan. We've been told to expect something in the $8-billion range instead of the $6.8-billion range. And we know the effect of that inability to manage the economy has created a lack of confidence by the business community and consumers alike in the province of Ontario.

I said I would place on the record some quotes from others on the 1993 budget. This is a quote from Mr Warren Jestin, chief economist of the Bank of Nova Scotia:

"Ontario's fiscal fitness program must not be a taxing exercise. Provincial spending trends are massively out of line with revenue realities. A strict multi-year expenditure diet is the only way to slim down our huge deficit without undermining local competitiveness."

Another quote, which is particularly significant for me because it will also allow me some editorial comment -- and yes, I will repeat some of the things that I've said here in the House before -- is from John Bulloch, president of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business: "If sensible restraint had been practised at the outset of the recession, the cuts necessary today wouldn't be as deep. It is high time to attack the expenditure side of the ledger in a meaningful way and free up small business to do what they do best -- create jobs."

In his quote Mr Bulloch points out, "If sensible restraint had been practised at the outset of the recession." I want to put on the record what I believe he means by that. In the budget that was tabled in this Legislature in the spring of 1990, the province's expenditure plan for the year 1990-91 was an estimated 6.8%. The government changed, as we know, in September 1990, and by the end of that fiscal year of 1990-91 the NDP had increased spending to 14%. They had increased wages, which had a ripple effect through the entire economy of the province, those increases in the public sector to civil servants and broader public sector workers. In the second year, in their budget of 1991-92, the NDP presented a 12% spending increase. That was their fiscal plan.

The combination of a 14% increase for 1990-91 and a 12% increase in 1991-92 at the beginning of the worst recession in decades in this province and in this country left Ontario vulnerable and created huge deficits. We have seen our debt tripled in just three years. We know it was that misguided fiscal and economic planning by the provincial government under Bob Rae and the NDP that made the recession we've faced, that made the fiscal and economic position of the province, very precarious.

We have seen three downgradings from the rating agencies. In September 1990 Bob Rae and his NDP government, Floyd Laughren, Finance minister, inherited a AAA credit rating. Ontario's credit rating since that point in time has been downgraded three times: first, to AA-plus; then to AA; and now AA-minus. That is a direct result of the economic mismanagement of Bob Rae's government.

Back to the quotes of what people were telling this government about its budget in 1993. Pat Palmer, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, said this about tax increases: "Tax increases will only make the deficit position worse and subsequently put even more pressure on our social programs."

Alasdair McKichan, president of the Retail Council of Canada, said this: "The recovery is extremely fragile and any tax increases which affect the consumer's disposable income could have a chilling effect on consumer spending." That relates directly to Bill 138, and we'll be discussing that further in a moment.

This is what Maureen Farrow, chief economist for Coopers and Lybrand, had to say:

"It is imperative that Minister Laughren firmly addresses the mounting Ontario debt load in order to see the province on the path of regaining fiscal flexibility. This requires clear, honest communications to Ontarians; realistic assessment of economic prospectives and revenue projections; and firm resolve to set about redesigning the operation of government and the delivery of programs."

1540

That quote speaks volumes. The reason I say that speaks volumes is because we know that under the NDP government our debt load has tripled. We know that for the first time in the history of this province, the Provincial Auditor refused to attest to the books of the province of Ontario and has criticized the lack of adherence to generally accepted accounting principles by this government. We know that Bob Rae and the NDP have been tinkering at the edges with their so-called social contract rather than looking at real redesign and the real reform and restructuring required of government itself.

Leo de Bever, chief economist of Nomura Canada Inc, said this: "The Rae government has realized that it cannot finance its original agenda and that it has little choice but to manage its way out of the deficit problem it refused to recognize two years ago."

He said that in 1993. Mr de Bever knows that when you inherited the government in the fall of 1990, along with that AAA credit rating, you inherited a spending plan of 6.8%. By running up government expenditures, by adding fuel to the government expenditure plan to take it up to 14% in the first year and 12% in the second year, those two years created an economic situation in this province that the taxpayers, the citizens of Ontario have paid a very, very high price for.

The Ontario Natural Gas Association said this: "The 1993 Ontario budget should neither increase taxes nor the deficit. A net tax increase would damage economic prospects.... A deficit increase...would be bad for the economy and would be unfair to future generations."

We know that in spite of this advice, in spite of the advice from the institutions and the people I just quoted, that's exactly what the government did. They did not meet their deficit reductions, as they had proposed, and they increased taxes, and Bill 138 is the example of tax increases.

There are a few other quotes I would like to put on the record, but I'm going to wait a few minutes. I'm going to first talk about the substance of Bill 138, because I think it alone speaks for itself about why Bill 138 is the wrong legislation for this time in Ontario, just as it was the wrong legislation for last December, when it was tabled, and it was the wrong legislation when it was announced in the budget almost a year ago.

The tax structures in the province of Ontario -- and they are substantive. During buoyant economic times -- actually, some refer to them as the good old days of 1985 to 1990, when the economy was booming and 700,000 jobs were created. We know that during that time there were tax increases. Nobody likes tax increases, but most people will agree that it is during the good times, the prosperous times, that you look at new programs or funding for existing programs.

When we inherited government in 1985, there was much to be done. While I don't say that everything we did was perfect -- certainly we were far from perfect -- I am proud of the record of accomplishment of that government from 1985 to 1990.

The tax structure in Ontario, as I am about to speak about it, has had over the course of history, between the Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP, three basic concepts for sales tax, and that's what we're talking about: retail sales tax. We have had taxes on personal property, we have had taxes on services, and we have had taxes on admissions to movies and concerts and that sort of thing.

What Bill 138 represents is a whole new concept of taxation for the province. We have now a tax on insurance premiums and benefit plans. This is new. We have never seen this before, and therefore it is worthy and deserving of debate and discussion. Let me just clearly put on the record what this means, because it is complicated and there are some exemptions I'd like to place on the record as well.

What Bill 138 says is that Ontario residents or businesses purchasing new insurance policies after May 19, 1993, or renewing existing policies after June 30, 1993, are liable to pay 8% tax on premiums and 5% on automobile insurance policies. That is extremely significant, because what that says is that for the very first time on life insurance, home owners' insurance, all kinds of insurance policies and benefit packages, the province is collecting an 8% tax, and a 5% tax on auto insurance premiums.

Recently, with the discussion of graduated licensing, with the discussions we had on Bill 164, which was the amendment to the auto insurance regime of the province, we had the opportunity in my riding to ask people how they felt about auto insurance, how they thought the new system was working and how they felt about the cost of insurance in Ontario.

It was astounding, to me, the numbers of people who said they believed they were paying too much for their auto insurance. There were many people who felt that because auto insurance was a mandatory requirement for people driving a car in the province, mandatory by law, that the price should be as reasonable as possible and that the last thing -- in fact, unanimously. I don't think there was one constituent who told me they felt a tax on auto insurance premiums could be justified -- not one.

Certainly there were some people who said they would be willing to pay more for better benefits. There were a few. But most people said: "Look, times are tough. The economy is difficult. I'm worried that I may not have a job tomorrow. I need my car for business purposes and I want to keep my insurance rates as low as possible." Bill 138 says to them, "On top of all of the changes to Bill 164 and the costs of operating your vehicle, Bill 138 is going to increase your auto insurance by 5%."

When somebody said to me, "That's a long way from what Bob Rae promised, both on tax increases and on an auto insurance plan," I said to them: "I have no answer for you. I can't understand how Bob Rae, who participated so vigorously in the debate about auto insurance, he and his government now, former members of the opposition, who understood how significant the issue of price was and is to consumers in Ontario, who are forced to have car insurance -- I can't understand why they would have brought in a tax on auto insurance."

Bill 138 is quite a complex piece of legislation, but it adds, as I said, a new kind of tax, this tax on insurance policies. There are some exemptions, and I think they should be on the record just so that people who may not be aware will know what the government has chosen to exempt. I'm just going to read out the list of exemptions from the ministry's very extensive briefing book. I very much appreciated the work that went into producing the book. It was extremely helpful, and I know that it will be well received by the people who are watching this to know how clearly the exemptions have been laid out.

1550

The exemption from tax on insurance policies is reinsurance. For those people who don't know what reinsurance is, it's effectively when an insurance company has another insurance company share the risk with it. That's a reinsurance company. So what that really does is make sure that the tax is only paid once and you don't get the reinsurance company paying a tax for insurance that has already had the tax paid on it. That's a very good exemption, in my view.

Insurance on agricultural property used by a farmer -- for example, a farmer's house and tractors or equipment or that sort of thing -- is exempted from this legislation on insurance.

I think that small business people, in fact big business people could argue that they too, particularly during these difficult economic times, have to insure their business machinery and that they should be entitled to the same kind of an exemption. I see that as a glaring omission from this legislation.

Insurance policies, individual policies for life, health, physical wellbeing of insured individuals: That is consistent with what I said a few minutes ago when I said life insurance policies were covered. Life insurance policies are now taxable if they are a benefit from your employer, but if you purchase one by yourself as an individual, as an independent, you do not have to pay the tax. I'm curious as to the government's thinking. However, to me, this ultimately becomes a tax on people who work, it is an additional expense of employers and, further, I think it will result in employers offering fewer benefits.

So what happens is this tax is going to -- in the medium term, because I think it's going to happen fairly quickly -- you will see employers reducing their benefit packages as the cost of insurance increases or they will say to their employees, "Where before we paid the whole thing, now you, employee, will have to share the cost of the benefit package." I think that this was originally seen by a lot of people as a tax on business, but in fact it is not. It is the workers and the individuals who are going to suffer because of this tax.

Another exemption from this legislation is marine insurance on exempt vehicles. If you have an exempt vehicle then you are exempted, and if you don't have an exempt vehicle you are not exempted.

Another one is the insurance on exempt aircraft; insurance on Indians residing on a reserve or property situated on a reserve; annuity contracts and sureties; insurance entered into by an employer in respect to employees who ordinarily work outside Ontario or former employees no longer resident in Ontario. That was a little complicated, and perhaps if the parliamentary assistant, when he has the opportunity to sum up -- some of these exemptions, I think, do need explaining. Insurance carried by an employer with respect to employees who ordinarily work outside Ontario or who are no longer residents of Ontario, I think is an interesting and curious exemption, because it seems to me that if you're going to exempt employees outside Ontario you should also exempt employees in Ontario. Of course if you exempted employees in Ontario you'd have to scrap your bill, and that would be a good thing.

The last exemption is insurance on individuals not resident in Ontario or property or risks wholly outside Ontario. That one is self-explanatory, although as I differentiate between the two exemptions I did question the government's thinking.

Probably the most insidious part of Bill 138 is its tax on benefit plans, and I'd like to just spend a couple of minutes putting on the record what the ministry itself says about these plans:

"Ontario resident plan holders who provide benefit plans are liable to pay 8% tax on premiums payable by the plan holder."

