Journal des débats 1994-avril-13 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): This government wants to save money. Bill 154, the cheque cashing act, would save millions of dollars. It awaits third reading, since December 1991. The government has done nothing since then.

It continues to condone the appalling practice of charging fees to people who cash social assistance cheques. Before 1990, it was so good at wringing its hands over the plight of the needy. Today it allows unscrupulous businesses to prey upon the must vulnerable members of our society.

Bill 154 benefits both the government and low-income persons. It ensures that public funds are spent responsibly and meet their intended objective. Taxpayers expect this. Bill 154 also protects low-income persons by guaranteeing that they will receive the full amount of the assistance to which they are entitled. This is common sense. Why this government continues to subsidize cheque-cashing businesses makes no sense at all.

The Ministry of Community and Social Services recently announced measures dealing with fraud and other issues. It could have acted more than two years ago. Without Bill 154, money will continue to be lost, causing needless hardship to low-income Ontarians and proving once again, to the detriment of Ontario, that this government is inconsistent and careless in its handling of public funds.

FOREST INDUSTRY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Nearly a year has passed since I raised the issues of excessive stumpage fees and taxation on the forest industry with this minister. At a press conference on Monday, in Thunder Bay, the minister announced plans to overhaul the stumpage fee system.

I find it appalling that the minister would announce a massive change in forest policy without making a statement in this House. Instead, the minister distanced himself from any accountability and denied members' input into this process.

In the minister's letter to the forest industry leaders, he states that stumpage fees will be reformed to address the "shortcomings of the existing system." I am pleased to see the minister can now publicly acknowledge that there are shortcomings in the existing system. Unfortunately, he did not specify.

The specific shortcoming, as told by loggers throughout Ontario, is that stumpage fees are too high and have killed jobs. Now that the minister realizes that fundamental changes must be made to the stumpage fee system, it begs the question, why did he go for the $25-million tax grab in the first place?

YWCA AWARDS

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I want to congratulate the four women who were honoured by the YWCA in Peterborough at the annual awards dinner on April 7 and to express my appreciation to the YWCA for making these awards.

Barbara Beck and Lynn Hill are recipients of the 1994 Women of Distinction award for their community commitment and their work to improve the status of women. Megan Hillman and Kathrin Mertens are the first winners of the new Women of Distinction Youth award for women aged 16 to 21.

Barbara Beck is executive director of the Senior Citizens' Council of Peterborough and chairperson of the Peterborough Theatre Guild board of directors and of the Elder Abuse Network of Peterborough.

Lynn Hill, manager of the George Street Municipal Trust, is a lifelong resident of Peterborough committed to improving local economic conditions, especially relating to women.

Megan Hillman is one of the longest-standing volunteers with the Peterborough AIDS Resource Network.

Kathrin Mertens is a local rower who received two gold medals at the Canada Summer Games in Kamloops, BC, last summer.

Each of these women has made a unique and valuable contribution to our community. They all deserve our recognition and thanks. Well done, all of you.

PENSION FUNDS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): Today we have another example of how Bob Rae and his government pander to union leadership while he cooks the province's books.

The government is reducing the amount it pays into the new OPSEU pension plan by $390 million in exchange for giving up control of the plan. In the deal, the government will contribute less towards each OPSEU member's pension but the government will share control of managing the pension plan with OPSEU. I would note that the government still has sole responsibility for deficits and the unfunded liability of $1.7 billion.

There are many questions about this new plan. For example, who will decide when the partners can't agree?

I believe that by doing this Bob Rae will simply use the $390 million to try to fool the voters into thinking that the province's financial picture is better than it really is. The Provincial Auditor has even said that what this NDP government is doing with the province's financial statements is not proper accounting practice. This OPSEU deal is another example of Bob Rae's willingness to play fast and loose with the way the province keeps its books.

Mr Premier, you're not fooling the financial community, the private sector or the taxpayers of Ontario. They see through this. They know this is not in the taxpayers' interests. It may not be in the pensioners' interests. It is only in the interest of the leadership of OPSEU.

1340

NIAGARA ESCARPMENT COMMISSION

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I would like to focus attention once again on the unfair and inflexible practices of the Niagara Escarpment Commission.

Over the past two years the Owen Sound Minor Soccer Association has been investigating ways to develop more playing fields for its sport. Soccer is the second-largest sports organization in the city, with over 800 children actively involved.

In 1992 the Grey Sauble Conservation Authority suggested the Pottawatomi Conservation Area as a possible site for a new soccer complex. The area is unused farm land purchased as part of a parcel by the authority in order to obtain the upper level of the Niagara Escarpment. The land is flat and would be a perfect site for 11 new grass soccer fields. Soccer would not be the only use of the lands as picnic areas, bicycle and walking trails would be incorporated into the overall design by the authority. In addition, with an onsite gravel parking lot more residents and visitors would have access to the beauty of the escarpment and the Bruce Trail.

After countless hours to develop a plan and make application, approval was obtained in principle from the city of Owen Sound, Derby township and the conservation authority but was denied by the NEC. The soccer association followed with an appeal but was again denied by the ministry on the grounds that, "They could see no relationship between soccer and the escarpment environment." Apparently, open fields are not compatible with the escarpment plan.

For this example I think we can all see why Grey county is continually frustrated with the commission. This is just another reason why the NEC should be disbanded and the control should be given back to local municipalities. I sincerely hope that by bringing this matter to the attention of the minister, he will reconsider his decision or at least have the courtesy of approaching me for further discussion.

PURCHASE OF PAPER MILL

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): In October 1993 our Premier and I attended the opening of the new thermomechanical pulp mill at Spruce Falls in Kapuskasing. We were proud at the time to be able to say that since the employee buyout two years before, the mill was now generating profits and expanding.

Now, only six months later, Spruce Falls has just had yet another news announcement: The second phase of the $43-million sawmill complex is now in operation. The sawmill project represents the first major permanent workforce expansion at Spruce Falls in over 20 years.

Some 95 full-time employees will be required to operate the facility on its planned three-shift, five-day operation schedule. In addition, the equivalent of a further 31 full-time jobs will be required in the company's wood harvesting operation to satisfy the increased tree length requirements. That's a total of 126 new full-time jobs at Spruce Falls since the employee buyout in 1991. Construction of the sawmill should also produce an estimated 400 to 500 temporary jobs in the coming year.

I'd like to take this opportunity to stress once again the importance of the employee buyout to the economic stability of Cochrane North, the success of its employees and their contribution in turning the company around full-circle, and the benefits to the community at large with the number of jobs that have been saved and created since then.

I think we can all proudly say that Spruce Falls has proven to become one of the greatest models for employee-owned businesses in the entire country.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): There was another important press conference at Queen's Park this morning, the second time in as many months that people came and reminded the NDP government of its trail of broken promises.

This time it was the Coalition for Social Assistance Reform, individuals who in their spirit of social responsibility are doing the best to remind every member of this Legislature, but especially the NDP members, that people on social assistance, more than 500,000 of whom are children and 150,000 are persons with disability, have the right to be treated with dignity and respect.

All the social assistance recipients are asking for is an opportunity to do something meaningful with their lives. The coalition reminded us again that welfare-bashing, although considered by some to be expedient, is cheap and inaccurate and simplistic. These victims of economic insecurity stated that they have no comfort, that they are demoralized and that they have been, in their grief, defrauded of their dignity.

They came to Queen's Park this morning to destroy the myth-making, to set the record straight and to launch their campaign, a campaign to educate the people of Ontario about what living on welfare is really like. I join them in the beginning of their campaign and hope they can destroy the myths.

HEALTH CARDS

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I would like to urge the Minister of Health to deal with an issue that the Ontario Progressive Conservatives have brought up in this House on many occasions. The proliferation of health cards that are being issued by the Ministry of Health must stop.

I called the ministry to ask how to go about getting a new health card. I was told that it was not necessary to send my original card back, and sure enough, I now have in my possession two health cards. I have it on good authority that both health cards would be accepted in emergency rooms across Ontario, assuming I do not need emergency care in Red Lake. The unfortunate part of this situation is that the physician and hospital that look after me will get stung when they submit their account for payment to the Ministry of Health.

Minister, when are we going to see action on this issue? Yes, you inherited a flawed system from the Liberals. Yes, the government is dealing with a debt larger than Ontario has ever seen, most of it self-inflicted. But, Minister, we need to see some leadership on this. We need to see action: action that goes beyond refusing to pay doctors for services they have provided because you issue new health cards without requesting the old one back.

The doctors have no way of checking the validity of a health card in emergency situations, because your government hasn't set up a system. It is unfair for your ministry to refuse payment to doctors when they don't have a validation system available for their use.

Your government is dealing with this by hitting the hospitals and doctors and not stopping the duplication at the source, your ministry.

SCIENCE FAIR

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Last Saturday, 260 elementary and secondary students displayed their science projects as part of the 23rd annual Kingston and District Science Fair. Also participating were 70 judges who are working scientists drawn from the post-secondary, research and commercial sectors in the Kingston area.

I toured the fair Saturday morning and can attest to the enthusiasm and creativity of the students. Like the many other visitors to the two-day fair, I learned about subjects like electromagnetism, solar batteries, water filtration and optical illusions.

Mr Speaker, you'll get a greater sense of the range of subjects displayed from the following list of winners and their projects: gold, Stefanie Smith, Kingston Collegiate and Vocational Institute, for Licorice and Epilepsy; silver, Catherine Tremblay, KCVI, for Sémiologie: Le sens joue cache-cache; bronze, Elizabeth Tremblay, Regiopolis/Notre-Dame, for Où va le vent qui vient; honourable mention, Kate Higginson, KCVI, for Light Sensitivity of Photographic Emulsions.

Of course, everyone in the community is a winner in an event like this. The students, for example, are able to discuss their projects with working scientists. This strengthens their sense of pride and accomplishment as well as their understanding of the subject. The judges, in return for the generous donation of their time, get a sense of the level of science instruction in our schools. They also have the satisfaction of knowing they are encouraging in these novice scientists a love for science that can be both personally and socially rewarding. Parents can be pleased at the opportunity for exploration and creativity these science projects provide their children. And the community exposure to science, an activity crucial to our individual and collective wellbeing, will benefit us all.

I wish to commend science fair's co-chairs, Heather Highet and Elizabeth Turcke, their committee and community sponsors for commitment to such a worthwhile event. And good luck to Kingston winners at the Canada-wide science fair in May.

BUSINESS PRACTICES

Mr Will Ferguson (Kitchener): Every week, hundreds of residents of this province are being ripped off by loan brokers, and I think it's high time that the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations took some action to put these bandits out of business.

Once again, another one of my constituents visited my office to tell a tale of woe. She gave a loan brokerage firm $650 in order to process an application for a $26,000 loan. What was interesting about the process is that my constituent made the application by phone and was called back within 24 hours to be told that she was indeed approved for a $26,000 loan, providing that she come up with a cool $650 to process the application. Of course, she made the usual inquiries and was given the usual assurances that the application had been approved and that she had absolutely nothing to worry about. Well, today it's two months later and she has not seen her $650, nor has she seen any of the $26,000 loan.

It's our job to protect the citizens of Ontario, and we should be taking strict action with these individuals. I'm calling today on the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to conduct an inquiry to determine just how many of these individuals who have applied for loans really have obtained loans. It's clear to me that these firms are doing for the consumers of Ontario what the James brothers did for the western banks.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

GUN CONTROL

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question today is to the Premier, the leader of the government. Premier, you and all members of the House will know that earlier today Mrs de Villiers and her community group, concerned about safe and secure communities, came to this Legislature, and I say to you, Premier, that this is a question for you.

I have a second question for the minister of justice, but as leader of the government I want to ask you to deal with a couple of the concerns that I think are everywhere, inside this chamber and outside, about safe and secure communities.

Mrs de Villiers and her group came today to indicate their concern and their growing frustration about the problems that are out there that are not being addressed. I want to ask a first question to the Premier around a constructive idea that has been raised in this House and raised elsewhere, certainly in the regional municipality of Metropolitan Toronto, and that is the business about the gun exchange. That is an idea that we support in this caucus, and that, as far as I can judge, everybody in this Legislature supports.

My first question to you, Mr Premier, as leader of the government: Are you prepared today to give a commitment on behalf of the government of Ontario, which you lead, that you will immediately support the police in Metropolitan Toronto in their very creative and constructive gun exchange program, and that you will, as leader of your government, support any other municipality in the province that initiates a similar gun exchange program?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd like to refer that to the Solicitor General.

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Today I received in my office an open letter from the leader of the third party as a follow-up to his question and our dialogue here in the House yesterday. In it he acknowledges his appreciation for the fact that the government was receptive to an idea from an opposition bench that could have an impact on public safety.

As I indicated to this House and to the media and the public yesterday, we are interested in this idea. I have already asked staff to begin the work necessary to ensure that if we were to follow such a program, we are putting in place the kinds of measures that will make it as effective as possible, and indeed, if there are any concerns, that we are at least aware of those as we walk down that road.

I continue to articulate on behalf of the government that we are receptive to this. I'm pleased to see that the official opposition is equally receptive and apparently very comfortable with this idea, and we'll continue to see progress on this front.

Mr Conway: All of us have a responsibility and clearly it's time to act on certain things, and this seems to be an idea whose time has come. In fact, Ontario just two years ago participated in a similar kind of program.

My second question to the Solicitor General has to do with a related issue. In Ottawa, just a few weeks ago, we had a horrific example, and the police are telling my colleagues and myself that in that horrific drive-by shooting what we had was a situation where an innocent bystander was shot with an illegal weapon -- but with store-bought bullets.

We have a situation today where criminals are killing and maiming people, innocent people in this province, often with illegal weapons but almost always with store-bought bullets. Earlier today I asked one of the younger members of my staff to walk over to Yonge Street. It took four minutes to go down to the corner of Yonge and Wellesley and buy, easily and without question, bullets for some of the most deadly handguns available on the street in this city.

Given the fact that the Ontario government has responsibilities in this area, will the government of Ontario, through you, Mr Minister, give an undertaking that you will require minimally that no one in this province is going to be able to buy this kind of ammunition, these, in this case, 9mm Luger full metal case? I'm told by your officials --

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

Mr Conway: -- that there are virtually no requirements, no regulations, about the purchase of this.

A constructive suggestion: Will you and your government consider that you will require in this province a valid Ontario hunting permit or licence, or its equivalent, before an individual can buy this kind of deadly material?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I'm going to answer very directly at the end of my comments, but I do want to say that at the very recent federal-provincial justice ministers' conference, Ontario played a leading role at the table in urging the federal government to not see Bill C-17, which was the federal civilian gun control legislation, be the end of the work that is done in this nation but indeed the starting point. I have offered the commitment of my ministry and that of my colleague the Attorney General in this regard, as I have carriage of this issue on behalf of the government, to ensure that the kinds of progressive gun control and related issues that need to be in place indeed are.

There needs to be a very comprehensive response. I don't think a piecemeal response to this issue is what's needed. Neither, to refer to the comments of the leader of the third party, do we need to have so many commissions and reports that we're never getting on with it. But we do need to make sure, when we respond to the public as legislators and say, "This is what we're doing," and honestly believe it's going to have an impact, that indeed we have thought it through and ensured that all the pieces are considered, that they all fit and that they all support one another.

To answer your question directly, yes, this government is very much interested in looking at the issue of ammunition and how it is made accessible, that being just one piece --

The Speaker: Could the minister complete his response, please.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- of a whole host of civilian gun control regulations and police, smuggling, federal-related issues with regard to the enormous amount of weaponry that is coming across the border. All of these things we embrace and feel that we need to be moving on.

Mr Conway: It is clear that this, we as a province can do. My legal advisers make it very plain that this kind of regulation of the retailing of this kind of deadly weaponry is clearly and entirely within our jurisdiction. You know, when I look at this box of deadly weaponry which can be bought by just about anyone, young or old, in this province, there is a message printed: "Keep out of the reach of children."

1400

It is clear that children, or near-children, can buy these kinds of bullets in this province. This Legislature over the years, and presently under the leadership of your colleague the Minister of Health, has imposed and is imposing restrictions on access to our highways, access to the purchase of alcohol, access to tobacco. Surely we would all agree, Minister, that the time has come to impose a reasonable control on the sale of these kinds of bullets. Because I repeat, a real part of the problem, according to people like the chief of police in Ottawa --

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

Mr Conway: -- is that criminals are killing and maiming people in this province using illegal guns, but with store-bought bullets.

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say again that I appreciate the suggestion put forward by the honourable member. As I have indicated, the short and straight answer to his question is yes, this government is very much interested in looking at responsible control of access to ammunition.

I would suggest, though, to the honourable member, with a great deal of respect, and I mean this so sincerely, that it was his leader a few days ago who stood in her place and suggested that what was needed was a chance to have a thoughtful debate to look at all these issues, that there wasn't any one thing that was going to do it, that there wasn't any one particular action. I would suggest from that, by extension, that this idea and other matters would be a part of what she was suggesting when she said, would the government agree to participate in an all-party, non-partisan approach to crime prevention?

I would suggest that if we find ourselves in that position, this issue, as well as a number of others that have already been mentioned and some that won't -- the one thing we don't want to do is answer yes to whatever hot issue comes up in the House here and then let all of this be forgotten in a few weeks because it's not on the front pages. We need to deal with this in a comprehensive way. I believe that's what the opposition has offered. I have undertaken to respond to that shortly, and I understand discussions are currently under way in that regard.

The Speaker: New question.

Mr Conway: A new question on a similar subject, to the minister of justice.

But let me just say that these people in the gallery, some of whom have suffered terribly as a consequence of problems in our criminal justice system, are telling all of us and giving the government a failing grade, or at least the Premier a failing grade, because they are frustrated that all they're hearing is talk and not enough action.

There are clearly some things that we as a provincial Legislature and you as a provincial government can do to act, and a better regulation of the sale of bullets, using a valid Ontario hunter's licence, for which you must take and pass a test, is, it seems to me, a practical and constructive suggestion.

JUSTICE SYSTEM

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My second question is to the minister of justice.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Briefly.

Mr Conway: My second question concerns what happens in this province to those criminals who have committed violent offences using firearms. People like Mrs de Villiers and her group have rightly pointed out the ongoing problems with our criminal justice system, problems related to sentencing, problems related to plea bargaining, problems related to parole, problems related to bail. It is obvious that there are serious ongoing shortcomings in all of those areas that are causing great concern, but more importantly, causing great injury to many people in this province.

Minister, the Ontario criminal justice system is not working. These people among others have identified some glaring difficulties. Will you move to fix the problems?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): First of all I'd like to join the member in talking about how valuable the input has been from the CAVEAT group, indeed from the coroners' juries that have looked at issues such as the Yeo case or the Stephenson case and how important that feedback has been to us in our revamping of the criminal justice system.

It is quite true that there are a number of recommendations that have come forward from those inquests that have not yet been fully implemented and a very few that have been rejected, but as the member is aware, there are many that have been wholeheartedly adopted and indeed have been put into place, have been fully implemented, with the gratitude of those working in the criminal justice system, particularly our crown attorneys and many of those who are involved in the administration of justice.

We acknowledge and honour the kind of contribution that groups like CAVEAT and the various coroners' juries have made in pointing out the shortcomings of our system and giving us some very clear information about what would appear to be better justice to those who are looking at these very serious cases.

The Speaker: Could the minister conclude her response, please.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I think the member is well aware that many of the issues he raised are not within my jurisdiction but where I have indicated my very strong willingness to work with our federal counterparts. Changes to the Criminal Code, changes to sentencing practices, are very serious issues. Indeed, at our recent federal-provincial-territorial meetings, the whole issue of how to turn our criminal justice system into a system that deals in an effective and speedy way with serious interpersonal violence was the focus in every single minister's mind.

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude her response.

Hon Mrs Boyd: The look at the dangerous offenders issues, the following of high-risk offenders like Mr Yeo, are very serious concerns, and I certainly can assure the member that I dedicate myself to doing what I can during my period in office to try and meet the needs that have been identified.

Mr Conway: I'd like to follow up with a particular issue that falls entirely within the minister's jurisdiction, and that concerns plea bargaining. Minister, you have an agent in every court in this province, and those agents are the crown attorneys. People who have committed violent offences involving firearms often have the firearm-related offence traded away at a plea bargaining session.

Will you, minister of justice, recognizing the gravity of concern we all feel about violent crimes involving the use of firearms, and recognizing that we would never, and do never, allow plea bargaining around a drunk driving charge, for example, direct immediately all crown attorneys in this province to cease and desist from any and all plea bargaining around gun-related offences, particularly in their association with violent crimes?

Hon Mrs Boyd: That's easy for me to do, because in fact our crown policy directives are very clear that section 85 offences are not to be part of plea bargaining in most instances. There are a couple of exceptions, and that's where there is a series of bank robberies and that sort of thing where the total cumulative effect of sentencing would not make sense. In that case, there's a somewhat different process, but our crown policy directive very clearly states that plea bargaining is not appropriate around section 85 offences.

I would certainly say to the member that the concern of crown attorneys is very often that all they see is the minimum sentence, which is a year, as opposed to the kind of sentence they ask for in response to section 85 issues.

So that is the policy. I can certainly tell the member that the crown law office views very seriously the whole issue of how early resolution of matters appearing before the court must uphold the public interest and must clearly be seen to uphold the public interest, and I would share his concern if I thought that were not being done. I have no evidence to the contrary, despite what some of the tabloids have claimed.

Mr Conway: It's not just what the tabloids are telling us; It's what lawyers in the courtrooms of Ontario are reporting to us and I'm sure to other members. The minister of justice will know that section 85 offences are not the only firearm offences.

Let me say as a final point, and it's a question I'd like to ask the Premier, quite frankly, but I will ask it to him through you: This is a very serious concern and it is rising in importance every day. It's not just in Metropolitan Toronto. My colleague the member for Cornwall was reporting to me the other day about a murder in Alexandria where a firearm was involved that I believe belonged to an OPP officer.

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): RCMP.

Mr Conway: RCMP; I appreciate the correction. We've had those situations in Ottawa. We've had all of these other cases in Metropolitan Toronto and elsewhere. It is clear that people in this province are increasingly concerned about the safety they are feeling or not feeling in their communities, whether it is in the heart of Metropolitan Toronto or in rural eastern Ontario.

Will this government give this Legislature and all the people in this province this undertaking today: that it will bring forward within days a set of proposals and put those proposals for constructive action around a number of these issues, whether it's the gun exchange, whether it's the retailing of bullets, and a variety of other issues that we could, I think, develop ourselves, with the aid and support of people like the chiefs of police and community groups such as the one represented here today?

1410

Will you, Minister, undertake to bring to this Legislature, or at least its justice committee, within days, a set of proposals and a call for action that we can address on a priority basis and that we will not rise later this spring without a clear plan of action that we can all work to improve and to legislate so that people like Mrs de Villiers, her group --

The Speaker: Will the member conclude his question, please.

Mr Conway: -- and the other 10 million people in this province will rest more comfortably in the knowledge that the legislators in this place get the message about the rising tide of public concern and the growing frustration about inaction?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The member is aware, and I think my colleague the Solicitor General indicated our willingness certainly to look at the suggestion that has been made that the justice committee have a series of sessions to deal with this. The Solicitor General had promised to get back to the opposition around that suggestion.

I should tell the member that I too am very concerned about what appears to be a sense on people's part that there is no sense of urgency on the part of our government. There is a great deal of sense of urgency, and in fact many of the actions that we have been taking ever since we came into government have been focused on attempting to ensure that there is a greater confidence in the justice system because it works in a timely and effective and efficient manner.

We have tried to work with our federal colleagues to change some of the laws that we know are not working well and we have pledged ourselves to continue to do that, and it would be to our benefit to have a thorough discussion of other actions that we can take within our jurisdiction. I would assure the member that I certainly support his call for a really strong, in-depth look at this situation, whether it's through the justice committee or whether we find some other means that are mutually acceptable. I certainly would support that move.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): My question as well is to the Premier. This morning there was a press conference held here at Queen's Park at which Priscilla de Villiers, the president of Canadians Against Violence Everywhere Advocating its Termination, or CAVEAT, presented a report card on the performance of your government and the federal government with respect to the 137 recommendations contained in the coroners' inquest jury recommendations that looked into the deaths of Nina de Villiers and Jonathan Yeo.

I'd like to send over a copy of that report card for you, Premier. All members of this House express regrets that you've received a failing grade in this report card, because these matters are of serious concerns to Ontario citizens.

The main reason for your failing grade, Premier, as set out in the press conference this morning, was your lack of support for a victims' bill of rights. I want to indicate to you that a jury of Ontario citizens, communicating through an inquest report, has indicated to you that Ontario should have a victims' bill of rights.

Present in the House today is also Betty Brohman, the jury foreman, and several members of that inquest jury. Premier, I'm going to send you over a copy of Bill 19, An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: Yes, I can. Premier, you will recognize this document because it is a document known as Bill 113, which you supported on April 5, 1990, in this House, and the first Attorney General you appointed to this House supported this bill publicly.

In the report card, concern was expressed that -- I quote directly from the report card -- "These recommendations require decisions of such political magnitude that the success of their implementation depends on the support of Premier Bob Rae."