In simple language, plan holders are usually employers. These are group benefit plans. So the plan holder is the employer, and this says the employer has to pay an 8% tax on the premiums for the benefit package for their employee. What that means is that those benefit plans are going to cost 8% more.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Only 5%.

Mrs Caplan: I see the member for Chatham-Kent saying it's only 5%. In fact, it is 8% except in the case of auto insurance.

I want to be really clear. This legislation increases the cost of employer -- which are employee benefit plans -- employer-owned -- they are the plan holder but they hold them on behalf of their employees, and it is the employees who benefit from these benefit plans. I'll give you some examples of what they are.

A benefit plan could be for extended medical; a benefit plan could be a drug plan; a benefit plan could provide eyeglasses and assistive devices; a benefit plan could provide for private coverage, and we know that they're all different. A benefit plan, for example, could also be and often is long-term disability insurance, and a benefit plan would include life insurance: all of those things which employers negotiate or give to their employees, frequently in lieu of wage increases and sometimes because it is a priority for the worker or the workers.

We know that the union movement in Ontario and around the world has been very successful in negotiating important extended benefit plans for their employees, and that many non-unionized employers have been very progressive in providing very good benefit packages to their employees. All of those benefit packages now increase the cost of doing business because those benefit packages are 8% more expensive than they were before Bill 138.

I'm surprised the member for Durham East is laughing.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): You brought in health tax so that everyone would be covered in an automobile accident; that's what you said.

Mrs Caplan: The member across refers to the employer health tax. I want to tell him what the employer health tax did. The employer health tax removed OHIP premiums. It eliminated all OHIP premiums. It was a $1-billion tax cut to individuals. It was designed in such a way that any business that was providing full OHIP coverage to their employees should not have seen any increase in cost, and it created a level playing field among businesses. That was done at a time of a buoyant and booming economy.

I would agree that payroll taxes and taxes on business hurt. They hurt in job creation and they particularly hurt in times of recession, but at the time the employer health tax was brought in, Ontario's economy led the western world. Ontario was seeing thousands of jobs being created, and the people of Ontario appreciated the fact that they no longer had to pay OHIP premiums and they could have the kind of access to health care unencumbered by the cost of a premium that was inefficient to collect and was unfair because some employers paid and others did not.

It is a very different discussion and a very different argument than the argument of Bill 138, which then says to the good employers who have those benefit packages for their employees, "We're going to make sure that those plans are now 8% more expensive."

1600

Do you know what those employers' responses are going to be, those employers and those businesses that are attempting to do everything they can to stay competitive, attempting to do everything they can to stay in business and offer employment to their employees? When they are looking at places to save money, they are going to either have to say to their employees, "You have to share the cost of these benefit plans," or they're going to say, "We're going to have to reduce, or get out of entirely, benefit packages," and that would be a sad day in Ontario, given the history we have had and how important benefit packages are to employees across this province.

On new benefit plans entered into after May 19, 1993, the tax is payable from that date. So when this legislation came in, immediately all benefit plans will pay 8%. For existing plans where there were no changes in the terms or conditions, the tax was payable as of June 30, 1993. Six weeks after the Treasurer tabled his budget, businesses were taxed an additional 8% on the cost of their benefit packages.

Mr Speaker, if you don't think that had a negative impact on business confidence in this province -- well, I shouldn't say "if you don't think" because that's a rhetorical question. I know, Mr Speaker, that you know that the tax on premiums on employee benefits that came in in the budget of 1993 sent a chilling effect through the business community in Ontario. I know you know that, and I don't understand why the NDP just didn't get it.

Bill 138 says a benefit plan is a plan that gives protection against risk to an individual that could otherwise be obtained through insurance. Such plans would typically cover payment on death or disability, supplement health care, drugs, dental care, vision care, hearing care or protection from loss of income due to illness or accident.

What's interesting about this definition, and I mentioned it just a few moments ago, is that where an employer self-insures and doesn't go out and purchase the plan but offers this benefit to their employee, the tax applies.

A plan is a funded benefit plan if the amounts paid into the fund exceed expected payable benefits payable by the fund within the following 30 days, and that taxable premium payable for a funded benefit plan is the amount paid into the plan by the plan holder less the amounts paid to the plan holder by members to receive benefits under the plan plus the amounts paid by members to receive the benefits under the plan.

What's really interesting about this is that this clearly defines what happens when an employer self-insures. It defines what a plan is, and it's very clear that they were attempting to close any loophole that might give any flexibility. Bill 138 is what I would call a stranglehold on benefit plans. It taxes all benefit plans whether or not the employer self-insures or purchases a plan, but it doesn't tax the employer alone, because ultimately the tax on benefit plans is a tax on jobs and a tax on workers.

I'm not going to go through all of the various briefing notes from the ministry. I've just tried to pick out some highlights. I'm going to leave benefit plans for a moment. One of the things the bill did that quite frankly surprised me is the tax on parking charges.

I remember when the government tabled an act to repeal the corporate concentration tax act. I remember it very well, because they included in that act "and other matters." It was one of the sneakiest pieces of legislation ever to hit the floor of this Legislature because it included all kinds of amendments to health legislation and drug plans. Once everybody found out what it was that the government was doing, some people said that what it was doing was sleazy; others said that what it was doing was pernicious.

The good part of that legislation was the repeal of the corporate concentration tax. Let me just say for the member from Durham East, who's going back to his seat, who's probably going to shout out that, along with the employer health tax, that was a tax that was brought in by the previous government: Yes, it was. But the corporate concentration tax was brought in at a time when Metropolitan Toronto's economy was not only booming; it was considered by many to be overheated and it was considered by many to be in need of some cooling off. The whole intent of the corporate concentration tax at that time was to moderate the kind of economic growth that we were seeing.

Certainly no one ever contemplated the devastating effect on the Metropolitan Toronto economy or the economy in the GTA as a result of the recession. That's fair comment. Nobody ever contemplated it. I remember all of the advice we were receiving was that Ontario may well avoid the recession. We heard that if anything it would be a soft landing. We heard that if it did go into recession, it likely would be short and shallow. We know that at the time the corporate concentration tax was brought in, the world was very different than the world today.

In hindsight, it's my view that the corporate concentration tax should have been repealed much earlier than the NDP government repealed it. In the face of the terrible recession that hit Ontario, the corporate concentration tax in my opinion should have come off the following year after it was brought in.

Why am I making that discussion about the corporate concentration tax when it's not before us, when we have had an act to repeal the corporate concentration tax? Bill 138 applies parking charges, which is what the corporate concentration tax did, not only in the greater Toronto area; it applies retail sales tax charges to all of the parking lots across the province. With one hand, this government stood up and said: "Aren't we wonderful? We're doing the right thing. We're repealing the corporate concentration act."

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): The commercial concentration tax, Elinor.

Mrs Caplan: I'm sorry. I'm rightly corrected. It was called the commercial concentration tax, not the corporate concentration tax. They said, "We are repealing the commercial concentration tax, but in its place we're bringing in Bill 138 and we're going to tax all parking lots across the province." That's Bill 138. So in fact you did not repeal the principle of the commercial concentration tax. All you did was repeal it for the greater Toronto area, then reimpose it across the whole province.

Mr Speaker, I have to tell you that it's very, very distressing to see these kinds of parking charges brought in. And what are they charging them on? Let me tell you what the ministry says. The ministry says, "Persons who, after June 30, 1993, pay to park their motor vehicles are liable to an 8% tax on the parking charge, including coins inserted in meter parking." Now, who runs meter parking? Municipalities. The municipalities, by and large, had two choices: They could up the parking rates or, as they would say, eat the tax and send the money back to the province.

1610

In effect, this parking tax had exactly the same impact on parking lots and parking rates as the tax called the commercial concentration tax that the government said it was repealing. The only difference between the two pieces of legislation is that the commercial concentration tax was on the basis of square footage and this is directly on all parking charges. Whatever you charge on parking, you're going to pay 8%, across the whole province.

There is an exemption to this and it's an important exemption. Exemptions from the tax are provided where residential tenants pay the landlord for at least 30 days, where the right to park is purchased by the owner of a condominium unit or co-op apartment, and where a resident purchases a municipal permit to park on a residential street.

I think that is a reasonable exemption. I think it's an important exemption. However, what it says is that if you live next door to the condominium and you want to purchase rental parking for a month, you pay the tax, but if you live in the building, you don't pay the tax. If you own an apartment, you don't pay the tax, but if you live next door, you do. To me, that's not fair. It seems to me that if you're going to exempt parking contracts, you should exempt parking contracts for everyone who has a 30-day parking contract. That's not what the government did and, frankly, I don't think that's fair.

In the time I have remaining I want to touch on just a couple of the other features of the bill. I know some of my colleagues are going to speak as well and they will go into it in greater depth.

I describe Bill 138 as sort of being a tax that kind of nickel-and-dimes you. There is a tax not only on parking meters; there is also a tax on those people who produce their own beer and wine. In the immortal words of Bob Rae as Leader of the Opposition, "Give me a break," is the cry from the people who produce their own beer and wine.

That's a fair and legitimate request, because Bill 138 says that persons who on or after August 1 receive delivery of beer or wine they produce for their own consumption on commercial premises, not in their own home, are liable to a tax of 26 cents per litre. The tax increases to 31 cents per litre of beer or wine delivered to the taxpayer between June 14, 1994, and June 15, 1995, and to 38 cents a litre thereafter.

I'll tell you that this is really nickel-and-diming. When you hit people who make their own wine it just -- no wonder people are frustrated, no wonder people are feeling overtaxed, when you see these kinds of what I would call nickel-and-dime taxes. They're out to get you for every nickel.

Exemption from these taxes: I think this is important. There are some exemptions. Parts and labour required to do repairs under service warranty or maintenance contracts will be subject to the tax effective May 20, 1993, except where the purchaser of the property being repaired would be exempt from tax on the purchase of parts, and the purchasers of soil, clay, sand, gravel and unfinished stone will be subject to the tax effective July 1, 1993. So when you go to buy some gravel for your driveway or some stone to fix up the patio, for the first time you're going to pay tax in the province of Ontario.

Probably one of the best provisions in this act, because I think it's the sort of tax that was initially designed to raise a pool of capital that would be available for research and development, so that the problem of old tires could be dealt with in the province of Ontario, Bill 138 does repeal. It says the tax of $5 on the purchase of new tires is repealed effective May 20, 1993. As someone who was part of the government that brought in the tire tax, the initial intent of the tire tax was twofold: One, it was to create, as I said, a pool of money so that you could find a solution to what to do with old tires because you didn't want them going into the dump, and the money --

Mr Hope: Why did it go into general revenues?