My question to you is the question that Priscilla de Villiers raised at the press conference this morning when she wondered why it is, Premier, that before the last election, you spoke eloquently in support of victims' rights and an entrenched law in Ontario, but after you became Premier, you and your government abandoned this recommendation for a victims' bill of rights.

The Speaker: Will the member please place a question.

Mr Jackson: Will you please tell the jury foreman and Mrs de Villiers today why you've changed your mind?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'll refer that issue to the Attorney General.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): The Attorney General didn't change her mind; the Premier changed his mind.

The Speaker: Order. The Attorney General has the floor. The member for Etobicoke West is out of order.

Mr Stockwell: Just like yesterday. We didn't ask the Attorney General to change her mind; the Premier changed his mind.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West continues to be out of order. I ask him to please come to order.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I think the member is very well aware that the members of this government are not in any way unsympathetic with the plight of victims of crime. Many of us on this side, myself included, have spent most of our lives working in fact as advocates for victims of crime and many of us have ourselves been victimized in various ways, so we feel very deeply the same kind of pain and the same kind of concern that has been expressed by the victims' advocate groups.

As government, we have had to consider what we can actually do to make the situation of victims more effective in the courts, to help victims to sense that there is a true balance between their interests and the interests of the accused and the interests of the general public, to try and work by changing the system, by changing the support services, by ensuring that victims have a say in the courts.

We now have in this province, for example, as of March 31, the requirement that victims' statements be available at sentencing, and that has been made uniform across the province. That's been a big demand of victims' groups and we're putting that into effect. We are continuing to do that work.

Given the shortness of time that we have in the Legislature, the weight of our legislative agenda, we have decided to put our time and our effort into those practical measures that are going to make the biggest difference to the victims of crime and not into the kind of discussion that the member wants about his private member's bill.

Mr Jackson: The citizens of Burlington, Ontario, gave the de Villiers family all the sympathy they needed. They did not want sympathy from this government; they want understanding from this government. They specifically addressed to the Premier of Ontario, Bob Rae, that they want more than sympathy, that in fact what they want from the Premier is for him not, as Mrs de Villiers said, to be politically hypocritical. They want that commitment from the Premier that he supports the reforms necessary, the reforms that exist in the province of Quebec, reforms that exist in provinces across Canada. Yet Ontario does not have a victims' bill of rights.

I remind you, Premier, that your Attorney General was here supporting a victims' bill of rights when she was employed with the London rape crisis centre. The fact is, the hypocrisy of your government is well known.

Premier, another recommendation contained in this report card, in fact a recommendation contained from the jury of Ontario peers, was that your government consider budget increases for law enforcement. We have brought forward positive suggestions in this House for ways to find moneys. I'm sending you over a copy of Bill 85, An Act to prevent unjust enrichment through the Proceeds of Crime, a bill that Debbie Mahaffy sponsors and wishes she could be in the House today to re-present to you.

Premier, we have been advised through your member for London South that it is your government's intention not to consider seriously this bill which takes profit from criminals and puts it into a criminal justice system. Today, Premier, we have a legal aid system which, according to Priscilla de Villiers, is being badly abused --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- with frivolous applications for lawsuits being paid by legal aid, when Clifford Olson can initiate, we're told, up to 47 lawsuits in this province.

Premier, I have to ask you on behalf of the citizens of Burlington, on behalf of CAVEAT and on behalf of the Progressive Conservative caucus, will you not support the kinds of legislative initiatives like Bill 85 in order to ensure that proceeds of crime are directed directly at victims and victims' services and we get the balance back into our criminal justice system in this province. Will you do that as Premier?

1420

Hon Mrs Boyd: Our government has spoken in this House and in committee about the reason why this particular bill is not being supported. There are a number of very valid reasons that the member is well aware of.

We are also concerned about ensuring that there are ways in which we can ensure that the victims' services are being supported. The Treasurer announced in his budget last year, and we intend to proceed with, a victim fine surcharge for provincial offences which will do exactly what the member suggests.

There are other ways in which there can be some control done in individual cases on proceeds from crime. But the member is well aware that what a jurisdiction, a small jurisdiction like ours, relatively speaking, can do in terms of the proceeds of crime when we have a giant to the south and several other provinces surrounding us makes it impossible for us to ensure that things will not be published in other jurisdictions. It's very, very difficult to prevent the kind of profit that the member wants. We have explained this again and again to him, and this is another effort for him to debate his bill in this House.

Mr Jackson: Premier, your Attorney General does not only give bad answers; she's badly informed. The two largest media giants in the United States, New York state and California state, both have this legislation. Premier, it was a member of your own caucus who modelled the very first draft of the proceeds of crime.

I remind you, Premier, that what was said this morning by CAVEAT and by others is that there's an incredible amount of political hypocrisy of the worst order from you and your government, that what you said before you were government and what you said after --

The Speaker: The honourable member knows better. I would ask him to withdraw the unparliamentary remark and place his very important question.

Mr Jackson: I will withdraw the unparliamentary remark.

Premier, three serious coroners' juries have reported in this province dealing with serious cases of sexual psychopaths. Each one of those coroners' inquests, the Dennis Kerr inquest, the Jonathan Yeo inquest and the Joseph Fredericks inquest, all had some common themes in them. They called out to your government to propose and help make changes to our Criminal Code and to our Mental Health Act.

The Coroners Act inquest report also indicated that there should be follow-up and accountability, the timely reporting of each of the ministries.

Premier, Anna Stephenson is in the House today. She has expressed to you and to the public her concern that amendments to the Coroners Act be brought in.

I'd like to send over a copy of Bill 148, amendments to the Coroners Act. I would ask, Premier, that you examine these recommendations, which have been contained from citizens of Ontario reporting an inquest, that you would have the political will or, as CAVEAT has indicated --

The Speaker: Could the member place a question, please.

Mr Jackson: -- that these decisions and support from the Premier are of such a political magnitude that the success depends on the implementation and the support of Premier Bob Rae. Will your government implement these bills to support victims of crime in the province of Ontario, yes or no?

Hon Mrs Boyd: First of all, it is difficult for any of us, no matter who happens to get the question in the first place, to answer questions that are in a number of different responsibilities. Of course the Coroners Act is under the responsibility of the Solicitor General. My understanding is that the Solicitor General has on a number of occasions indicated his concern and his interest in the kinds of suggestions that have been made with respect to amendments to the Coroners Act.

Again, I would say to the member and to the House that all of these issues that have been raised we consider very seriously. We are prepared indeed to consider changes, as the legislative agenda allows. We are certainly not saying that we will not consider these, but we are saying that there are a series of priorities that we have set. There are many changes we have already put into place that very much have been the centre of demands by victims' groups over a number of years. We will continue, as we can, to implement appropriate changes.

But no, we are not going to say to the member today that his particular private member's bills are going to become the agenda of this government. We are saying to him that we are grateful for the occasion of the discussion that his bills have given us, that they have added to the collective information we all have and that they certainly have been an important aspect of the work we have done in terms of improving the response of the criminal justice system.

The Speaker: New question, the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I want the Attorney General to know that the private members' bills are the bills of the people. They're the bills of the coroners' juries. They're not the private members' bills; they're not the members' exclusively. They're the bills of the people that you are rejecting.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Since we are getting nowhere in that direction today, I have a question of the Premier. In the absence of the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation, my question, Premier, deals with the situation at the Ontario Science Centre.

Over a month ago 32 cleaners whose company is contracted by the Ontario Science Centre went out on strike. The Ontario Science Centre costs Ontario taxpayers over $20 million a year to operate. Over 900,000 tourists visit the centre each year.

Even though I know your government doesn't treat tourism seriously, I would ask you if you can report to this House on how this strike has affected one of Ontario's most important and publicly funded tourist attractions.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'd refer this to the Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation.

Hon Anne Swarbrick (Minister of Culture, Tourism and Recreation): I think if the Leader of the Opposition were to speak to the tourism industry, the tourism industry would confirm to him that in fact this government treats tourism more seriously than any other past government has.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for York Centre. Minister.

Hon Ms Swarbrick: There's no doubt that the strike at the science centre presents a difficulty to the science centre, to the staff, to be able to continue to operate, but continue to operate they are and service is continuing to be provided. Tourists and students are continuing to be able to visit the science centre to receive the education and the tremendous benefit the science centre provides to the people of this province.

Mr Harris: Earlier today my staff went to the science centre and, Minister, they brought back these pictures of what they saw at the science centre. These are the pictures, which I will make available to you and to others who are interested.

To quote my staff: "The science centre is a complete mess, all right, and it even smells bad. It is becoming a garbage dump. Two managers of the cleaning company are trying to do the job of 32." Why? Because your government's labour legislation prevents other employees from cleaning up the garbage. Even though the science centre doesn't directly employ the striking workers, it is suffering.

In regard to this great advocate for tourism that virtually 99% of the tourist operators tell me has been an absolute, in conjunction with the cabinet and the government, disgrace to the tourism industry, let me ask you this: Do you think it's fair that not only Ontario taxpayers are suffering, but tourism is suffering because their science centre is becoming a garbage dump because of Bill 40, your government's labour legislation? Do you think that's fair?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: I am tremendously proud of the fact that this government presented labour legislation that makes the rights of both employers and employees fair in this province. What we have passed is tremendously fair labour legislation for all of the people of this province.

The science centre is not the employer in this situation, but I do appreciate, having been there myself and having seen the problems, that there is a problem. As a consequence, I spoke to the Minister of Labour earlier this week and asked him to appoint a mediator to come to terms with assisting the parties to try to remedy this dispute. The mediator is imminently to be appointed. I'm very hopeful, as I assume the leader of the opposition will be, that the mediator will have the kind of success that this government hopes it will have in settling this dispute.

1430

Mr Harris: Is the mediator going to clean up the garbage? Nobody wants to take their kids to visit a garbage dump. The other staff of the facility, who take pride in their facility, would like to clean it up but have been told they can't because your government's legislation says it's illegal in Ontario to clean up garbage in your own work site. The company can't bring in its own replacement workers because your legislation says that's illegal in Ontario.

If this strike continues for much longer, as is very likely the case, the centre will lose its attractiveness to tourists. Minister, if somehow or other we can't find a way, through replacement workers, through existing staff or through volunteers, which your legislation says they cannot do, if we cannot somehow get through this, we are going to find that we may never be able to replace those tourists who want to go to the science centre.

I would ask you this on behalf of the tourism industry: Will you ask your Premier and your cabinet to take another look at the destructive, job-destroying nature of Bill 40?

Hon Ms Swarbrick: The employees of the science centre, I know, want this government to respect, as they'd like the opposition to respect, the rights of their brothers and sisters in the OPSEU local who are on strike at the science centre.

I would urge the leader of the third party to join with me in encouraging the company and the union involved to accede to the invitation of the mediator to sit down to very seriously work on settling this dispute in the interests of all Ontarians.

ROBIN SEARS

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question to the Premier. Mr Premier, on November 18 there was an exchange that took place between your Minister of Economic Development and Trade and the member for Renfrew North. It was a lengthy and animated exchange and I just want to quote a very small part of it. The member for Renfrew North said:

"I want to ask the minister, why was it that when we called your trade office, your department, this morning to ask what we might do about pursuing some trade questions in the south Pacific and in southeast Asia, we were told not to bother or even try to contact your quarter of a million dollars a year man, Mr Robin Sears in Tokyo, but were told to contact a bureaucrat here at Queen's Park? What is Mr Robin Sears doing to earn this quarter of a million dollars' worth of public expenditure at a time when we are so broke and so strained for resources?"

The minister went on to respond, and again I'm just going to quote a small part, "We have informed the agent general that this contract will be terminated in March 1994," and later on in the exchange she said: "The member has asked, will we end this practice? I will tell him that I will end it on March 31, 1994, when the contract expires...."

My question, Mr Premier, is this: Has the contract with Mr Sears been terminated, and is he now not employed by the province of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I ordinarily, of course, would refer that question to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade, but she's not here. She has full responsibility for that issue. But I would say to the honourable member that my understanding is that Mr Sears's service, his contract, is coming to an end.

Mr Kwinter: I want to take the Premier at his word. He just said "is coming to an end," when in fact the undertaking given by the minister was that on March 31, 1994, that contract would be terminated.

The information I have, Mr Premier, is that in fact his contract has been extended for a period of about three months to help you with your upcoming trip to China. That is the information that I have. I have also been told that he has really no responsibilities and that the deputy minister is making those arrangements.

I would ask the Premier, seeing as how he doesn't seem to know, to check into that, because the information that I have is usually quite reliable.

Hon Mr Rae: I would say to the honourable member that I will take his question as notice, and that's all I can tell him.