Mrs Caplan: I have a question from the member for Chatham-Kent and I'm happy to answer that. He says, "Why did it go into general revenues?" In fact, the way the government has always run under the Tories, under the Liberals and under the NDP is that all revenues collected go into the pot. You can keep track, and the government does, in what's called a "notional fund" of how much has been collected.

However, when funds are allocated they're allocated from the consolidated revenue fund. That's why it's called "consolidated revenue fund." All the money goes in, all the allocation is made from there, but you are still able, under that consolidated revenue fund, to keep track of what moneys come in from what sources, and they do keep track.

Once a sufficient pool of money was collected from the tire tax that could fund the kind of research and development that would solve the problem, it was reasonable that the tire tax be abolished. Mostly it was a nuisance and bothered a lot of people. I don't think people realize what a big problem disposal of tires is.

We had the big fire in Hagersville. Those tires are still sitting there; they haven't been dealt with. I guess my frustration and the point I want to make at the time we are repealing the tire tax is that this government has had four years. It has had the revenue from the tire tax and it still hasn't solved the problem. I would say to you that this is a sad and sorry tale of mismanagement and incompetence, because you've had the resources coming in.

I'm assuming, since you are cancelling the tire tax, that there are sufficient resources available to do the research and development and that you will be very shortly announcing the solution to what to do with old tires. I look forward to that announcement, because the only way that we are going to protect the environment in this province is if we find solutions to environmental problems. Old tires are an environmental problem, they are a hazard and we must have a solution for them.

While I would very much like to support that portion of this act which repeals the tire tax, I'm sorry they didn't put it into a separate act, because the repeal of the tire tax is something which I think we could have a discussion and debate about. The problem of excess tires is one which is still with us today, and I would very much like to support the repeal of the tire tax at this time. It's my view that enough revenue has been generated to solve the problem, and I believe that this is a time when Ontario needs fewer taxes, not more taxes. I think it's a time at least to hold the line on taxes while we get our fiscal house in order, while we recover from the annual $10-billion deficits. These guys are going to come forward in a couple of months with a projected $8-billion deficit for the coming year and they're going to say, "See the progress we've made."

That's just not good enough. The people of the province of Ontario are not feeling confident in the government. They know where the responsibility lies, they know who have been the economic and fiscal managers over the last four years and they are very disappointed.

I'd like to conclude my remarks first with some quotes on the 1993 budget and on Bill 138, and then lastly I would like to do what the member asked, and that is to discuss alternatives and a fiscal plan for the province instead of Bill 138, because I believe that part of the responsibility of an effective opposition is to propose alternatives.

1620

I'd like to quote again, Jack MacDonald, Hamilton Spectator, May 20, 1993, the day after the budget. He said: "Many of the acts of Bob Rae's government seem to be based on blind faith. Like Peter Pan, if I think good thoughts, anything can happen. Almost every act has resulted in it landing on its head and Ontario must feel the pain."

A quote from Elizabeth Payne in the Ottawa Citizen, "New taxes on such items as sand and gravel led one observer to quip that Laughren placed a tax on dirt and still couldn't balance his budget."

This is from Richard Brennan, Windsor Star, and I think he is quoting Pat Palmer, president of the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, in this quote:

"'We're outraged. This kind of tax grab is unconscionable and we believe the people of Ontario should have an opportunity to tell the government just how far out of touch this taxation policy is. As a result of this budget, almost every working person in the province will have a smaller paycheque and higher costs and there is very little to help the unemployed start earning paycheques.'"

Linda Leatherdale from the Toronto Sun, May 16 --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: I know you're going to like this one. It was in her column, but she is quoting John Strick, University of Windsor economist, and I quote, "'No country can afford to have its tax system too far out of line with its neighbours before it loses investment and jobs to other low-tax competitors.'" That was John Strick, University of Windsor economist.

The last quote -- well, it's not the last; I have a few others I'd like to place --

Mr Pat Hayes (Essex-Kent): We're being selective there, aren't we?

Mrs Caplan: No, I'm not being selective. These quotes are available in the editorial from the Financial Post, May 11, 1993: "Higher taxes reduce incentive, increase tax avoidance, and encourage the movement of business and assets out of the jurisdiction that raises the taxes."

I think that says it all, so I'm going to --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: I hear the hooting and hollering from across the other side. Pay attention. This is an editorial from the Financial Post and this is what you should learn if you want to understand fiscal and economic policy. Listen: "Higher taxes reduce incentive, increase tax avoidance and encourage the movement of business and assets out of the jurisdiction that raises the taxes."

The world has changed. Certainly the world has changed far more than any of us can imagine. When I arrived in this Legislature in 1985, Ontario was at the beginning of an unprecedented economic boom. When I arrived in this Legislature in 1985, the province had inherited an operating deficit from the Conservative government. When I served here through 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988 and 1990, the years of the Liberal government, I was proud of the fact that by 1987 we had managed a balanced operating budget and maintained that operating budget until the government changed in 1990.

Further, in the year 1989-90 we achieved for the first time in 40 years a fully balanced budget, including both operating and capital, and further paid down almost a half a billion dollars on the province's debt. Those facts are true. They are available in the reports of the Ministry of Finance and in the budget statements. That is an economic record of which I am proud.

And I can tell you, yes, the world has changed. We know the government frequently says: "What would you have done? What would you do instead?" The first thing I want to tell the parliamentary assistant in answer to that question is that in 1990-91 we would have had the budget plan that we brought forward in the spring of 1990 that called for a 6.8% expenditure plan. We would not have driven spending in the province to 14%.

Anyone who looks at the expenditure plans would see a steady decline in the last three years, between 1987, 1988 and 1989. There had been a decline in spending, and it is fair to say that decline would have continued. But that's hindsight, and that's always the clearest vision of all: They say hindsight is 20-20.

I would commend the members for the Liberal minority report from the economic and finance committee, where we give the government very good advice on what it should do in this year's budget. What we suggest to them is prudent, sensible economic and fiscal policy. We say, "Do not raise taxes." We say, "Do not at this time risk the fragile economy in the province of Ontario through budget increases."

We believe there are significant opportunities for the government to reinvent itself. We believe -- we know -- the time has come, because of the serious economic recession of the last four years, for government to look at every activity and ask itself what it is doing. Is the service of any value to anyone? Could the service be better provided by someone else? And, if government should be providing the service, is there a better way to provide that service?

With that kind of attitude and an open mind, rather than sending out anti-business, anti-private sector messages, whether it is to home care or child care, whether it is to labs or anyone else delivering an important public service, the province of Ontario instead could say: "Not only is Ontario open for business, but Ontario is open to the kinds of ideas that the ideology of the New Democrats does not permit. We are open to making sure that the taxpayers of Ontario can receive the very best possible, highest-quality services. We are open to achieving the delivery of those services in the most effective and efficient manner that new technologies will permit. We believe government should be a good employer but should have the ability to work with its employees to find better ways, through re-engineering strategies, through a number of management tools that are available to a competent business, of delivering services in a more cost-effective and more streamlined manner, better services that cost less."

This isn't new. We've seen experiences in the private sector and in other jurisdictions. We actually have seen some very small first steps and examples within government.

It seems to me that if a government wants advice -- and I give this advice -- it is important to open our minds to public and private sector partnerships so the government can learn from the private sector and find new and better ways of delivering the important services to the people of the province of Ontario, but to do it in a way which is more affordable for the taxpayer. Bill 138 does not accomplish any of that.

1630

The only part of Bill 138 that is supportable is the repeal of the tire tax, but because it is coupled with so many tax increases -- an increase on premiums and benefits, an increase on parking charges, an increase on sand and gravel -- Bill 138 is not worthy of support in this Legislature. On behalf of the constituents in the riding of Oriole, whom I've had the opportunity to serve since 1985, I will not be supporting Bill 138.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mrs Marland: As someone else who also was elected in 1985, I wish had an hour and a half or two hours to respond to this particular member's comments. Although I'm not one of the principal speakers on Bill 138 today and I do only have two minutes at this point to make a rebuttal comment, I probably could have accepted some of the comments having just been made by anyone else in this House but someone who was a member of the cabinet of the Liberal government, which brought in more new taxes than any government in the history of this province, particularly the kinds of taxes that were a deterrent rather than an incentive to a solution.

At the time the tire tax came in, I was the Environment critic, along with Mrs Ruth Grier, who was the Environment critic for the NDP. This was a big panic reaction by the Liberal government to the Hagersville tire fire. If there was anything that was scandalous, it was the way the tire tax money was spent: whoosh, sucked right into the general revenue fund, in excess of $100 million a year. Perhaps at the end of the first year, $5 million to $8 million had been allocated in researching safe disposal methods or reuse and recycling of used tires. That was just one part of one of the taxes that government stands on as its record.

I have a great deal of opposition to this bill. I have people in my own community who are being put out of business: the brew-your-own facilities and the people who are being impacted, obviously, by the insurance tax and the warranty and service and parts tax. This is an outrageous bill, coming at the worst time for the people in this province and the people in Mississauga South.

Mr Sutherland: The member for Oriole raised quite a few different points that, obviously, in two minutes I don't have an opportunity to respond to, but I want to try and respond to a few of them anyway.

The tax on brew-your-own beer is an interesting discussion and debate. At one point, the people were arguing, "Well, I'm producing my own beer," but you have to remember, you're producing it on a commercial property. All we've done in this legislation is make the tax rate the same there as it is in some establishments that brew their own beer for purposes of making retail sales. People need to keep that in mind, that that's is what we've done, that we've in effect made a level playing field here in terms of those types of services.

I was really interested in the comment from the member for Oriole about what her party's options were: "Don't be anti-business. Promote investment. Reinvent government. Re-engineer government." There are no specifics. They don't know. They talk in general, fuzzy platitudes: "We'll do this." The people of Ontario want to know where they really stand. I suspect that "reinvent government, reorganize government, re-engineer" are code words. What they are is code words for significant layoffs.

There's no doubt government has to change, and it is changing under the leadership of Bob Rae and this government. It's changing in a way of working in partnership with employees to ensure job security. But the Liberals haven't said anything about that. If you listen very closely, it sounds very clear to me that because the Tories are going over to where the Reform Party is, the Liberal Party wants to move to where the Tories were. I heard a lot of code words there that the Liberals are saying, "We're going to do dramatic layoffs if we get elected next time."

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I hope I don't need two minutes to respond to the member for Oriole's speech, but I listened quite closely to what she said. If you listened to her very closely, you heard that she is against higher taxes -- against high taxes, period. She sounded like a Mike Harris Conservative, in my opinion. She spoke very strongly and very fervently against higher taxes. I was pleased, because I support her in that initiative, and certainly I'm against this bill as well.

She also indicated that for every $40,000 increase in taxes, one job is lost, if I'm correct; I think that's what she said. That's a figure that is used commonly in this place. I also think lower taxes are the answer to job creation. But I wonder. The member for Oriole has spent a great deal of time being rather less than charitable to the opinions of our leader, the member for Nipissing. From time to time, she's taken fairly nasty shots at him in this House.

I'd like to read the response our party made to Ontario budget of 1988. Remember that budget? At that time, the member for Nipissing of course was the finance critic for the Conservative caucus, that small caucus of 16 members. Frankly, if they'd been listened to at that time, we wouldn't have half the problems we have today. Madam Speaker, I know you agree with that. The headline was, "Liberal Tax Grab Doesn't Wash."

"An unprecedented $1.2-billion budget tax grab by Ontario Liberals is fuelled by little more than out-of-control spending, says PC finance critic Mike Harris."

It goes on to quote Mr Harris as saying: "Ontario's spirited economic growth presented the government with an opportunity to address spending priorities without tax hikes. Instead, failure by the Liberals to implement sound fiscal management is penalizing those responsible for creating this growth and all the jobs."

We all know that if taxes negatively impact on job growth, lower taxes in 1988 would have positively impacted on job growth. I would just like to ask the member for Oriole, does she agree now with Mike Harris?

Mr Mills: I listened to the member for Oriole, and I'm of the opinion that she's got as much likelihood of understanding what Bill 138 is all about as Donald Duck has of winning Mastermind.

Having said that, I find it absolutely galling that the member can stand in her place and talk about taxes, when she was a member of the Liberal cabinet that introduced a record 33 tax increases when money was flowing out of their ears. Everywhere they turned, they had money, but they insisted on taxing the people of Ontario to death.

It begs this question: If things in Ontario were so wonderful and rosy, doesn't it make you wonder why they called an election in 1990? They had the biggest majority you could ever think of, but they still called an election. I think the people of Ontario called their bluff. When they turned around and tried to knock one percentage point off the sales tax when they knew they were going down the tubes, the people saw their cynical move very, very quickly and they booted them out of office for their manipulation, or their attempted manipulation, of the public and the people of Ontario.

When they were in power, they manipulated the people of Ontario in the most awful way with these little taxes. And then they played into the insurance companies' hands: They introduced the health tax so that they could let the insurance companies off the hook, because people had to go and use that for their care and the insurance companies didn't have to pay. No wonder the insurance companies endorsed the Liberals. No wonder they gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to their campaign, which fortunately they lost.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member for Oriole has two minutes to reply.

Mrs Caplan: I'm not going to engage in the kind of rhetoric we've heard in the last couple of minutes. In summing up on Bill 138, the point I would make once again is that I acknowledge that the world has changed. The world in 1994 is not the world of 1988, 1989, 1990; I admit that. I'm sorry it took Bob Rae and the NDP so long to wake up to the need for the kind of fiscal responsibility and see the fiscal reality that faces the province. Ontarians have suffered. In my view, they've suffered in a way which was worse than anyone ever contemplated, simply because of the economic and fiscal policies.

1640

To the Conservatives, who made a point in their response to what I had to say regarding the tire tax, I'd point out to Mrs Marland that never in the history of Conservative governments in the province of Ontario was there ever a designated tax -- was there ever a separate pool. All funds ever collected in the history of the province always went into the consolidated revenue fund, and for Mrs Marland to stand and rant and rave and suggest that this was in some way abnormal is just clearly not the facts.

The reality is that the accounting has always been kept separate, historically and traditionally, in the province, from all governments, but all resources go into the consolidated revenue fund and at best you will see a notional fund created. The Tories did that with Wintario, and we believed when we formed the government that we'd find this big fund of lottery money awaiting us. Nothing could be further from the truth. It had all gone into the consolidated revenue fund, even though by law they were designated to set up a separate fund for the purposes of sports, culture and recreation. So let's cut the game-playing and let's get on with improving the lot for the people of the province of Ontario --

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

Mrs Caplan: -- by holding the line and defeating this bill.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mrs Marland: I have a point of order on another matter: The matter that I wish to draw to the attention of the Chair is dealing with respect for the institution of Parliament and this hallowed House. Earlier today, it was observed that we had an elected member in the House attend here wearing jeans, no jacket, no tie and an open, short-sleeved jean shirt. I simply say to that member -- I will not name the member; the member knows who he is; he is a member of the government benches. I think it's regrettable when this House is not shown the respect for the institution that it is and all of us -- I know we do not have a requirement for a clothing or dress code, but I think it's important that this place be maintained with the respect that it is due. I would ask those members who choose to dress inappropriately in anybody's opinion, simply that -- jeans actually are more expensive than regular clothing. There's no excuse for it.

The Acting Speaker: I thank the member for bringing that to my attention. It is not in fact a point of order, but I do thank her. Further debate? The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: For people who are watching this show on TV, it has to be one of the worst kinds of entertainment they could pick. Certainly, to talk about taxes is a subject that we in the Legislature spend far too much time talking about, because there have been some 65 taxes brought in in the last 10 years, between the Liberals and the New Democrats. Taxation is one of the larger subjects that we concentrate on here in this House.

Some of the things that have been said this afternoon -- the member for Mississauga South has been put down in a most unfair way by the member for Oriole. I think we should remember the fact that there have been designated taxes in the past and those taxes -- they haven't been all-encompassing, but there have been specific taxes in the past, in particular as it affected the Ministry of Natural Resources, where it had some specific taxes for water and the lake systems.

The fact of the matter is, as a fisherman, I know in the House I'm on record when we brought in the new tax -- it isn't a tax; it's a licence for fishing in Ontario -- I would have been far happier if that had been designated not to the general revenue fund but into stocking rivers and lakes and just for creating more fish stocks in the province. That would have been another example where I would have felt that my licence, which is a tax, was going to a cause that I would have agreed with; that is, stocking our supply of fish.

Taxation is our subject today and I find it so laughable; in fact, I've been sitting here chuckling away. The member for Oriole, who speaks out against this bill -- I'm sorry, I'm going to have to do it.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Are you going to say something about the previous Liberal administration?

Mr Cousens: I am going to be talking about the previous Liberal administration --

Mr Sorbara: Oh, Donald, give it a rest.

Mr Cousens: -- and in particular I'm going to be talking about their tire tax. It's just an incredible experience to sit here and listen to the member for Oriole berating the government on the tire tax and how the money wasn't spent and how so much was collected.

But you know, the funny thing is that this came in in 1989 when Bob Nixon was the Treasurer. I'm going to refer to some of the comments in the Legislature at that time, and especially when the Minister of Revenue, then the Honourable Ben Grandmaître, was defending it for what purposes it had.

What happens, though, when you're dealing with taxation -- if you're in government, you have one view, and the government's is: "Well, we're going to need some money. We've got all these" --

Mr Sorbara: If it moves, tax it.

Mr Cousens: I agree with the member from York Centre: If it moves, tax it.

Mr Sorbara: This government believes, "If it moves, tax it; if it doesn't move, oh well, tax it anyway."

Mr Cousens: Never mind. You'll have your turn.

Mr Sorbara: I am not going to let you get into this Liberal-bashing today.

Mr Cousens: I don't want to start quoting a Liberal Greg Sorbara in a good Conservative speech that is about to come out here. I have to get warmed up, though, so I'm leaving it.

The government has one view of taxes --

Mr Sorbara: You have not been warmed up in about a decade.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Mills: He could never get warmed up.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member, go ahead.

Interjections.

Mr Cousens: I defer to you, Madam Speaker. You obviously don't have any control over Mr Sorbara. Who does? He doesn't know how to control himself.

The Acting Speaker: The member should address his remarks through the Chair.

Mr Cousens: The issue has to do with taxes. If you're in government, you have a sense, "We need more money." They don't stop and think how they can reduce the size of government, how they can be more efficient with the resources they have, how they can develop an economy that's going to generate more tax revenue through having an environment where business is thriving and therefore adding to the tax. But somehow there's a spirit that comes over government that says, "We need more money; it'll be through taxation."

With Mr Rae and Mr Laughren, since they've taken power of the province on September 6, 1990 -- what a dreadful day that was -- they have taken this government into more taxation and collecting of more money, but at the same time spending more money. So when you're talking about taxation when you're in government, taxation is something you just have to do.

They don't know how to balance both sides: the taxation side with reduced spending, reduced expectations, being honest with yourself. When you're in government, it seems to be the case that the government has a sense of greed and want and feeding the system, instead of --

Mr Mills: You should know.

Mr Cousens: I'm saying this as one in opposition. When you're in opposition, it seems so easy to stand up and criticize and tear apart and to just berate everything the government is doing. I think there is something dreadfully wrong with our whole parliamentary system that we are into the constant clash; where government does something, and just because it did it, it's wrong, and the opposition therefore automatically has to stand up and criticize it.

I somehow would like to see a balance, because what I'm leaning towards is that in this bill --

Mr Mills: Do I sense a conversion on the road to Damascus?

Mr Cousens: There are parts of this bill that I agree with, and I want to come out and support that and spend some time talking about it, and there are parts of the bill that I don't agree with. I think what we really want to bring to the Legislative Assembly is this kind of fairness in thinking, rather than standing up, as the member for Oriole just did, whose government brought in the tire tax, and now, just a few years later, condemning the government for almost removing it. There's such an inconsistency in the logic and the position of the member in doing that.

The public at large aren't following it, because, you see, I talk about the government's greedy position of taxing more, the opposition's position of criticizing the government for taxing, but we forget about the person who pays the taxes. You know, we've been saying so often within our caucuses that there is only one taxpayer, and that taxpayer is already feeding the frenzy of the federal government, regional government, municipal government and provincial government. We've got four different levels of government, all of them out there looking for more and more money, and the single, lone, little taxpayer, the middle-income earner, for the large part, is being forced constantly to reduce the amount of money that they live on themselves to feed this horrible appetite of government for more and more money.

1650

Mrs Marland: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I think more than 13 members might wish to be present to hear the comments from the member for Markham. I don't see a quorum in the House.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Would the clerk determine if a quorum is present.

Mr Sorbara: I think it's entirely inappropriate to interrupt your own member on a quorum call.

Mrs Marland: I think he's entitled to have the members here.

Acting Clerk Assistant (Mr Franco Carrozza): Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham may resume.

Mr Cousens: I respect the fact that the member for Mississauga South is so correct: The government has a responsibility to maintain a quorum and this is where they should be. In spite of the fact that it may be very painful to have to listen to me, I look forward to the chance.

The government has an attitude about taxation and the opposition has an attitude, but we forget often about the lonely individual who is really carrying the can for the people of Canada and Ontario. The taxpayers themselves have reached the point where they've just decided, "Well, if you can't fight 'em" -- certainly you can't fight the government on taxation when they find out what you have, because this bill, Bill 138, makes it all the more punitive. The damages to someone who doesn't pay their taxes or some of the tax bills that are herein are going to have much heavier penalties than ever before.