MASSEY CENTRE FOR WOMEN

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): My question is to the Minister of Housing. My question is about the Massey Centre for Women in East York, which I'm proud to say has an internationally recognized transitional housing program for pre-natal and post-natal young women. My question is about Bill 120.

Minister, you will know that today the Massey Centre has an exemption from the Landlord and Tenant Act, but under Bill 120, that exemption will be lost. I'm particularly referring to phase 3 of their program, in which the young mothers, with an average age of about 17, stay for about two years and they learn to parent and they complete their schooling and they get control of their lives. This program is a second chance for them, Minister, and the issue is security.

Under Bill 120, the centre will be unable to impose restrictions on violent or threatening male visitors. Without that security, the centre will lose its mandate, the centre could possibly lose private funding, and the whole program will be in jeopardy.

Minister, I am asking you today, the Massey Centre has asked you, and perhaps more to the point the young mothers at the Massey Centre have asked you, will you continue the exemption for this centre for transitional housing from the Landlord and Tenant Act?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I thank the member for the question. He may have been aware that I answered a similar question in response to a question from the member for Scarborough East earlier in the Legislature.

He will know, as he's familiar with the Massey Centre, that it is a centre in which three programs operate. The pre-natal program obviously is unaffected by Bill 120. The program that operates immediately following the birth of the child is an average length of stay of less than six months, and it will be exempt from coverage by the Landlord and Tenant Act.

The third part of the program, which is physically separate within the centre, is the second-stage housing portion, which is a monitored program. Under the legislation, if the average length of stay, the program length, is less than two years, then there would be an exemption. If the Massey Centre establishes that, then there will be an exemption in the sense that women who are staying there will be asked to leave and free up positions at the two-year point.

The question he asked specifically is the application of the Landlord and Tenant Act to visitors of a violent and threatening nature. Any landlord and any tenant has the right to ask any visitor who is violent or of a threatening nature to remove himself from the property.

Mr David Johnson: That's just great. Here we have 17-year-old mothers who are running from pimps, who are running from drug dealers, who are running from abusive partners. Now what you're saying is that under the threat of this violence from these male visitors, you're expecting them to contact the police, when they know full well that with those male visitors being there, there will be reprisals. They're not going to do that. The mothers are telling you that, with the kind of lifestyle they've had, they are not going to be able to do that. The kind of exemption you're talking about will not help these people.

1440

The administrators of the Massey Centre are saying it isn't going to work. This is an internationally recognized program. It's an excellent program. If you're really interested in the vulnerable people, if the purpose of this bill is to protect the vulnerable, these are among the most vulnerable in our society. Will you not look at this again? We're all pleading with you: Take another look at this. You're putting this program in jeopardy. Please say you'll take another look at this program and look at an exemption for transitional housing at the Massey Centre.

Hon Ms Gigantes: I've not only taken a look at the program, I've visited the centre, so I'm very familiar with its operations and I'm also familiar with the concerns that have been raised. But I think the member has to understand that under the Landlord and Tenant Act, either the tenant or the operator, which is in this case the landlord, has a perfect right to call the police and ask for the removal of any person who is visiting the property who is there as a threat or who is threatening violent behaviour. That is what should be happening now and I'm sure it is happening, and that's what will happen, I'm sure, once the operator becomes familiar with what will be the standard situation under the Landlord and Tenant Act.

It is the case that many operators are not familiar yet with how the Landlord and Tenant Act protects both landlords and tenants from precisely this kind of intrusion onto property.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): My question is for the minister responsible for automobile insurance in Ontario. I've received a number of calls from motorcyclists who claim that, because of Bill 164, they will not be able to get motorcycle insurance for the coming year. I've had two dealers call me also and they're asking me what they are going to do with the bikes that are in their showrooms if the riders can't get motorcycle insurance, because the customers of these motorcycle dealers are going to be suffering.

Can the minister inform me and my constituents and the motorcycle riders in Ontario if Bill 164 has created a crisis situation with respect to motorcycle insurance coverage?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for his question this afternoon. I should say at the outset that first of all, Bill 164 has not created a crisis in terms of motorcycle insurance. The member will recall a fairly major demonstration by the motorcyclists' rights association in front of the Legislature two years ago under the Ontario motorist protection plan. This is a situation that has been evolving for some time, but there is no crisis in the system.

We have a very specific problem which has emerged this year. One of the major insurers -- and there are very few insurers in the province who cover motorcycles -- which has delivered insurance for motorcycles is refusing to sell insurance policies on a particular class of bikes, a class of very powerful supersport bikes. We are working with the industry to try and sort this out. The government's responsibility is to ensure that there is accessibility for insurance for those people who want to drive motor vehicles of any kind on the roads in this province, and at the end of the day we will ensure that accessibility.

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I have a letter from the Motorcycle and Moped Industry Council expressing its concerns about the loss of jobs in the showrooms because of the fact that a lot of people can't get the motorcycle insurance, and this is at the time when most people are starting to get their motorcycles out.

Also what we're asking is, is there going to be a backlash, say, in the fall when a lot of people are getting their motorcycles out and they're having difficulty getting their insurance? I understand the motorcycle rates have gone up substantially, and with snowmobiles the rates have gone up, in some cases up to 100%. I know every time they phone in and ask, it's always the insurance company saying it's because of what this government's done in Bill 164. So is there a backlash from Bill 164 that's causing this problem?

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, I thank the member for his question because --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. The member for Markham, please come to order. Minister.

Hon Mr Charlton: Again, I thank the member for Kitchener-Wilmot for his question because it is an important question and it deals with some things that are being said out there in the public.

What's happening with motorcycles and what's happening with snowmobiles has little or nothing to do with Bill 164. The impact of Bill 164 on motorcycle and snowmobile insurance is to the extent of about 5%, the same as it is on auto insurance. In the case of both motorcycle coverage and snowmobile coverage, there is not a company in this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- that has had an increase since 1988, and as a result --

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): It's already 12.5% from OMPP -- over 17% already.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale.

Hon Mr Charlton: -- the companies that have neglected to keep their rates up to date are now adding in a six-year increase all in one shot.

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): In the absence of the Premier, my question will be to the Chairman of Management Board. It has to do with what I regard as a crisis, and that is the whole situation around jobs for our young people.

The minister will know that four years ago perhaps one in 10 of our young people couldn't find a job. Now, as you look at the numbers -- and I believe this to be the case as you look at all of the statistics -- I think it's fair to say that one out of every three of our young people from the age of 15 to 24 --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): One in five.

Mr Phillips: The Minister of Housing is shaking her head, but those are the facts and we have a crisis on our hands. The fact is that it's one out of three, and you should begin to look at the numbers, because if you think it's one out of five, that's part of the problem.

My question to the minister is this: Last year in your budget you said that things would be getting better. You said to the young people of this province, "Don't worry; job prospects are picking up."

Job prospects haven't, and we see in the latest statistics that any reasonable person would suggest that one out of three cannot find a job now. Can you tell us what happened? What went wrong in your budget? Why did it not work?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): I thank the member for his question, because he's focusing on an important issue. Although the overall unemployment situation is an important one for all of us to consider, there are two critical aspects to the whole unemployment question in this province. He's identified the one, and unfortunately the opposition very rarely ever focuses on the other.

He's focused on the question of young people who are for the most part out looking for their first job, or who got a first job and lost it very quickly. There's also the problem in this province of the older workers who, because of the industrial collapse over the course of the last five years, find themselves in very difficult midlife situations. The training programs which this government has targeted have moved us a significant way along the road to providing direct assistance to both of those groups.

The member specifically asked what failed in the budget. I would suggest to the member opposite that nothing failed in the budget. He knows, and he knows full well, that governments do not create all of the jobs that economies require. The situation that we face is a situation that is true right across this continent and in every province across this country in terms of the slow rate of the recovery. The kind of initiatives that we've taken to focus on assisting individuals is, we think, the appropriate focus, and we will continue that focus in our efforts around job creation.

Mr Phillips: I'll try not to get too angry with the member, but I really think that to suggest that this is not a crisis, you don't understand the problem. We have among all of Ontario's crises -- as a matter of fact, I share with you the concern about older workers. In Ontario in the first three months of 1994, we have a tragedy: We have lost 4,000 jobs in the province. The rest of the country has gained 150,000 jobs. If you don't understand the problem, you'll never solve it.

I'm specifically focusing on young people today because they have been particularly hard hit. The statistics are there for you to look at. One out of three can't find a job, and if you don't understand that, Minister, then we'll never solve the problem.

1450

In the first quarter of 1994, January, February and March, once again we saw roughly 50,000 jobs among our young people gone. We saw roughly 50,000 of our young people drop right out of the labour market.

Would you now agree that this is a crisis, and would you agree with us to bring forward to the Legislature a plan of how you're going to deal with what can only be described by any reasonable person as a crisis? Will you undertake to bring forward a plan for dealing with the crisis of unemployment among young people in this province?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite stands up and requests a plan. I would suggest to the member opposite that he also asked in his first question how our budget had failed. I suggested in my response that it hasn't.

First of all, I didn't say that there is no crisis for young people. I suggested that there was, and as well, a crisis for many older workers who have been impacted by the economic collapse in the industrial sector in this province.

The programs which this government has proceeded with have targeted for the most part around infrastructure development and training, and most of the training initiatives have been taken with the young people in this province, the very people he's talking about who are having difficulties out there in the work market, and yet his own party stands up day after day and says to cancel Jobs Ontario Training and get rid of the 40,000 places we've created where those people are getting training and getting paid to be trained for those positions.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The time for oral questions has expired.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: With the length of question period today, I'm wondering if you would review Hansard to try to get question period down to an appropriate time, so that members who are sitting here waiting for important questions on behalf of their constituents can stand front and centre in this House and present the questions to the minister.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On the point of order, Mr Speaker: To assist the member for Chatham-Kent, I would ask permission of the House, unanimous consent, for us to carry on with question period so his important question can be asked.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): On the same point of order, the member for Willowdale.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): I thought you wanted me to ask the next question, Mr Speaker. I'm prepared to ask it.

The Speaker: I realize there is a great deal of eagerness to ask questions. The honourable member for Bruce indeed has a point of order. We require unanimous consent to continue with question period. Is there unanimous consent?

I heard at least one negative voice.

Mr Elston: Could I just follow up on the point of order?

The Speaker: The one that was raised?

Mr Elston: Yes.

I would like it to be noted that while the member for Chatham-Kent asked that his question be put, he indicated that he would not consent to the extension of the question period. It seems to me he can't have it both ways. Either he wants his question asked or he shouldn't complain about what's going on in here.

The Speaker: To the member for Chatham-Kent, you have an additional -- how about if I deal with your point of order first? If you have an additional one, I'm more than pleased to listen to it.

The member for Chatham-Kent raises a very important concern, and while I realize that there were extremely important and urgent questions which were brought to the House today, at the same time, I continue to urge members to make their questions brief, and to have responses brief as well.

When the leadoff questions are lengthy, backbench members of all three parties are often denied an opportunity to place their questions, and today, of course, was not a good example of how backbench members have an opportunity to place their questions. All I can do is to continue to urge members on both sides of the House to cooperate and try to keep their questions short and the replies short.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: This has nothing to do with the previous point of order; this has more to do with the fact of ministers of the crown referring questions, and I ask you to investigate.

In the past two days we've had two occasions where the Premier in one case and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology in fact referred questions put to them by members of the opposition, specifically the third party.

It says very clearly in the standing orders, on page 26, rule 33(f): "A minister to whom an oral question is directed may refer the question to another minister who is responsible for the subject matter to which the question relates,"

Mr Speaker, I think you have an obligation to ensure that you hear the questions and ensure that when the referral is taking place the subject matter clearly is not in the hands of the person who has requested a question to you. I might add --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat please.

Mr Stockwell: Will you let me finish?

The Speaker: No. Would the member please take his seat. He may not have been here or realized that the honourable member for London North raised a point of order on this very matter yesterday. I undertook to review it and to report back to the House. There is nothing out of order about referring questions. I will deal with the point of order that was raised by the member for London North. This is the same point.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, with all due respect, it is the same point and the same issue and I would like to record a clear indication of where it happened again, once again today. Now the question is put to the --

The Speaker: I have dealt with the matter. Would the member please take his seat.

PETITIONS

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 13 petitions signed by 129 residents of Braeside and Arnprior:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount;

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure that the sale of these serial killer trading cards is restricted to people over the age of 18 years and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who sell serial killer trading cards to minors."

I support this petition, which added to the others I have read over the last week and a half comes to 1,901 signatures, and I have affixed my signature.