What we've seen build up now is the underground economy. If there's anything that people will do rather than pay those taxes and the heavy increases in taxes, then you've seen the growth in the underground economy, which is something I'll be touching upon in my presentation.

I guess the point really boils down to the fact that here in Ontario we are now one of the most heavily taxed jurisdictions in North America. We are losing, if we haven't already lost, a large part of our competitive advantage over and against other provinces or northern states of the US, and we continue to add to the burden of the taxpayer. What we're talking about today is largely an increase in taxes which will affect the ongoing economy of the province.

I just have to say that we have never seen a hike the like of which was introduced to this House last year when Mr Laughren brought in his 1993 budget. What we're dealing with today in Bill 138 are further enactments that will put into law things that have already been announced in the 1993 budget and which the government is just now getting around to implementing.

When you start looking at the economic year of the province of Ontario, it's just full of lowlights. The government, in its budget in 1993, levied the largest single amount of taxes in the history of the province of Ontario at one time. The government levied massive, record-breaking taxes: $2 billion in new or increased taxes. At the same time, this government took pride in being able to hold the budget deficit to $10 billion.

We all know that when the budget comes down two or three or four weeks from now that this government has not been able to keep the deficit to a $10-billion number; it will even exceed that. In fact, if you looked at the way the books were put together last year, it was obvious that the number for the deficit was going to exceed $10 billion.

What you're therefore seeing is that the total debt of the province of Ontario has gone up so that the total debt as of now, at the end of 1992-93, was $70 billion. By the end of this next year, it'll be $80 billion. The cost of paying the servicing on that debt is becoming even larger than some of the costs of running many of the ministries of the province of Ontario.

We've seen three downgrades in the credit rating of the province in the last three years, and we're facing the possibility of another downgrade in our credit rating. Certainly, in my question to the Minister of Finance today, in which I was dealing with the whole problem of his trying to take money from pensions for OPSEU and move it out of the budget for the year, it's just one way of moving money from the cost of running government today to some future government's responsibility. What he's really saying here is that he's giving further reason for the auditor not to look at the books of the province of Ontario and give them the check that they should.

Certainly, in fact, the Provincial Auditor last year refused to endorse the provincial books. Isn't that a statement? We have a Provincial Auditor who's saying the books are so cooked he's not in a position to even endorse them.

We're seeing a tax revolt within our province that has just taken on unbelievable proportions and has resulted in major reductions in the provincial revenues, due to the underground economy. I've been sitting with the finance and economic affairs committee on the underground economy, and when we started out, we said, "Well, the size of the underground economy, if we were to believe the Minister of Finance in response to a question I asked him -- I asked him, "How much do you think the underground economy amounts to in the province?" He said, "Approximately 7% of the GDP." That's interesting. Then we went along and through our presentations we heard from the C.D. Howe Institute which said, "Well, it's in the order of maybe about 22%." Then when you start talking to other people, it could be as high as 30%.

The total amount of underground activity: It's not just tobacco or booze or drugs, but it's also in the construction industry and it's also now in jewellery, and you're also seeing it now in the illegal importation of food products across the border. For one thing, around Cornwall, chickens are coming across. There's an underground economy, believe it or not, in poultry.

What you're seeing then are people trying to escape the high taxation levels, and in fact people now have a greater sense that the underground economy is more respectable to work within and around and through rather than trying to give the money to the government which just squanders the money.

I think there's no doubt that the underground economy is often regarded now as okay by most people. They don't see anything immoral or wrong in dealing with the underground economy. They feel that the money is better to be saved rather than to pay it into the coffers of this government. So the tax revolt continues, and what you're seeing today in bringing in Bill 138 and more taxes is more excuses for people to find another way of doing business outside of the normal government channels.

I think that when you look at the government's last year in review, you'll see an estimated $1.6 billion in lost revenue, and this is another revenue shortfall, so the government has again failed to forecast accurately. Now, the recession's been tough. It's almost been a depression, but it's been impossible then for this government to really find ways of working within tougher times. You don't spend your way out of a recession, yet they've continued to try to do that.

The implementation of the social contract is really in many respects only a deferral of government costs. I'm very concerned about it producing long-term savings and dealing with some of the fundamental issues where we can reduce the size of government, reduce the cost of government so government can become more efficient.

During the last several years during this recession, business has reconfigured itself. It got a whole fresh approach to try to respond to changing times. They're using computers and people in innovative ways. They're going back into the marketplace skinnier and more in control of things and every level of management is involved in some way.

1700

Have we seen a similar type of renewal and change within the Ontario government structure during the last few years? I have to say that's not evident. The bureaucracy continues to be large and continues to be costly and government itself continues to be out of control.

One of the examples -- it's a lowlight, I think, for the NDP in the last few years -- is the Fair Tax Commission. After spending three years and $8.2 million studying what was to be the Fair Tax Commission report, they found that the only way to make taxation fair was to make the middle-class family pay more tax.

When you see what the government of Ontario does through the Fair Tax Commission, it spent that kind of money over three years. In Alberta, and I don't necessarily agree with the result, they spent three months and $200,000 to come out with a report that gave them some guidance.

I'm concerned with the government. If you think of one of the lowlights of this government, it has to have been and continues to be the Workers' Compensation Board. How in the Sam Hill could this board go ahead and build a $180-million structure in downtown Toronto when already there is adequate space available within the greater Toronto area? How can they begin to justify that cost? How can they come out with that number of $180 million and then forget about the $20 million or $30 million for furnishings that are also going to be going into the WCB? How can the Workers' Compensation Board also come out with such huge assessment increases to business people as it has? Why is it that the Workers' Compensation Board is so out of control? It's filled with political appointments by the government.

If you look at the total debt of the province, you're seeing a deficit that's over $11 billion, and this kind of cost is again further evidence of the government continuing to spend and spend and spend.

Mr Sorbara: Can I heckle from over here or not?

Mr Cousens: No. In fact, I'd appreciate it if all my colleagues would just pay attention the way the Dippers are. It's just amazing.

What we're seeing then is a total statement by this government. As it has continued to run the government, as it has continued to do what it wants to do, it has not been to bring control of government spending. They have not brought control through the administration of government. They have continued to allow it to build so that the people of Ontario are saying, "What do we do?"

When I begin my remarks today, I said: "Taxation. How does a constituent in the riding of Markham feel about another tax?" Speaking on their behalf, I have to say not happy. They weren't happy a few years ago when the government brought in, in 1989, the tire tax. That was a tax that had all the makings of doing something but didn't begin to touch on the nature of the problem.

My friend the member for Mississauga South has been Environment critic, and I was for a long period of time. We saw problems growing and developing in the province with the whole issue of tires.

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I find it really upsetting when you're talking behind me.

We've had an increasing number of tires that are disposed of in different ways. You end up retreading them, you end up stockpiling them, we put them into landfills, and we've never really found a solution to tires. Thousands and thousands of tires have been stuck into Britannia and Keele Valley and other sites. They're taking up all kinds of premium space.

What we're really looking for is some way in which we could, in this society, find a solution to tires. We're looking for some initiative on how we, as a government and as a population, can find a way of getting rid of the tires. What we were looking for, through this tire tax the government was levying, was to find some incentive to recycle tires, to do something with them.

This government was in a position, in collecting this tax -- $130 million was collected through the tire tax, and what happened with it? What percentage of that tax was invested back into recycling? There is a host of things that could have been done with it. There are tire recycling companies that were looking for chips, yet they were importing them from the States. They were looking for ways of finding new applications for used tires. Yet what happened with the tire tax?

We ended up having a tax come in -- $130 million raised, $5 per tire -- and then how much did this government spend on it? I asked the parliamentary assistant how many dollars were spent of the $130 million that was collected. He didn't have the exact number, but it's probably in the order of maybe $40 million, plus or minus. So they collected $130 million, and $90 million of that is unaccounted for.

That really begins to make you ask, "Well, when the Liberals brought in this tax, what were they bringing it in for?" Our friend Mr Nixon said, "The tire tax will help fund efforts to support recycling and environmentally sound disposal." That was the purpose of the tire tax. How come some $90 million of it never reached the recycling efforts? One of the points that has been raised by many of us is that if this money had been set aside and put into a special fund, there'd be something it would be possible to do with the used tires -- but not so.

I look at why it was there. I wanted to point in particular to the remarks made by the honourable minister when he brought in this tire tax. The minister happened to be none other than Mr Grandmaître, who is the Liberal member from the Vanier area. He said: "Effective June 1 this year, a tax of $5 will be charged on the purchase of each new pneumatic tire consumed or used in Ontario. New tires acquired with the purchase of a vehicle, including spare tires, will be subject to the $5 tax." Isn't that something? Take that line along with the statement made by our friend Mr Nixon that it would be used to help the recycling efforts, and it begins to make you wonder just what was going to happen with this new tax.

I was interested, when I started following this, to read some of the Hansards of the day. Our friend Ms Bryden was the critic speaking on behalf of the people of Beaches-Woodbine in the New Democratic Party. She described what her agenda was going to be. She was calling for a minimum corporate tax -- well, she's got that now -- and then she said we shouldn't be taxing the middle- and low-income earners, and then she said we shouldn't be hurting the people in the greater Toronto area. Well, what happens with any tax is that everybody is hurt. The people in the Toronto area had their commercial concentration tax, which is a Metro tax, but the tire tax actually hit everybody in the province.

I'm amazed when I start to think of the damage done by that. I look at some of the points we tried to make to the Liberals when they were in power. Our friend Mr Grandmaître, in response to some questions by Mr Alan Pope -- Mr Pope was saying: "What are you going to do with the extra money? What's going to happen with it?" Mr Grandmaître said: "What we will do with the extra $5 is provide my friend the Minister of the Environment with more adequate funding for environmental programs. That is the intention of this extra tax. I'm sure that the Minister of the Environment will gladly accept this extra $5 and provide us with better programs."

When you see that they collected as much money as they did and that only $35 million or $40 million of that went into recycling programs and some $90 million went into the general revenue fund of the province, it makes you wonder what he said and what he meant, and what he did and what he wanted to do.

The answer that was given to our friend Mr Pope at the time by the Minister of Revenue was, "The money will help recycling programs." During question period you get the question asked and the minister says: "Don't worry. We're going to look after it."

Three or four years later, I'm telling you right now, the Liberals did not do what they said they would do with that money. That money was not spent on recycling. That money was not invested into the environment. That money was put into the general revenue fund and did not go where they said it was going to go. If you think I'm happy about it, I'm not. What we ended up doing in the province of Ontario is importing sliced-up tires: Atlas tire in Toronto ended up having to buy shredded tires to do their work instead of being able to buy tires here in the province.

1710

The inconsistency of it all grates me and it grates every taxpayer. If they're told by a minister that the money is going to be used in one way and then it's not, what comeback do you have? Mr Grandmaître is an honourable man and a good person, but I have to say that at the time he was minister, he said this money would go to the Ministry of the Environment, and it did not. It did go to the Ministry of the Environment.

When you're dealing with a tax and wondering "Where is it going to go?" some people paying the tire tax probably thought, "Maybe I am doing something worthwhile with this $5 tax." Some people might want to believe there's something positive coming out of their taxes, unless they're caught up in the underground economy, and then they can go and buy across the border and drive back with new tires on their car, which happens more often than not.

We have to touch upon the integrity of government. When a person is asked a question in this House by a member of the opposition, we want an answer that's honest and straight and true, not like the answer that I got from Mr Grandmaître, the Liberal Minister of Revenue, the one here in Hansard where he said it was going to be used for proper things.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

The Acting Speaker: Could the clerk please determine whether a quorum is present.

Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is not present.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: Speaker, a quorum is now present.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham may resume.

Mr Cousens: I thank the honourable member. The government has a responsibility to maintain quorum, and I really appreciate that. The New Democrats probably don't mind what I have to say, but the Liberals probably will. The former Minister of the Environment is here, for one, who has a memory of how the money was not spent from the tire tax. It has to be one of the issues that the Minister of the Environment then, the Honourable James Bradley, as he was known so affectionately by those who knew him in the Ministry of the Environment -- he didn't spend the money that was collected on the tire taxes.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): It's the Treasurer's fault. I didn't get it.

Mr Cousens: It's the Treasurer's fault that he didn't get it. But it's government policy. The government starts off with creating an impression that it's going to use the money collected through that tax in a specific way, and then when it isn't, what comeback do you have?

Well, today is a rare day. I have the chance here in the Legislature now on this day, April 11, to come back and remind the Liberals of their tax they brought in in 1989. That tax that they brought in was a failure. Today it is being revoked in Bill 138 and today we're seeing the end of it, and I say, "Good." Bill 138 means the end of the tire tax formally and officially. It's an example of stupid taxation.

I say that because a few moments ago we heard from the former Minister of Health, the member for Oriole, who was talking with great pleasure about the tire tax. I had no pleasure at the time. I spoke against it at the time, and today, to see the New Democrats come back and fulfil the member for Beaches-Woodbine and other members of the New Democratic caucus who at that time opposed the tire tax -- today, to repeal it, I say thank you. I think it's an example where at last we've done something -- I wish that in fact the money that had been invested in all the tires that were taxed could have assisted in the disposal of tires. It could have done something to enforce people who are dumping tires illegally, it could have done something to assist this government in developing more recycling programs to make better use of those tires.

So Bill 138 has another aspect to it that touches on the Liberals and their regime: the commercial concentration tax. The commercial concentration tax was the tax that they had -- in fact, that's a fact. Just to go back to the tires, the member for Mississauga South at the time was our Environment critic. What we were really saying, and it was one of the earlier points that I brought up, I would have been happier if my fishing licence had gone into building replenishment stocks for fish. So sometimes you could have a designated tax for specific purposes.

Back a few years ago the member for Mississauga South, as Environment critic for the Ontario PC caucus, brought in a bill that would have designated the tire tax funds to do the things that the government was saying it was going to do, and the Liberals defeated that bill. All Mrs Marland was hoping for was, "Okay, you're going to collect this money," and she was careful enough to say, "I don't like a tax but I'm prepared to support some purpose for it if it has an environmental purpose." The government revoked that. They did not support it and took the chance to defeat it.

What has now happened is that the government has, as well, the commercial concentration tax. In 1989, the then Liberal government under David Peterson brought in the commercial concentration tax. This was a tax on property in and around the greater Toronto area, one of those taxes that, if you really started to look at it, would have raised $113 million during its current fiscal year. It really meant that Toronto became less competitive to the tourist industry as anything. Anyone who was putting their car in a parking lot immediately saw an increase in the cost of parking. It created pandemonium when it came in. As with all taxes, people get used to it after a while and after a while people forget about it.

The problem we had, the Liberals brought in the commercial concentration tax. It was a tax specifically directed to the people in the greater Toronto area. I have plenty of data on it, but the point is that it was $1 per square foot and it just added up to a gross increase in parking costs, and when you have a city that's already had little money spent on infrastructure, a city that's facing gridlock often enough with the traffic just coming to a full stop, a city that has not had the development during that period of the 1980s in building the subway systems and the infrastructure more and more, what you were doing was taxing the existing infrastructure even further to make this place less and less competitive. So today we see as well the removal of the commercial concentration tax.

But the NDP are a little more subtle. Instead of coming along and just removing the commercial concentration tax, what they've done now is levy a tax of 8% on all parkers. Those who have a monthly contract are exempted, but what they've now said is that we will tax you if you're going to park your car anywhere, so that there's an 8% provincial sales tax on parking cars.

So on the one hand, they remove the tax by the Liberals, but on the other, which was a Metro, greater-Toronto-area-wide tax, the New Democrats here in Ontario are saying everybody who pays a parking fee will have an 8% provincial sales tax levied upon them.

Mr Hope: There are exemptions.

Mr Cousens: With a few little exemptions, but if you generated $100 million from the other tax in the greater Toronto area, they'll probably generate $150 million from this new tax. There's no loser when it comes to a government levying a tax; the government's always going to be the winner and the taxpayer's going to be the loser. You keep on saying again and again, "They've done it one more time."

1720

What I'd like to talk about is the bill itself. What we have are a number of ingredients in Bill 138 and they're very, very significant when it comes to the way in which it touches everybody in the province of Ontario. It pushes us just that much closer to the wall and makes Ontario that much less competitive with other jurisdictions.

The Retail Sales Tax Act: First of all, we'll touch upon insurance premiums. The 8% retail sales tax will apply to insurance premiums. When you start thinking of insurance, is that a luxury? I don't think so. Insurance for your car, it's only going to be 5% that they're going to charge on car insurance, but when you say "only," that's just when you say it quickly. A tax is a tax is a tax, and if it's 5% on already very high premiums, when you know that people are paying a minimum of $1,000 on average -- it's closer to $1,500 now. I receive letters regularly from people whose automobile taxes are now up in the $3,000 range after they've had a couple of incidents. Whether those incidents are accidents caused by their own fault doesn't really matter; 5% of $3,000 is no small potatoes.

The government came along, and by having all the extra taxes on insurance we're seeing an increase in premiums. I'm not exactly sure how many millions of dollars this is generating for the province of Ontario. We'll find out in this year's budget, because it's hard to find out other than that. What happens now is that the person who has to pay more tax on their car insurance may well reduce the amount of protection they should have had, and then they become vulnerable to an incident or an accident or whatever is going to happen with them. That is not where we should be when it comes to insurance.

People should have insurance for all the right reasons, and that is to protect them and to protect society in case something should happen that they themselves by themselves wouldn't otherwise be able to afford. So the group helps each other. Well, the person who helped themselves on this deal happens to be the province of Ontario, in coming out once more with the insurance tax.

What a badly introduced tax too. Wasn't it something? Last year when it was announced it was pandemonium for the insurance companies and for the people who had their insurance programs. The government hadn't even consulted with the insurance industry to find out how best to implement the tax. It was as if a few people at Queen's Park sat down and said, "Here's a good way for you to raise some money, Mr Minister of Finance, and it's going to be on insurance premiums," and they concocted some numbers, came up with a program, and not until after it was introduced and announced in the House did they begin to carry out the discussions with the insurance industry. In the meantime, insurance agents across the province of Ontario were trying to deal with the questions and answers on when the new tax became effective and how much and when. All the computer programs had to be changed with little or no notice.

What you're starting to deal with is a government that acts without giving advance notice. It deals with things just ad hoc. It doesn't have a process so that it can deal and work with people.

So the insurance increase, number one, was wrong, but it was wrong the way it was introduced. It was terrible the way it was introduced, because there wasn't an insurance broker across the province of Ontario who didn't have heartache at how to handle it. There were some companies that had a terribly tough time just getting their computer programs changed in time to get it ready. So the cost of changing it within the insurance industry itself was an added cost. The whole system started to change.

It also affected company benefits, because companies that were providing benefits for employees suddenly had a new cost on top of the existing benefit structure they provided: the additional tax, just another little layer, another way of siphoning off the money of those companies.

I don't find this amusing at all. In fact, I find it all part of this gradual process of the government intruding further and further into every area of society, cutting into it, taking whatever it can, and in this instance without considering the whole impact: the whole impact on the industry itself, on the people with marginal incomes who have a car, who want to get protection, who have certain benefits and want to have them and now they're being cut back.

They're being cut back, because what's happened now is that companies can no longer pay; individuals can no longer pay. The government always get its money. When it levies a tax, it always gets its money. But the people who are out there trying to earn an income, trying to make a living, trying to make ends meet, are the ones who are the loser.

When you start looking at the tax on insurance for the province of Ontario, it's one of the worst introduced and one of the worst taxes you could have had, because it didn't miss anyone.

I will just comment briefly on the commercial concentration tax. I touched on it earlier. The Liberals in 1989 thought, "Isn't this a nice way of raising some money, to tax parking lots in and around the greater Toronto area?"

Probably the one thing it hurt most of all was the tourist industry. You have Toronto, which should and must and will continue to be a wonderful attraction for people to come to for different kinds of exhibitions and shows. We want people to come here, as part of the different programs that companies will have, and spend their money and enjoy our city and enjoy Ontario.

What happened when we had the high tax, the commercial concentration tax within the greater Toronto area, was that it hit hotels especially hard. It meant that some of the conferences and conventions that would have been coming to Toronto started to look twice, because Ontario, though it has a great climate, good people and many other good things, was becoming and continues to be a very expensive place for people to spend their holidays.

Some of the other measures that are included in Bill 138, effective May 20, 1993: Warranty, parts and labour will be subject to the 8% retail sales tax. It's the kind of thing where if there's any kind of loophole or door out there where someone hasn't been touched by the tax man in Ontario, then you're going to find a government that'll find an additional measure to go out and make some money.

That's exactly what happened here: warranty, parts and labour. You buy your new car, your anything, your new washing machine, your new whatever, and the warranty and parts are now going to be taxed. That's one of the things where you have a certain sense that, hey, the warranty is something that's going to be free after you've made your purchase, but not so with Mr Rae's government. As to anyone who can afford to buy anything that's new and has a warranty, they're going to tax the labour and the other parts of those services that go into it.

Very often you'll find that the company providing the service will do it gratis, but the fact is that they're having to absorb that cost. It just increases the cost of doing business and it makes it all the less attractive for them to want to be here in Ontario.

Sure, you raise some money on it. Is it worth it? The answer's no. Does it take away something of the difference between Ontario and other provinces? I haven't done enough research to know whether other provinces have this particular tax, but let's say that if we didn't have it, it would be just one of those other good reasons to be here in Ontario.