COLLINGWOOD GENERAL AND MARINE HOSPITAL

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas continued government funding cutbacks will force the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital to close eight more hospital beds, and these cutbacks are having a continued negative impact on employment in the Collingwood area;

"Whereas the government is failing to adhere to their own 'Principles of Restructuring' which states that restructuring of the hospital sector must be linked to equitable funding, appropriate and accessible community-based health services, and that restructuring initiatives must address the impact of these changes on hospital staff and the local economy and the health care needs of the community;

"Whereas the government refuses to give the green light to redevelop the General and Marine Hospital, even though the provincial government announced funding for the project in 1987, and even though the General and Marine cannot achieve additional operating efficiencies unless the hospital is redeveloped;

"Therefore, we demand that the provincial government immediately approve the redevelopment of the Collingwood General and Marine Hospital and that the hospital be given some financial breathing space to assess the impact of these bed closures on the labour and health care needs of the Collingwood community."

I have signed this petition and would like the Legislature to know that a total of 6,900-and-some-odd people, very good people from Collingwood and area, have also signed this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I have a petition here that was sent to me by R.G. Morgan, executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. It is a petition, and we have had several read into the House, regarding their concern about the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination for those who've already taken it.

The petition has over 50 names on it, most of them from the riding of Oxford. About half of them are members of the federation and half are not. I submit that petition now.

VIOLENCE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas serial killer trading cards are being imported into and distributed throughout Ontario and the rest of Canada;

"Whereas these trading cards feature the crimes of serial killers, mass murderers and gangsters;

"Whereas we abhor crimes of violence against persons and believe that serial killer trading cards offer nothing positive for children or adults to admire or emulate, but rather, contribute to the tolerance and desensitization of violence; and

"Whereas we as a society agree that the protection of our children is paramount;

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

This is signed by a large number of people, and I'm prepared to affix my signature to this in agreement with it.

1500

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 65 signatures from the village of Grand Valley in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, and it's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas traditional family values that recognize marriage as a union between a man and a woman are under attack by Liberal MPP Tim Murphy and his private member's Bill 45; and

"Whereas this bill would recognize same-sex couples and extend to them all the same rights as heterosexual couples; and

"Whereas the bill was carried with the support of an NDP and Liberal majority but with no PC support in the second reading debate on June 24, 1993; and

"Whereas this bill is currently with the legislative committee on the administration of justice and is being readied for quick passage in the Legislature; and

"Whereas this bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and future bills which would grant same-sex couples the right to marry, and to consider its impact on families of Ontario."

I have signed this petition.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I recognize the importance of members representing their constituents' concerns in petitions to the crown. I respect that, but I was wondering if the member gave the candidate, Ms Jackman, in the by-election, the opportunity to sign that petition.

VIOLENCE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition signed by at least a couple of hundred people in my area. It's in relation to the serial killer trading cards. It basically sets out the very same information that we've heard from others and it resolves as follows:

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

"That the Ontario government enact legislation to ensure the ban of these killer trading cards in the province of Ontario and that substantial and appropriate penalties be imposed on retailers who violate the ban and sell these killer trading cards."

It is signed by people like Martina Cronin and Dolores Shuett in Mildmay, and Gladys Dietrich from Mildmay as well, as well as hundreds of people out of the Walkerton-Cargill area in my constituency, and I have affixed my signature to it as well.

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I have a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"That the proposed amendment of Bill 119 mandating the plain packaging of cigarettes will directly cause the loss of 400 to 500 jobs in Lanark, Leeds, Grenville counties, and therefore ask that the amendment be deleted."

This was signed by 700 residents of the Prescott area, and these names I gather were gathered over a period of four days. I am affixing my signature in support.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Ms Haeck from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the committee's report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendments:

Bill Pr83, An Act respecting the City of Burlington

Your committee begs to report that the following bill be not reported:

Bill Pr46, An Act respecting the City of Mississauga

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COUNTY OF ESSEX ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Hayes, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr103, An Act respecting the County of Essex.

COUNTY OF ESSEX LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES ACT, 1994

On motion by Mr Hayes, the following bill was given first reading:

Bill Pr108, An Act respecting the County of Essex and the Local Municipalities in it.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of 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.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe when we ended the debate the last time Mr Cousens had the floor. We had already asked two questions, so we have two more questions and then your comments, Mr Cousens.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to respond to the member for Markham, who went on quite at length to talk about all the evils of the bill and the evils of everything else, I guess, in terms of what the government has been doing and how his government would be coming in and managing things very effectively.

Of course, throughout this debate one of the areas he had to bring up was the Workers' Compensation Board.

If we go and look at the history of the Workers' Compensation Board, it was established by a Conservative government, but when you want to talk about lack of management, and mismanagement, then I think we should go back and look at the Tory record.

The unfunded liability for the Workers' Compensation Board in 1980 was only $365 million. What was the unfunded liability around 1985 when they lost power? About $6 billion. Do you call that good management?

What about Ontario Hydro? What about its large debt that was accumulated through these so-called 42 wonderful years of Tory management in the province of Ontario? What about that?

Then of course I must say too that unfortunately the previous government didn't deal with those situations. Those bills are coming due. This government is providing leadership. It has a plan. It's going to implement that plan. It is dealing with it, making the tough decisions regarding Ontario Hydro. It's going to make the tough decisions that are necessary at the Workers' Compensation Board.

When members like the member for Markham get up and want to talk to us about how wonderful their management was for 42 years, I just automatically think of the Workers' Compensation Board and how the unfunded liability just grew out of control under Progressive Conservative leadership, or should I say lack of leadership and lack of management, because they didn't do anything about it? They didn't take the corrective actions so that we wouldn't have the problems we have today.

In this day and era governments have to make tough decisions. We're making those tough decisions. This bill is part of that plan.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I want to take this opportunity in respect to questions and comments related to the intervention, the submission, by the Conservative Finance critic, Mr Cousens from Markham, to compliment him on the submission he made in respect to our concerns generally, not only about Bill 138 but the taxation policies of the NDP provincial government and its predecessor government, the Liberal government of Ontario.

We know that over the last almost 10 years now -- I describe it as a decade of decline, the Liberal and NDP legacy in Ontario -- we have gone from a province that held its head high, felt proud about its place in Confederation, and now we see almost 20% of Ontarians out of work who can't find jobs, over one million people on social assistance, over 500,000 people on the unemployment rolls. That's why my colleague the outstanding member for Markham, Mr Donald Cousens, has been standing up in this House day after day, week after week, month after month, fighting on behalf of beleaguered taxpayers in this province, people who are faced with very difficult circumstances in terms of trying to find a job, trying to look after their families, trying to simply meet their everyday needs.

1510

It's become an impossible situation for so many people in this province, given the standing we had not only in Canada but in the world as a place to look to towards investment, towards development, towards job creation, a place that people wanted to come to from all parts of this world. Now that image has been completely turned around over the short period of nine and a half years of Liberal and NDP rule in this province. I can only compliment the member for Markham, Mr Cousens, for his efforts on behalf of not only Ontario, but all of the people of this great country of ours.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Markham, you have two minutes to reply.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I sincerely thank the member for Leeds-Grenville and the member for Don Mills for their comments. I don't want to thank the New Democrats for the comments I got from them, what they had to say on my speech.

The point is that since the New Democrats came to power, they taxed us a billion dollars more in the first year, another billion in the second year, and two billion last year, and this Bill 138 is just a further aggravation pushing the Ontario taxpayer to the wall. They're taking the money away from people, removing the incentive to work. They are forcing the underground economy into a blossoming trade. They're forcing people to go illegal. They have all kinds of dumb excuses for what they're doing, none of them satisfactory.

When the one member starts talking about the Workers' Compensation Board, I'll tell you, it's run by a bunch of political hacks appointed by the government instead of having professionals in there to run the business. Yes, the unfunded liability has doubled, by another $6 billion, since we lost power in 1985. It's still wrong, and this government doesn't know how to correct anything.

What we're seeing the government do is drain off the lifeblood of the people of Ontario by increasing taxes: taxes on insurance, taxes on parking. They won't stop with taxes until they've taken every corner and rounded everything so that we have nothing left and the government has all the money.

Our concern about Bill 138 still stands. We will not allow increases in taxes. We must freeze taxes in the province of Ontario. That's the commitment Mike Harris has. That's the commitment of our caucus.

We in Ontario have seen 33 tax increases from the Liberals. We saw them come in with their tire tax. At least the one thing that's happened in this bill is we're removing the tire tax of $5 a tire.

I would hope this government would find other ways of removing other taxes. We removed the tobacco tax; let's remove some of the other taxes so the people of Ontario will once again have some of their own money to spend, rather than you guys --

The Deputy Speaker: The member's time has expired. Any further debate?

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): I'm looking forward to participating in this debate and lending a particular focus to it which I think warrants our attention; that is, the impact of the new taxes on the you-brews or brew-on-premises operations in this province.

Bill 138, just to be specific, talks about a new tax, part of which already kicked in last August. It says now that people who go in and make use of these operations to make their own beer or wine are now going to be paying, or they started last August 1 to pay, 26 cents a litre on the beer or wine they're making there. That tax is going to increase on June 14 of this year to 31 cents, and then on June 14 of next year, 1995, it will increase to 38 cents per litre of beer or wine.

Just in case there's any misconception here, those consumers, those people who are going in and using their own labour to make beer or wine, are already paying a tax on the ingredients which go into making that beer or wine and they're also paying a tax, the GST, on the service component offered by the people who run those operations.

I think the means by which the government went about studying this problem, the implementation of the tax, and the outcome, which I hope to describe properly here today, will be a good case study in how to screw up a good thing.

I want to start off by painting the picture of the brew-on-premises industry in this province. That was a fairly novel concept. It's only been around here for some four or five years now, I guess, starting in 1990, and it's grown to, at its peak, some 235 outlets. Those are operations owned by small business entrepreneurs in this province who sank, collectively, about $50 million into their businesses, averaging, as I understand, about $200,000 per operation. Those were small business entrepreneurs. There are a few chains, but they're more the exception than the rule. Those people mortgaged their homes and some of them gave up their jobs -- well, most of them gave up their jobs when they got into it on a full-time basis -- mortgaged themselves up to the hilt, in short, to get their businesses going and to pay for those capital costs.

The other good news about that small business industry is that it employed over 2,000 people in the province.

So it was really small business at its best. The remarkable thing, of course, is that this business grew, these small businesses mushroomed throughout the province to a point where they were up to 235, during the depths of a particularly deep recession.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Would you please verify whether there is a quorum.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees (Ms Deborah Deller): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Ottawa South, you may continue the debate.

Mr McGuinty: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I'm glad to see I've drawn a greater audience.

I was describing small business at its best, the you-brew industries in the province, and how remarkable it was that they had grown during the course of a terrible recession. Of course those businesses were clean operations: They didn't pollute. They paid out all kinds of money: They paid their rent, they paid property taxes, they paid insurance -- fire insurance, liability insurance -- they paid to heat their premises, they paid hydro charges, they paid water charges, they paid interest on their startup loans, they paid interest on their lines of credit. They paid employment taxes, paid UI, WCB, CPP and employer health tax. They paid salaries. They were putting money back into the community and were feeding their families.

The businesses, as I say, were a success. The owners weren't getting particularly wealthy, but the businesses were growing. The success of the business was due to the fact that these beer and wine you-brews, or brew-on-premises, they're called, were offering an attractive product, were offering homemade beer or wine, plus more: You'd get the opportunity to learn how it's made, and there was an element of fun associated with this activity. You get out of the house, you go down to the store and you buy the ingredients. You get some professional assistance in terms of how to mix them and how to store them.

The other attractive element was that this operation is virtually foolproof. You end up with a good product at the end of the day and it was less expensive than going to the Beer Store and plunking down your money to get this beer and wine that's already ready-made.

Another important aspect of this, and one not to be overlooked, is that it was seen by many consumers of beer and wine in this province as kind of the last legitimate refuge from the greedy hands of the taxman, especially in a recession. The other avenue, of course, to get your beer or wine if you're feeling, as many of us do, that these products are overtaxed is through the black market. This was the last, as I say, legitimate refuge from the hands of the taxman.

1520

It's also important to understand the difference between buying -- and I think the Finance minister has missed this; I've detected that in response to my questions that I've raised in this House with him. What is the difference between buying beer at the Beer Store or buying your wine at the LCBO, and making and buying your beer or wine through your brew-on-premises or your you-brew? If you buy it at the Beer Store, you pay cash. It's as simple as that; it's clean and it's simple. If you buy it at the you-brew, there are two components to the consideration, if you will: number one, you pay cash, and of course you pay less; second, there's a component or an element of time. When you go down to the you-brew or the brew-on-premises, you're putting in both time and cash, and you have to understand that equation. It's not simply a matter of comparing what is the cost at the you-brew and what is the cost at the Beer Store, or what is the cost at the LCBO and what is the cost at the you-brew.