"The retail sales tax exemption" -- it's funny how it reads in their writings -- "for sand, clay, soil and gravel and unfinished stone will be eliminated effective July 1, 1993." It's as if it's an exemption. You never had to pay tax, for as long as I've known, and maybe some of the people who have been around here a lot longer know better, but the fact is you weren't paying a tax on sand, clay, soil and gravel and unfinished stone.

Do you know who that affects? First of all, it's going to affect every municipality, because there isn't a road that isn't built that doesn't require those ingredients, and every municipality means it's going to be the ratepayers, the taxpayers in Mississauga and Markham and every other community in the province of Ontario who are going to be paying that tax that's now collected by the province for sand and gravel, because that's where most of the sand and gravel goes; it goes into our roads. It's just another way of taxing your local municipalities. It's going to net the province another $200 million or something. What you're doing at the same time is taxing, passing down to the local ratepayers this cost in overhead.

1730

I just wish this government wouldn't do it, because already at the local level the communities are paying so much in taxes. Those taxes are some of the best dollars invested by any government at any level, because at that time they're trying to serve their own local community. But they're the hard-earned tax dollars of the property owners, who are now going to have to pay this tax on sand, clay, soil and gravel.

The other place that's going to be paying most is the whole construction industry, and if there's any industry in Ontario that really has to get rolling again, it has to be the construction industry. We're seeing the automotive industry showing signs of recovery, but when you have an additional tax, it's an additional cost. It's an additional 8% that goes on the cost of doing business as far as the province of Ontario is concerned.

I don't like it. It's just another way of adding to the provincial coffers and making Ontario uncompetitive. Unless you're the Workers' Compensation Board, where money doesn't matter -- and it can spend $180 million without even considering where it's going to come from because the taxpayers will pay for it -- but if you're an industry or a company, then you say, "How much is it going to cost to build this structure in Ontario versus Quebec or south of the border or in another jurisdiction?" Will you think twice about it? Is it part of the cost of doing business? It is, and it's just the kind of disincentive that makes companies think twice about locating in the province of Ontario.

I suppose when you start looking at it, if you want to even buy sand for your child's sandbox outside and you buy it at one of the nurseries, you're going to have to pay for that as well. How shocking. Aren't there some things in life that should be free, the air we breathe, the water we drink? I see we're going to have a tax on that one soon too. We going to soon start paying for that. I'm somewhat sympathetic to it because there's a point at which we will run out of clean water if we don't start preserving it, but there's a sense in which we've got to teach people to be responsible for what they've got.

We happen to have in Ontario some of the greatest natural resources any jurisdiction could hope for, and we're losing the competitive edge by taxing them all. Our hydro is no longer a big saving over other jurisdictions. When companies would settle in Ontario to do their business, there was an advantage because power was cheaper in Ontario. It's no longer cheaper than any other jurisdiction.

Mr Mills: What about Darlington? Tell me about that.

Mr Cousens: You'll have a chance, Gordon. You'll have a chance to comment. Nuclear as well: I think nuclear power happens to be very clean and very efficient, and I have some concerns about your position in not supporting nuclear energy, especially closing down Darlington and all those places. I think your government is systematically trying to move Ontario into brownouts and we're going to see a whole new level of lack of service.

Anyway, taxing sand and gravel is one of the ingredients of Bill 138.

I'm concerned as well that on July 1, 1993, this bill makes it law that the Ontario -- Incredible! rebate program will be eliminated. Taxes paid on goods and accommodation by visitors to Ontario prior to July 1 are still eligible for a rebate, as long as claims are made within a year of the transaction date.

They used to call it the VAT tax. If you were in the UK or in other countries and you bought goods in another country and you were going out of the country, you'd collect all your bills and receipts, and when you got to the airport, you'd submit them. If it was enough, it was worthwhile sending in and getting your rebate on your expenditures.

Don't we want people from outside Ontario who come here, either as tourists or convention visitors or others, to spend their money? There's an advantage now with the Canadian dollar going so low that Americans are coming over and are starting to spend money in Canada. But this is just another way, when they're here, that you show a sense of hospitality and that you're really glad to have them. As these taxes are going to be used for people in Ontario and not yourself, because if you're going back to New York or Ohio or Manitoba or Quebec, you're being forgiven the cost of Ontario provincial sales tax, doesn't that give a good message to them?

"Spend your money, keep track of the provincial sales tax, and when you go, add it up, show the receipts and we'll give you a rebate." That gives them a message that we're glad they were here and glad they were investing in Ontario merchandise and goods and services. When they go back home, they're going to get something back for it, and when they get that cheque, that's something they'll be glad to have. This bill removes that rebate. That rebate was another one of those little incentives for people to spend money on Ontario merchandise here in Ontario when they were visiting.

Mr Mills: They give it back in the States too, when we leave.

Mr Cousens: I want to have every advantage for people to come to Ontario. We had it, and the New Democrats, the member for Durham East is proud of the fact that he's making Ontario a place people won't want to come to. That's fine. That's the New Democrats' logic. That it escaped the Liberals' taxation policy and that it's something that's been in place for a period of time shows you there was benefit to it.

I like to see the small entrepreneur start up, have a business and make a go of it. That's the strength of our country, when you have small people who have their own money and start off and they put that money into a new product or a new company and hire a few employees and build it into something. One of the examples of a very successful operation was the little home-brew enterprises that started up across Ontario over the last several years. They just came up overnight.

I have one acquaintance I would meet over the summer. He started up one of these little brew-your-own-beer enterprises. He quit his job, put all his money into it and began to make a very fine drink, ale and beer, homemade. People would go in and would buy their bottles and would do what they were doing. What this government has done is, "Effective August 1, 1993, a tax of 26 cents will apply to each litre of beer or wine made at a produce-your-own beer and wine establishment." What that has done to these small entrepreneurs -- and none of them were big people; they were mostly people who had a dream and a hope of running their own business. The bank was mostly --

Mr Mills: They turned back to the real beer. They get fed up with it. Don't blame --

Mr Cousens: Gordon, what's the matter with you today?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Durham East, come to order.

Mr Cousens: He's really out of control today. Maybe he hasn't had a beer for a while and maybe he should go and try one. Maybe right now he could toddle off.

I'm suggesting that those small entrepreneurs had established their wine-making and beer-making businesses and very good-quality products were coming out, and they're increasingly popular, probably competition to the large manufacturers of beer. But what's happened? This tax brought in by the New Democrats of 26 cents on each litre of beer is just the kind of thing that started to change their business. The tax brought in in Bill 138 meant there was a tax increase of 26 cents on August 1 last year, and then 31 cents on June 15, 1994, and then it increases to 38 cents on June 15, 1995. Talk about a government that's hungry for money. They're saying here to the small business person and the small entrepreneur: "Here we are. We're going to take everything we can from you."

I'm not happy with Bill 138. There are elements of the bill I'm happy with. The fact that the government has repealed the tire tax is good, but when I look at the effect on insurance and the effect on the small business people, when I see the total income the government's taking out of this economy of over $2 billion, it really is not what Ontario needs as a good dose of medicine.

What Ontario needs is a government that's going to move to bring its spending in order, to get control of where it really should be. This is a government that should look at the unemployment situation, that for every $40,000 raised in taxes it means the end of one job. This is a government that should start very seriously, instead of just having more taxes and more tax coming in on every project and program that people can have, start to do something about -- there were 144,000 fewer people who were employed in 1993 than in 1990. In 1993 there were, on average, 569,000 Ontarians on the unemployment rolls every month, an increase of 238,000 relative to 1990 levels, almost 250,000 more people on the unemployment rolls. There were 129,000 fewer people employed in the manufacturing sector in 1993 than in 1990, and 73,000 fewer in the construction industry than there were in 1990.

1740

Despite past and planned government spending, the unemployment rate in Ontario continues to remain above 9%, and it's projected to stay above 9% through to 1997.

The government has spent $12 billion over the past three years to create or sustain 300,000 jobs. At best, this expenditure of $40,000 per job has provided only very expensive, short-term, symptomatic relief.

What are the people saying? The people I respect, the Ontario Chamber of Commerce, are saying of Bob Rae's government:

"Revenue is not the problem. Expenditure is the problem. There is no more room to move on taxes. Every new tax is a blow against the fragile economic recovery under way."

That's what the Ontario Chamber of Commerce has to say about more taxes.

The Ontario Home Builders' Association said:

"A modest recovery in the housing market is expected in 1994. Housing starts should total 50,000, and this includes 28,000 single detached houses. The recovery will be very fragile and could easily be derailed by government decisions."

The Retail Council of Canada says:

"In last year's submission, we reflected on the dangers of continuing high deficits. We are extremely disappointed that the Ontario government still will not take meaningful steps to change the situation."

We're talking about a government that is tax-hungry. They won't back off. Since 1985, the Liberals and the NDP have levied 65 new or increased taxes. Ontarians have absorbed $7.6 billion in new or increased taxes since 1985. From 1985 to 1993, personal income per capita in Ontario increased by 53.5% --

Interjection.

Mr Cousens: I'll repeat that because of the interruption. From 1985 to 1993, personal income per capita in Ontario increased by 53.5%, but the per capita provincial tax burden increased by 73.3%.

In 1985, provincial tax revenues equalled 8.8% of the Ontario gross domestic product but will account for 11.2% of our gross domestic product this year. From 8.8% in 1985, we're now spending 11.2% of our gross domestic product on taxes this year.

The average Ontario family paid $663 more in taxes in 1993 than when the NDP took office. The average Ontario taxpayer paid $663 more in taxes in 1993 than just three and half years ago.

During the NDP government's term in office, 3.4 million Ontario families have seen their provincial taxes increased, while only approximately 440,000 families have benefited from tax reductions. So 3.4 million people have seen tax increases and some 440,000 families have benefited from tax deductions.

It's just this kind of government that has led to trouble in people getting back on their feet, trouble in getting the economy going. We have to be honest with ourselves: We can't blame the NDP totally for the rotten economy. A lot of it started from Mr Peterson's government before them. But this government hasn't had the sense to change the polices. What we're seeing now is just a continuation of overtaxation, a government that's overhungry, a government that continues to be fed by taxpayers' dollars, and the taxpayers increasingly feeling violated that their money is not being well spent.

The future: What is it? I have to say, Bill 138 is before this House. It's almost a fait accompli. The government has not yet ever backed off in bringing forward a new tax. Backbenchers, when they're presented with that, it becomes such an important thing, they end up --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order.

Mr Cousens: Madam Speaker, I don't know what's the matter with Mr Mills today, but he'll have a chance to speak. I'll certainly give him an opportunity. He's such a good person at times, but today he's just --

Mrs Marland: Gord, wait for your two minutes. You'll get it.

Mr Mills: I get very aggravated.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): We noticed. Take a Valium.

Mr Cousens: I'm not going to suggest that the member should take any kind of medicine at all, because maybe that's the problem already; I don't know.