As I mentioned earlier, people going down to these you-brews were already, before this new tax kicked in, paying taxes. They were paying their 8% provincial sales tax on the ingredients they bought and they were also paying their 7% GST on the service component that was offered by the people who run and work at these you-brews. It's important to understand that there comes a point in time when it's cheaper to go to the Beer Store when you consider that, when you're going to the you-brew, you're putting in both cash and your time. I don't believe the minister properly took that into consideration when he decided to implement this new tax.

Anyway, on June 22 in this House, I asked the minister about his budget, and particularly about this new tax which was going to kick in in August of last year. On June 22, I raised the question with him about what kind of study he had done to determine the impact this would have on this fledgling, vulnerable small business industry in Ontario. His answer, the long and the short of it, was that there was no study done. The industry of course was very concerned about the impact of the tax, and I asked that the minister consider a moratorium for at least one year in order to prepare a responsible taxation policy.

I should say that these small business entrepreneurs have, by and large, not been demanding that they not be subject to any tax whatsoever; they're simply asking for a responsible level of taxation, one that doesn't drive them out of business.

In any event, the minister said no, he would not consent to any kind of a moratorium. So on August 1 of last year, this new 26-cents-per-litre tax kicked in.

On September 30, the month after the tax was put into place, I told the minister about the Brew on Premises Association of Eastern Ontario and some of the figures it had brought forward to me. They number 23 stores in eastern Ontario, and their average number of daily batches had been, prior to the implementation of the tax, 16. After the tax was brought in, it dropped to four. That was a 75% decline in business. They told me they needed 12 batches of beer a day to break even and they were down to less than seven. Each of the 23 stores in the eastern Ontario brew-on-premises association had laid off employees. The long and the short of it was that the tax was obviously having a terrible effect on this business, one of the few businesses in this province that was growing during the course of the recession.

I asked the minister on September 30 if he might rescind the tax, and his answer was no. He said, "This is not an onerous tax."

Starting in October of last year, I began -- others did as well -- to introduce petitions in this House signed by customers who frequented the brew-on-premise operations throughout this province. In fact, over 10,000 people ended up signing those, and I've even got a petition here today I wasn't able to file earlier. These people were expressing their concern about the additional costs associated with making a batch of beer or wine at a brew-on-premises operation, again keeping in mind that these people are already paying a provincial sales tax on the ingredients they buy there and paying GST on the service component.

In November 1993, the Brew on Premises Association of Ontario, a larger association which includes Metropolitan Toronto here, released the results of its survey. It appeared to be done a bit more scientifically than that of the people from eastern Ontario. The minister may have had some concerns about the scientific accuracy of that study, but there are none, certainly, about this one.

This study as well assessed the impact of this new 26-cents-per-litre tax. That association has 164 members. The results of that survey were as follows: 186 full-time jobs were lost since the tax kicked in; 225 part-time jobs were lost since the tax began; sales volumes were down by 50%. Remember, the only difference between the before and after here was that we have a new tax of 26 cents a litre on the product. These folks tell me that they need 10 batches of beer a day to break even, and they were down to only making six batches a day.

They also reported that of their 164 members, there were 10 bankruptcies, 33 of the members had gone into receivership, 45 operators had lost their credit status and were no longer able to borrow money to keep operating their businesses.

I spoke with the secretary of the Brew on Premises Association of Ontario just yesterday, and he told me that in fact things are even worse now than they were when they reported on the results of their survey in November 1993.

All right, so impact number one: The tax is killing the business.

Let's take a look at impact number two. What about the revenues? The minister estimated that this new tax would generate $5 million for the period from August 1, 1993, to April 1, 1994, and that it would generate $10 million per full fiscal year thereafter. In other words, we're trying to find out if, as a result of the new tax, we're going to come out making any money on this thing or if the only accomplishment is going to be that we're killing what had been a successful small business enterprise in the province.

In fact, the numbers show that the government is earning less now with the new tax than it had before this new tax had ever been implemented. So the government is now not only losing revenues from the businesses which are going under, including lost provincial sales tax and provincial income tax, plus the contributions those businesses make to their local economy, plus the moneys they provide for UIC and welfare programs, social benefits, things of that nature, not only has it had those tremendously harmful effects but they're making less money from the tax than they had before the tax had ever been implemented.

The question of course is, why? Why did they go ahead with this tax in the first place? Now that it's in place and it's so obvious to all that it's having such a harmful effect on the industry, why do they persist in allowing it to remain in place? Revenues are down, businesses are closing, people are losing their businesses, their homes, and people are losing, of course, their jobs; they're being put out of work.

On top of all this, to add insult to injury, the government intends to raise the tax to 31 cents per litre and then 38 cents per litre; 31 cents this June, 38 cents next June.

The other interesting aspect about this tax is that we're told it's a sales tax, and indeed it's found within Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. But I think by any reasonable definition of the word "sale," there is no sale here.

1530

Let me describe for you what happens when you go into one of these stores. You walk in the front door and you see people at the desk and you pay your money to buy ingredients and you pay tax on that. Then you pay some money to get a service component. They tell you how to put this stuff together and how to store it and those kinds of things, and you pay GST on that.

You then mix them together, and when you leave the store, they say, "Well, hang on a sec, we want some more money from you." But there is no sale transaction taking place there. You've already bought the ingredients, you already bought the service, but they are hitting you with another tax. Again, there's no sale by any broad stretch of the imagination whatsoever, and that is going to be the subject of a legal challenge, I predict.

The other problem associated with this tax is that it's unduly complicated for the operators. The mechanics just haven't been properly thought through. Now when you go in, as I say, you're charged your provincial sales tax, you're charged your goods and services tax, and then you pay 26 cents a litre. Some of the people are charging this up front.

When you make a batch of this stuff, beer or wine, it's sometimes, in fact all the time, difficult to tell how many litres you're going to end up with, because some of it you're going to spill and sometimes you make more than you thought originally and sometimes you make less.

If the government insists on going ahead with this tax, I think at a minimum it should consent to incorporating this tax simply through the provincial sales tax so you pay up front as a percentage of the cost of your ingredients. It's certainly less complicated and you don't have to get into this concern about how many litres you're going to end up with at the end of the day.

When you look back at this thing, it's nothing short of a small-business tragedy for the industry which had, as I said, been one of those all-too-rare success stories in this province. It had been growing at a remarkable rate. It is one of those industries which is -- I think there were a few stores out west, but it started here in Ontario, by and large, and it was in its infancy.

Many of these stores were still in their first year, and if you have any passing acquaintance with small business operations, you've got to understand how vulnerable industries are, particularly during their first year. All of them were less than four years old, and many of them were only in their first year.

Now the thinking has become I guess commonplace to the point of being trite but it's worth repeating over and over again, and I think one of the ministers here in response to a question earlier today made reference to this fact: This government, any government, by and large does not create jobs. It does not create business.

Small businesses will create those jobs that we are all looking forward to seeing in this province, and government's responsibility is to create an environment where those businesses can not only survive but indeed thrive. In that way government can play a vital role in helping us all out of this economic morass in which we find ourselves. It's the small businesses that are going to create the jobs, and they're the ones that are going to give people spending money that they can use to help get the economy going.

My local paper, the Ottawa Citizen, wrote an editorial entitled "U-Brew Tax Folly," which appeared in the November 26, 1993, edition. I want to quote from that because I think it's well put. It says as follows:

"The U-brew tax, which took effect in August, is the fiscal equivalent of shooting yourself, and everyone else, in the foot. Here's what it has accomplished:

" -- Reduced the province's total tax revenues from the brew-it-yourself industry.

" -- Contributed to a loss of 400 full-time and part-time jobs.

" -- Increased welfare and unemployment insurance costs through payments to these former workers.

" -- Forced dozens of small business entrepreneurs into receivership and bankruptcy.

" -- Failed to protect market share for the big breweries, or jobs for their unionized employees -- the real reason the tax was introduced.

"But the U-brew tax has, as Laughren promised when it was introduced in May, levelled the playing field. The surviving brew-it-yourself operations are now in just as bad economic shape as the province."

I guess the long and the short of it is that this government took a silk purse and turned it into a sow's ear. It took a good-news story and turned it into a bad-news story. We had a small-business industry which was thriving, which was growing; it was creating jobs, it was helping people meet their expenses, raise their families, put the kids through school, put money in the church basket on Sundays.

This government, through lack of foresight, through lack of careful study and by refusing to listen to the people who are affected by this on the front lines -- the small-business operators, the you-brew people -- succeeded in killing, or is presently killing, that business. I think that's a terrible tragedy and it's unforgivable, because it was all preventable. That's what makes it all the more tragic.

How about a bit of good news in all this? I have heard that the government is now reconsidering this tax. I have heard that it is considering imposing a moratorium on the two additional increments of the tax, which are scheduled to become effective in June of this year and June of the following year, 1995. If that's true, then I'm going to have to congratulate the government.

I also hear that the government is thinking of reducing the tax which is presently in effect -- a tax where you have to pay 26 cents a litre on the beer or wine you make in these places -- to 15 cents a litre. Again, if that is true, I will be the first to stand up in this House and congratulate the government for doing so.

But I also then, as now, will criticize them for ever having put this tax into place in the first place and, second, for taking so darn long to pull it off the books, because the real tragedy in all of this is that we have lost jobs. People have lost their businesses, they've lost a lot of money.

Bankers and lenders, feeling that they've been burned on this, will be very concerned about lending money again when the government can willy-nilly pull the rug out from under people's feet, change the rules of the game while the game is still in play and add a new tax when people were not expecting it.

Of course, families have been hurt by this. One of the things that we overlook, I think, far too often in this House -- we get caught up in numbers and statistics; we enter into esoteric or academic discussions -- is that families, people, flesh and blood hurt when they lose their jobs, when somebody in the family loses their job.

Studies show -- I hate to refer to studies, but you've got to rely on them from time to time -- that when a family member loses a job, the entire family suffers. There's a greater incidence of physical violence in that family, for instance. There's a greater incidence of drug or alcohol abuse. The kids don't do as well in school. All of that is borne out through studies and all of that with respect to this particular tax, which affects the brew-on-premises industry, was completely needless.

The industry had indicated at the outset that it was going to have a very harmful impact on the industry, that people were going to lose their jobs, that at a minimum they would have to lay off some of their employees. The government did not listen. The government, like desperate people, resorted to desperate measures. It felt that it was short of revenue, and there's no doubt that it is short of revenue in some ways, but rather than focusing on other, more responsible measures, including reducing its own expenses, it struck out in a desperate effort to bring in more money, and in so doing it caused some severe damage to an industry which had been growing and thriving in this province.

1540

I just noticed, interestingly enough, in yesterday's Toronto Star, April 12, that this brew-your-own industry which has grown here is now establishing itself -- it's Ontario-based -- in the United States. There was only one brew-on-premises store, remarkably, found within the United States of America.

Our people here who had a good idea and implemented it, created an industry and employed people, paid taxes and raised families, as a result of the environment the government has created through the implementation of a new tax, have now gone south of the border to make some money there.

As I said at the outset, this is a perfect case study -- I think it ought to be made mandatory reading for all government members -- in how to kill a small-business industry which had been doing so well on its own as a result of the industry, the goodwill, the efforts and the money of small-business entrepreneurs in this province.

There are a number of other aspects to Bill 138 which I'm not going to comment on. My colleagues will do so quite eloquently, no doubt. Just in passing, may I say that you don't have to spend too much time outside of this place to talk to real people at the street level to gain an understanding that there is simply no tolerance whatsoever left for increased taxes in this province. People have had it up to here and beyond when it comes to taxes.

We are at, I would submit, a point which is perilously close to the edge in terms of driving good, law-abiding people in this province who are resorting to the black market over that edge. We saw that in the cigarette smuggling problem. There was a focus on those people who were supplying those cigarettes, and no doubt they share some of the blame, but there is a very receptive market for those cigarettes. We have grandmothers, we have aunts, we have brothers and sisters and cousins and friends who are now finding it acceptable to engage in and profit by some black-market activity of one kind or another.

Just try to get a price on something in the Ottawa area, for instance, try to get the price for some work done on your roof, some plumbing, some guy to do the driveway or whatever. They'll always have two prices, and one is remarkably lower than the other. That's because it has become commonplace, it has become acceptable, unfortunately all too much so, for people to consider that they no longer have to abide by our laws. That is because they have lost faith in the government's ability to properly manage the moneys that it's already receiving and they have no tolerance whatsoever for any more taxes.

The Deputy Speaker: Any questions or comments? Any further debate?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I am delighted to rise to speak to this issue. In starting off, since my area of interest is municipal affairs, I'm going to make just one or two comments with regard to the impact of this bill on municipalities.

The member for Ottawa South has mentioned the impact on the you-brew industry in the province of Ontario. I think he's done an admirable job on that and I'll come back to that in a minute. But I think we should understand that through this bill, there are ramifications on the municipalities.

Now, in this day and age, particularly with the government spending being what it is, taxation being what it is, we all recognize that there has to be restraint, that all levels of government have to follow a program of restraint. That's true of the federal government, the provincial government and municipalities. Nevertheless, I think we should understand what is happening through legislation that is being passed through this House.

I take the city of Toronto as one example that's close to home, since we're located in the city of Toronto at the present time. Last year, through the expenditure control program, the city of Toronto was reduced by $3.5 million in terms of the grant from the provincial government. Through the social contract program, they were reduced a further $14.2 million. Then you come to other ways that the municipality loses money from the provincial government, and this bill is a case in point, Bill 138.

The parking authority for the city of Toronto of course collects fees from numerous parking spaces across the city of Toronto. This bill, Bill 138, imposes a provincial sales tax on the parking fees. In the first six months of the implementation of this bill last year, the revenues lost by the parking authority of the city of Toronto were between $1.2 million and $1.3 million: $1.2 million to $1.3 million was the cost from this bill to the parking authority of the city of Toronto. On an annualized basis, about $2.5 million will be lost to the parking authority of the city of Toronto as a result of the implementation of Bill 138, the PST, provincial sales tax, on parking charges for the city of Toronto parking authority.

That's what I call downloading. That is the long arm of the provincial government going down into the revenue base of the municipalities, grabbing a mittful of money and pulling it back up to the provincial government. I think we should recognize that that is happening.

The city of North York lost, through the expenditure control program and the social contract program, over $8 million. Measures had to be taken, there's no question about it, by the provincial government to rein in the spending. I can tell you that I'm supportive of measures to rein in the spending, and the Progressive Conservative Party is supportive of measures to bring down the spending.

But again, here is a bill that comes through with little fanfare, another form of downloading to the municipality that will cost the parking authority in the city of North York about $200,000 a year. In the first six months, $100,000 was paid from the parking authority of the city to the provincial government in the form of provincial sales taxes as a result of this bill that we're debating today.

I might add that the total cost of this bill to the city of North York and to the taxpayers of the city of North York will be about $900,000. That $900,000 will include not only -- well, actually, it doesn't include the PST on the parking. What it includes is the PST on employee benefits, on various insurance programs that are contained within the city of North York. Again, what we have is the provincial sales tax being employed against insurance programs, provincial sales tax being employed against sand, gravel and limestone that are purchased by the municipalities across Ontario. There is a price to be paid by the municipalities in the province of Ontario as a result of this bill. The direct price to the city of North York, as one example, is about $900,000 a year.

As another example, in the borough of East York, that price will be about $250,000 a year, $250,000 due to the sales tax on parking meters, due to the sales tax on employee benefits, due to the sales tax on liability and property insurance and due to the sales tax now imposed on sand, gravel and limestone and those kinds of products.

1550

I think the public should be aware of what is happening here, that the provincial government is putting its hand into all of the municipalities in Ontario and that cost will have to be borne by the property taxpayers.

I might say it's not just the municipalities. The Toronto Transit Commission: I'm sure this government would say that the better way to travel is by public transit and would encourage people to travel by public transit. Here's how Bill 138 encourages public transit in Metropolitan Toronto. It is costing the Toronto Transit Commission, this year, in its budget, $2.2 million to pay for the provincial sales tax on dental programs, on health programs and other benefit programs instituted by the Toronto Transit Commission. That's $2.2 million the Toronto Transit Commission has to find in its budget this year as a result of this bill, Bill 138, that we're debating today.

That is how this government is encouraging the users of the TTC. I might add it also will cost about $60,000 this year in terms of the PST on parking charges in the parking lots that the Toronto Transit Commission owns and manages.

Those are the costs that are being transferred from this provincial government, this provincial government which has mismanaged its finances now for a number of years, this provincial government which, as in the headline in the Toronto Sun of a couple of weeks ago, has its credit rating at risk. Standard and Poor's is saying that it currently has a AA- rating for the province of Ontario, but it's keeping its eye on the province of Ontario. They're concerned not only about the revenues, I might add, but they're concerned about the expenditures as well.

This province of Ontario has suffered, I believe it is, three credit downratings in the last three or four years through this government and, I must also add in fairness, as a result of the contribution of the Liberal government before that.

This is how the government is trying to manage its affairs, by pushing its burden down to the municipalities and hospitals, boards of education, indeed the private enterprise as well, any employer that has insurance programs, for example, or auto insurance at a rate of sales tax of 5%. In all of those cases, it's trying to manage its burden by getting more revenue from municipalities and school boards, hospitals, you name it.

I was actually stunned by some of the statistics when I was bringing material together to speak today. I knew that in terms of tax increases, it had not been good, but when you look at what has happened over the last few years, I was amazed to see that since 1985, people in the province of Ontario have had to absorb $7.6 billion in new or increased taxes -- $7.6 billion provincially, going back to 1985. I might add that's for the various Liberal governments as well as the NDP government.

From 1985 to 1993, the personal income per capita in Ontario did increase by 53.5%. Some people would've earned considerably more; some people a little bit more; perhaps some people even less, but the average income gain in the province of Ontario was 53.5% from 1985 up to the end of last year.

But how much did the tax burden increase in the province of Ontario? By 73.3%. The tax burden outstripped the gain in income per capita by almost 20 percentage points. If the people of the province of Ontario feel a little bit poorer today than they did in 1985, they're right, they are poorer. The tax rate went up considerably more than did their income.

In 1985, provincial tax revenues equalled 8.8% of the Ontario gross domestic product, but now they account for 11.2% of our gross domestic product. This is serious. Taxes are going up, they're costing everybody more money and they're consuming a larger portion of our gross domestic product.

A firm called Global Economics Ltd did an analysis of the three budgets put forward by this government and found that as a result the average family in Ontario paid $663 more in taxes in 1993, as a result of the three budgets of this government. These are just facts.

When I look back through the tax increases, which are having a dramatic effect, a frightening impact on our society, I think the member for Ottawa South before me mentioned the impact on small businesses, but it's the impact not only on small businesses but all components of our economic life in Ontario; all of our businesses, large and small. You look back and you see huge tax increases in 1988, huge tax increases in 1989 and the largest increase in taxes of all in 1993. That's the substance of this bill today: Bill 138 is implementing some of those tax increases from 1993.

I might add, just in fairness to the government, that of course this bill does do away with the tire tax. Congratulations. That's wonderful news. Yes, you deserve congratulations. That tire tax, to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, I'm sure cost his constituents a great deal of money and they must have wondered where on earth that money was going to. We've wondered where that money was going to, too. That tire tax was implemented by Bob Nixon in 1989, I guess it was. That was an amazing year. In 1989-1990 the Liberal government implemented 16 tax increases. That's, I think, an all-time record: 16 tax increases. They increased the personal income tax, gasoline and fuel taxes. they implemented the tire tax, the gas guzzler tax, the commercial concentration tax.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): That was a winner.

Mr David Johnson: That was a winner, that's right. The Minister of Agriculture has indicated that was a real winner, the commercial concentration tax. Probably the most hated tax in the province of Ontario, in the history of the province of Ontario was that commercial concentration -- and the one with the least amount of rationale behind it. I recall on the radio that evening, the Treasurer at that time trying to explain it to the financial gurus on CFRB. He was totally flustered, had no idea how it worked and was eaten alive by the financial analysts on CFRB. Again, congratulations to this government, not in this bill, but at some other time they have implemented the end, the death of the commercial concentration tax, and that was a good move.

But 1989, 1990 under the Liberal regime, over $1 billion in taxes, 16 tax increases, one of them being the tire tax. Today, we see the end of the tire tax through Bill 138 and I applaud the government for that. I might say that, over the course of its history, that tire tax generated about $200 million. That's the best we can make out of it. We tried to get the figures from the government, and while I congratulate it for deleting that tax through this bill, it could have done it last year; it could have done it the previous year.

1600

We estimate about $200 million was raised. How much of that money went for the purpose that Bob Nixon felt it should go in the first place? The best estimate we have is that probably at most $30 million of the $200 million was directed for research into recycling and reduction projects to deal with the 10 million tires every year that are waste in the province of Ontario. It's a frightening number: 10 million tires each and every year that are waste. What to do with these tires?

When that tax was implemented, there was no thought as to how the money would be spent. The only idea was, "If we collect the money, we'll find some way to spend it." What happened? The money went into general revenues and wasn't used for that purpose. So that's the end of that particular tax, and we're thankful for it.

This budget, as I indicated earlier, does implement a provincial sales tax on insurance programs. This is going to impact municipalities, it's going to impact school boards, hospitals, you name it, but it impacts individual people as well.

When I talked to an insurance agent who contacted me, he said he found it most interesting that when the government was in opposition, one of its main concerns was the auto insurance program in the province of Ontario and how it intended to deal with auto insurance and make it a public auto insurance program. This government, when it was in opposition, felt people were being ripped off by the auto insurance program in Ontario.

Now, through Bill 164, we see increases. In Bill 164, which this government has introduced, not only are there increases, which people are finding hard to stomach, but secondly, the government's taxing the increases. They're taxing auto insurance.

This is causing problems. I can tell you a couple of problems it's causing. One is that there was no lead time given to the auto insurance industry. Many of the auto insurance brokers generate their bills through a computer system. What they found was that it was too late to adjust those bills. So the wrong bills went out without the PST added. Then they had to send out a second bill to collect the PST, the provincial sales tax. You can imagine how delighted people were to receive a second bill about the sales tax. This caused a considerable amount of trouble, but I guess they've worked their way through that by now.

Nevertheless, what's happening is that people's incomes are not going up in this day and age. Many people are unemployed. Many people are either underemployed or unemployed and they haven't got the money to pay for these kinds of increases. So what they're doing in some cases is what the insurance brokers call stripping their policy. They're assuming more risk, a higher deductibility for example, reducing their coverage. I hope the government understands this when it throws taxes on top of what happened in Bill 164. The increases through 164, the increases because of this bill, the provincial sales tax, people are having to assume more risk through their auto insurance, through their home insurance. They just haven't got the money to pay for these things.

Indeed, talking to one broker, he said that he was suspicious that some people unfortunately, with their home insurance, may not even be having home insurance. They may not be able to pay for it. Consequently, they're assuming a tremendous risk. I hope that's not the case, but I wonder if that was researched by the government. I wonder if the government understood its impact on people in this day and age when they haven't got the money to pay for these sorts of things. It's most serious.

Not only that; this government is concerned about job loss. Well, what's happening in the insurance business today as a result of Bill 164, as a result of the sales tax? I can tell you a couple of things that are happening in insurance. One is that there are some mergers that are under way. Jobs are being lost; jobs are being lost through either mergers or some insurance agents going under, so we're experiencing job loss.

Another thing that's happening, and you may or may not have much sympathy for it, I don't know -- I have a letter from Kawasaki in the motorcycle field. They're not renewing insurance. To name two firms that have had to withdraw from the insurance field because it just isn't economically viable -- I respect that it has to make economic sense for them to stay in the field -- Progressive and Dominion of Canada have had to withdraw from insuring motorcycles. So if you had an insurance policy with one of those two firms, you won't be able to get one for motorcycles in the future. This is what's happening.

Does the government understand the impact that it's having? Do they do a cost-benefit analysis? Do they try to make these things make sense? The answer is obviously no. Put in policies driven by some philosophy and see what happens. Well, what happens in the motorcycle field is disasters. What's happening to municipalities is downloading. What's happening to people who are needing to buy auto insurance or home insurance is that they're stripping their policies. What's happening to the you-brews? This was the topic earlier. The you-brews are going out of business.

We said this here in the House. Gary Carr, one of our members, questioned the Premier and said that this would have an impact on the you-brews. Through Bill 138 --

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Read the answer.

Mr David Johnson: Yes. Okay. The member opposite says, "Read the answer." The answer was, and this is from Bob Rae, Premier, "This tax was brought in to create a sense of balance in the overall industry" -- create a sense of balance. Now I ask you, balance, here's what we've got: Business in the you-brew industry has gone down -- various estimates: 40% is a modest estimate. I talked to one of the operators who has a business up the road from me, just a few doors: before the bill, four, five batches a day; after the bill, one or two batches a day -- that's a drop of way more than 40% -- some days none. He's hanging on.

Mr Fletcher: Oh, it is not.

Mr David Johnson: Well, work it out: four to five batches a day as opposed to one to two batches a day. He's hanging on. I'll wager you he doesn't cover his expenses.