I just feel that we have a problem with taxation. I started off by saying that governments have a propensity to raise taxes, and that has been the case with every government that's been around, but the Liberals and the NDP have had a greater propensity to do that than any previous government. This last budget of a $2-billion tax increase that touches on insurance, on brew-your-own-beer, on parking lots and on income tax: At just about every level you're talking about a government that has really lost its sense of priorities.

In my earlier readings of Marion Bryden, the member for Beaches-Woodbine, when she was challenging the government to pull back on its tire tax when David Peterson was Premier and Bob Nixon was Treasurer at the time and Mr Grandmaître was the Minister of Revenue, here was the sense in which you saw the good socialist philosophy of Ms Bryden coming in. She wasn't talking about the kind of onerous, heavy, ongoing taxes that are now coming out of the Bob Rae government. The people of Ontario have been increasingly disappointed that these taxes continue to mount and they continue to come upon us. This Bill 138 makes it impossible for anyone to try to escape those taxes unless they move to the underground economy.

It's a government that is greedy beyond belief. I wish the government would get its financial house in order. Stop spending so much. Bring things under control. Stop seeing the need to raise more in taxes. Try to get money back in the economy so that, first of all, the investors who have some money will invest in Ontario and outsiders will come in and say, "Ontario's a good place to work." But when they see these high taxes we have already, it takes away the incentive for them to come and settle and establish their businesses in Ontario.

We don't have that much longer to wait. What happens is that the government has a term of office. We could have an election this fall. I'm inclined to believe that the government will go right through to next spring some time. The government has to call an election.

Here's the way it works. July 30 was the day the writ was dropped by David Peterson; July 30, 1990, when David Peterson felt that he was going to move to a rapid, quick victory. The way it works is that five years from that date is July 30, 1995, and an election has to be called within 55 days of that date. So September 23, 1995, is the last day that Mr Bob Rae and his group of elected people --

Mr Hope: November 23?

Mr Cousens: No, September 23. I hope I didn't say that, Randy. September 23 is the last possible day that the people of Ontario will have to tolerate an NDP government in the province of Ontario, unless at that time people come along and say: "We like the 32 tax increases they brought in. We like the way this government brought in the Interim Waste Authority and brought in three megadumps for Durham, York and Peel. We're really proud of the way this government has decided things for us. We think that they brought a new level of intelligence to government by having a huge megadump on the border between the cities of Vaughan and King and one over in Caledon and one over in Whitevale."

This is a government that really has a sense of the environment. This is a government that has done so much for police and law and order, and then coming along and having the kind of support that it has given to the police force.

This is a government that opposed standardized testing, but none the less comes along and starts talking about all kinds of things about education but doesn't begin to do the right things for education. This is a government that's cut back on universities and colleges and, at that point, this is a government that really knows how to get education going.

1750

This is a government that has trampled seniors in the way it brought in its Bill 110 as it affects seniors in seniors homes. This is a government that has passed on more and more expenses and costs to people at the lowest level. This is a government that has taxed and taxed and taxed, and here's a government that is going to have to face the electorate, because the electorate is not going to forget them.

The electorate didn't forget David Peterson and his people back in 1990. They said to them: "Look, we've had enough of David Peterson and his policy. We know what they brought to Ontario. They brought more taxation." It was at a time when Ontario was at its highest, and the Liberals went and squandered it. Now they will remember the NDP for what it has done and what it has not done during its four or five years of office. That's going to give people an opportunity, I hope, to look at someone else.

That person happens to be Mr Michael Harris, the leader of our party, the member for Nipissing. Mike Harris's policies, when it comes to taxation, are quite different from what you're talking about. First of all, he will support small business, and one of the key things that he wants to do is to help small business so that we understand how important and how integral to the future success of the province of Ontario small business really is.

The next thing is, he will come out with a tax freeze. Additional tax hikes do not create higher tax revenues. The rise in the underground economy shows the level of frustration that the taxpayer has. Higher taxes are counterproductive to economic recovery, and so he will not have new taxes. He will make that point, and he'll make it again and again and again.

He will reject any plan to increase payroll taxes and that seems to be one of the things that this government has done through Bill 138. It's a payroll tax when you start taxing people on their health benefits.

He will reform the Workers' Compensation Board, and there is something that needs to be done. There is no doubt that the Workers' Compensation Board is out of control. Why would this government prevent the opposition parties from at least looking at the expenditures of the new $180-million building? We went to the public accounts committee and tried to have a committee struck that would look at the spending that went into the new structure for the workers' compensation, and the NDP majority blocked that. They blocked the opportunity for people to investigate and review what was happening there.

One thing we would do for sure is remove the corporate minimum tax. What a nuisance tax that is. It's something again that was predictable. Certainly, the member for Beaches-Woodbine -- it was talked about several years ago and there it is.

We would eliminate the $50 corporate filing fee, and that again is just something that gets in the way of progress.

Repeal Bill 40: If there's anything that set Ontario back in the last several years, and in the future will continue to set us back, it's Bill 40. That is the whole labour legislation that gives rights to unions to expand and to grow, and certainly that's one way for the government to increase the size of its base.

But I'll tell you, Madam Speaker, it's one of those disincentives for business when they look at this government and say, "Hey, how labour-oriented is Ontario?" With Bill 40, the most advanced, the most unique, the one jurisdiction in the world that sets us apart from all others is Bill 40. It's one thing to be leaders, but it's one thing to be so far out that you're not in any position to maintain the balance that's so important, to keep that delicate balance between business, industry and government working together.

We need to develop a project that gets this government on a balanced budget. This is not going to happen. This government doesn't know how to balance its budget, and we have to move towards some way in which we can balance the budget.

There are many more points that I'd like to make on this, but I can say, in brief, that we're talking in an age where people are frustrated with taxation, and I think they're frustrated with politicians. They're sick and tired of us coming in here and just continuing to pick their pockets, take their money and then spend it on the wrong things.

There is no doubt that this government is spending the money incorrectly. They're continuing to spend on housing. They're continuing to waste money through an overly generous social assistance program. We're continuing to have over a million extra health cards in the province of Ontario than there are people. We're seeing issues abound.

Housing is an example where you're building more and more so-called affordable housing and yet where is the need? What is the need? Is this the way to do it? Are there other ways in which you could provide housing for people through subsidies rather than building new housing?

We have a spending problem in the province of Ontario. We're spending beyond our means. We have a taxation problem. We're taxing beyond the means for people to pay. We have a credibility problem because we've lost the trust of the people who elected us. They look to us and they say, regardless of who the government is, who do they trust any more? How do you distinguish someone who's going to do what is right and good and for the right reasons, for the benefit of all people?

How do we begin to find a government that's going to have the balance that governments should have? It doesn't take long for us to lose that lustre. It didn't take long for this government to lose its lustre. What we're seeing here is the sense that by coming out with all these extra taxes, it again proves that governments just aren't there to be trusted. I have to say, can we trust any government to do it right?

I certainly believe that the kind of platform that is coming forward from my leader is one that I believe in. I believe there is a real hope out there that there'll be a government that comes to power that will begin to create jobs and create an environment for jobs, create a climate for business, so that when we look at Ontario, it's a place where people will want to settle, a place where people will want to be, a place where people know that there is something really working for them, that government is working with the people, for the people, by the people, that it's a government that is investing in a better future for all of us.

Bill 138 is not taking the province of Ontario in the correct direction. I have to believe that if the New Democrat members will take time, they will look at the effect of this bill and will vote against it. I will be voting against it and I sincerely hope, as we get ready for the new budget that will be announced in about four weeks' time, the Treasurer at that time will not bring in more increases in taxes. We've really got to start seeing a cutting back on taxes.

This bill did at least cut back on the tire tax. It could have gone further and cut back on others. What they maybe can do in the meantime is cut back on their spending, cut back on what they're doing and reduce the expectations of people so that government doesn't have to do it all. Maybe together we can make this the province we really want it to be. That's my dream; that is my hope.

Applause.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments? The member for Cochrane South.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Thank you, Madam Speaker, I was actually getting --

Mrs Marland: I thought you might have applauded a little bit.

Mr Bisson: If only you knew.

Interjection: In either official language?

Mr Bisson: That was in either official language.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): That's the third official language.

Mr Bisson: That was the third one.

I was listening with great interest to the comments of the member for Markham, and it was interesting to note his rhetoric in regard to some of the issues that he talks about. I would say that the member is probably one of the more eloquent members, as he would say, who knows how to play the game in regard to espousing on points and making them look a little bit different than they are.

I would like to see how the member would comment in regard to some of the comments he made around tax increases. He went on at great length to talk about how the Liberal administration and the New Democratic administration had done some 65 tax increases over a period of some eight years. I remember quite vividly in this House on the governments that as a matter of fact the member opposite from me sat in regard to a number of tax increases. I can count a total of some 40 in one administration alone, I remember, in one of the last administrations the former member took part in. Is that maybe some creative thinking or is it maybe just a little bit of unfocused thinking on the part of the member?

When it comes to being able to direct criticism across the floor, I think one first of all has to look into one's own heart. I understand, quite frankly, as the member puts it, that we must play the game to a certain extent, and these debates are exactly about that, about being able to demonstrate one's ideological point of view or being able to demonstrate one's political savvy to a certain extent. I would be interested in knowing from the member opposite if he remembers the numerous tax increases on the part of the former Tory administration, under a number of premiers who I remember with a lot of fond interest. I would like to know if the member for Markham would like to comment on some of those hefty, hefty, I remember, increases in taxes over a period of I think it was 42 years.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm delighted to stand here to congratulate the member for Markham on such an excellent presentation, not only with regard to this particular bill but with regard to the financial situation in the province of Ontario. The member for Markham has been following this very closely and for a number of years and I would hope that the government members would pay heed to his comments.

I was very interested that early on this afternoon -- I would suggest that the members from the government would be interested in this -- one of the first issues the member for Markham raised was the tire tax and the appropriateness of eliminating the tire tax. I would assume that the government members would be interested in that particular comment.

I know from my experience on the Metropolitan council that there was a great deal of concern with regard to that tax. It was implemented, of course, by the Liberals. Bob Nixon in his budget of 1989, I believe it was, brought in that tax and I believe about 15 other taxes in that particular year: the commercial concentration tax, the tire tax and a number of taxes.

As the member for Markham has pointed out, that particular tax was to be used for research and recycling, but the information we were getting at Metropolitan Toronto, because we had grave concerns about the waste management issue, was that while over $100 million in revenues were being raised, very little of it, perhaps $20 million or less, was actually being put into research to reduce the waste within the province of Ontario.

The member for Markham has pointed that out. He's pointed out many other aspects of the grave financial situation we have and I commend him for that.

The Acting Speaker: There will be time for further questions or comments when this debate resumes. It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1803.

11 avril 1994