Mr Fletcher: How big's a batch?

Mr David Johnson: The batches are the same size: 48 litres for a batch.

Now what's going to happen? The member for Ottawa South says, from what he understands, the government is finally having second thoughts on the impact of taxes on small business, taxes on everybody. I say hallelujah. They're having second thoughts in this particular area and they may not implement the two tax increases on the you-brews, where you brew your own beer, make your own wine; they may not implement the tax increases for June this year and June 1995. Well, I hope so. Let's have a little ray of light on this issue. They may even roll back the tax that's on already.

If you don't roll back the tax that's on already, at least 30 members of this industry have gone under already, and that's a low estimate. We see various newspaper reports about those who've gone under, but at least 30 members. It's not a level playing field. I ask the member opposite, is a level playing field that your business drops 40% and that at least 30 of the you-brew businesses in the province of Ontario, and we suspect many, many more, have gone under? That's hardly a level playing field. What was done amply demonstrates the tremendous impact of putting taxes on small business without understanding the consequences. We warned that this would happen; it's happened. People have gone out of business. Jobs are being lost.

The revenue, and this is somewhat interesting: The government apparently estimated that as a result of the 26 cents-per-litre tax on the you-brew industry, $5 million would be generated in revenue. What has actually been generated? The assumption is that you put a tax on and people just merely go along and do business as if the tax didn't exist, and that they just happily pay the tax. Well, it doesn't happen. Unfortunately, it affects the whole business.

1610

What happened was that the gap between what you can buy from a Brewers Retail and what you pay at the you-brew narrowed, and people stop buying. When people stop buying, even though you put the tax on, you get less than what you projected.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: I'm sure the member would be interested in this. Instead of $5 million taxes, what's been taken in is about $1.2 million. Now, we're not all the way through a full year yet, but it's abundantly clear that less than projected tax revenue will actually be collected.

It demonstrates what we've been saying over and over again:

We have hit the tax wall. The more taxes we put on -- for example, the budget as a whole that this particular bill has come out of put in place some $2 billion worth of tax increases, the highest I'm aware of in the history of the province: $2 billion in tax increases. Did we get that money? We know we didn't get it on the you-brews, because as a result of the tax, the you-brews became uncompetitive and you didn't get the revenue.

What about the rest of the budget? Did you get it in the rest of the budget? The answer is no. The answer is that the estimates for revenue are going down on a day-by-day basis, and the deficit, which was forecast at some $9.5 billion this past year ending March 31, a deficit in the operating expenses of $9.5 billion, is going up and up, because we are not getting the money in. People have hit the wall.

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has an article on this. I wish I had time to read it. They say if people do not respect what and how taxes are being collected, they stop paying. They go underground. The underground economy is flourishing. The building trades industry indicates that about 41% of renovations in that industry are underground. The taxes are simply too high. People don't consider them justifiable.

So what's happening in the province of Ontario, unfortunately, is that the government is trying to deal with the enormous deficit issue: $9.5 billion forecast, but in actual fact I'm sure it'll be over $10 billion by the time all the reckoning is in; $12 billion the year before that; in total almost $80 billion dollars debt accumulated, about $30 billion of that since this government has been in place, an $80-billion debt owed by the people of the province of Ontario as a result of government mismanagement.

It simply points out that we can't, as a government, keep adding tax upon tax. People will not pay. That's the position we're in. That's why we have a debt of $80 billion and that's why we have deficits that continue to be around $10 billion each and every year. And that's why I certainly won't be supporting this bill. While I applaud the elimination of the tire tax, I cannot support a bill that brings in a tax on auto insurance, I cannot support a bill that brings in a tax on home insurance, I cannot support a bill that brings in taxes on many other aspects of our life here in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Thank you to the member for Don Mills for his participation in this debate. Now we have time for questions or comments to the member.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): As usual, my colleague the member for Don Mills has brought some cogent comments to this debate, a debate which I will be joining shortly. I would just like to comment on how clearly he stated the seriousness of the problem and the impact of the fact that Ontario has hit the tax wall, a fact that this government hasn't recognized yet but which the business community has recognized. The impact of that is to attack job creation.

We're losing jobs in this province because of the tax and regulatory regime that exists in this province, a province which used to enjoy one of the lowest tax rates in Canada but which, after 33 tax grabs by the Liberals in just five years and 22 by the NDP in just three years, is now the most heavily taxed administration not just in Canada but in the whole of North America. In an increasingly competitive world, that translates in job losses. And it isn't just one single tax, it's a culmination of all of the tax grabs.

My friend, who represents his constituents very admirably, has brought forward some useful suggestions to the government, which I suspect it won't pay any attention to. But it isn't they that suffer, it is the people of Ontario and the job losses. Unless this government, and any future government, recognize that we need less taxes not more taxes, we'll continue to see these job losses.

The Acting Speaker: Any further comments or questions? Seeing none, the member for Don Mills may wish to respond.

Mr David Johnson: I wish to thank the member for York Mills. It's probably the member for York Mills who impressed this situation on me the most, as a new member just about a year ago here in this Legislature. The member for York Mills has been consistent in terms of his concern about and opposition to tax increases and the impact of those tax increases on the business community of the province. I thank him not only for his comments today but for his tutoring, I guess, over the past year, since I've been in here, to impress this upon me. I hope the message has sunk in for me and I hope it sinks in for the government.

The people watching or government members may say, "Well, that's just a Progressive Conservative blowing smoke," but I was looking at an article from late last year in the Financial Post. It says the Provincial Auditor has slammed the Treasurer, Floyd Laughren, and his decision in the 1992-93 budget to defer $584 million in payments to the teachers' and public service pension funds and concluded that the treatment was unusual.

It's been brought up here before that the auditor has refused to sign the books, and the government says, "No, the auditor didn't refuse to sign the books," etc etc. But what happened was that the auditor, for the first time in the province's history, it says here in the Financial Post of October 1993, has already issued a qualified endorsement of Ontario's books. In accounting terms, that's pretty severe. You can quibble about words, whether he signed or didn't sign, but the fact is that the auditor for the province of Ontario shares my concern, shares the concerns of the member for York Mills, and only issued a qualified endorsement of Ontario's books and noted various discrepancies as the reason for that.

The Acting Speaker: Now we can have further debate on second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax.

1620

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I rise to talk about Bill 138 and specifically how that bill has affected a great many people in my riding of Mississauga North. As you know, Madam Speaker, my riding of Mississauga North is all that area of Mississauga north of Eglinton Avenue. It comprises communities such as Malton and Meadowvale and Meadowvale Village, Streetsville and East Credit. I must tell you, since the government introduced Bill 138, it didn't take long before I was receiving telephone calls and letters about how it would affect people on the street, really affect them in their day-to-day lives.

But to backtrack one moment, we know that Bill 138 was presented just last December and contains changes to the Retail Sales Tax Act. Those changes were originally outlined in last year's budget. As I indicated, this has caused some real problems, not only in my riding but probably right across the province.

The act sort of zeroes in on three areas: first, changes to allow sales tax to be charged on metered parking; second, provisions to tax brew-your-own retail establishments; and third, changes to include insurance premiums as taxable. In the time permitted this afternoon, I'm just going to deal with two areas of Bill 138, the provisions to tax the brew-your-own retail establishments and the changes to include insurance premiums as taxable.

On the issue of brew-your-own, we have been fortunate, not only in my riding but I believe throughout the city of Mississauga, the regional municipality of Peel and indeed in areas throughout the province, that entrepreneurs, small business people took it upon themselves to open up brew-your-own premises. Bill 138 will set the tax rate on the beer and wine which is produced at these brew-your-own establishments.

I think those who are watching on television know what these brew-your-own establishments look like. You've seen them in your local plazas, in your shopping malls. They have been a source of employment. They were a source of growth. They were a success story in small business entrepreneurship during a recession. So what does the government do to what was a success story?

Under Bill 138, the government wants people who make these products for their own consumption or on behalf of someone else to pay a new levy on that production, and this all means nothing else than taxes: 26 cents per litre of beer or wine produced on or after August 1, 1993, and before June 15, 1994. That rises from 26 cents per litre to 31 cents to June 15, 1995, and after that it goes to 38 cents per litre.

A lot of numbers, but the fact of the matter is that the government saw a success story. It saw establishments creating jobs, it saw people being employed. And this was being done during a recession. What does the government do to those people who not only are combating the recession but beating it? They tax them.

What is the result of this? The result of this is such as a letter I received from the Mississauga and Oakville brew clubs. It was written to me just last February. Writing are "two of Mississauga's entrepreneurial business people who were encouraged by both the provincial and the federal governments to go forth and create new opportunities for employment, support other business through purchases and provide more tax dollars for all levels of government."

The letter goes on to say:

"We did that by creating the Mississauga Brew Club, a brew-on-premise," which is located in my riding, and also the Oakville Brew Club in the adjoining riding. "We have invested all of our personal resources earned and saved over the past 30 years and have worked extremely long and hard hours to make our business successful."

These were people thumbing their nose at the recession and saying, "With hard work, with an investment of resource and time, we can make a go of it and we can create jobs."

The letter goes on to say:

"Then the Ontario government...introduced a regressive tax" -- this is Bill 138 -- "that has endangered our business and that of others in similar situations."

They are saying that the huge increase in provincial tax that this bill was supposed to generate did not happen. Instead, and here is the sad part of this, "many brew-on-premises have either gone out of business or are in danger of doing so.... With the loss of these businesses will come the domino effect of unemployment, decreased sales to supporting businesses, reduction of tax base to all levels of government, some personal bankruptcies and so on."

They ask me, as their member, to stand up and speak against this tax, which I do now.

It is incredible to me that we have an establishment, a series of establishments which were successful, which were working hard, which were employing people, which were, as a result, creating tax dollars coming in to the government, and the government does its best to put these successes out of business by putting on this incredible tax. This tax is nothing less than a grab on the small entrepreneurial sector, and the government knows that the way they are dispersed they don't have the associations to fight back. The government saw an easy target for a tax hit and they hit them hard.

This government, through this portion of Bill 138, has caused people who have been successful during a recession to go out of business. This government, through this bill, has caused people who have employed people in a recession to have to let them go. The government has caused unemployment, it has caused a problem where none existed before, and it should be roundly criticized in being so out of touch with what is happening in the cities of the province. You're so out of touch that you would put people out of work when they had been making a go of it.

The second area that I wish to talk about, and I wish to talk briefly on this, is another area which has really had an effect in my riding, again I believe reflective of all ridings, and that is the tax on the insurance, because Bill 138 extends the provincial retail sales tax to auto and group insurance policies. The legislation adds a 5% tax on to the cost of car insurance premiums. Of course, now a person with, for instance, a $1,200 car insurance policy will pay $36 in premium tax and an extra $61.80 in new tax, for a total new tax of $97.80.

We have to remember that this is causing a problem to people across the province. Now on their insurance premiums not only do they have to pay their premium, they have to pay a tax on their premium. There are many people now who are receiving their insurance premium notices. They are seeing that tax. They are also seeing two other things.

The second thing they are seeing is that the premiums themselves have gone up, and the reason they have gone up is because of that government's, the Bob Rae government's ill-conceived insurance plan which has done nothing less than increase risk. When you increase risk, that increased risk is reflected in the premium, and the people pay for that. So the people are paying not only tax on their premium but also a tax on an increased premium, which results in more money out of their pockets.

The third thing in this area that the government has done is -- and people will see this in their insurance premiums -- that there is now the opportunity for people to have increased income protection coverage. It was not necessary until the government brought forward, again, this ill-conceived insurance plan.

What people are going to be hit with in their insurance is, firstly, increased premium because of the government increasing the risk. Secondly, they're going to have to pay almost a surcharge in order to get appropriate income-replacement coverage. Thirdly, on all of that is the Bill 138 tax on the premium. It hits everybody. It doesn't matter what your income is. It is a regressive tax. It takes money out of the pockets of the people at the worst possible time.

One asks: "What is the reason for this type of tax? What is the need to hit people at every income level so hard at a time when they can least afford it?" The government has no answer to that, except to say, "It's a tax grab," and that's what it is.

1630

I am very concerned with Bill 138. I am very concerned about how it has really hurt people in ridings such as mine in terms of taking money right out of their pockets. I am concerned with Bill 138 and how it has devastated the brew-your-own premises and establishments which we shouldn't have been attacking, which the government shouldn't have been attacking.

They should have been using the brew-your-own premises as an example for other establishments to follow: examples of success stories, examples of employment opportunities. But no, they've ripped them apart, they've ripped them really out of our economy. They caused unemployment with this particular bill.

It is a bad bill, it is an ill-conceived bill, it is a bill which hurts the common person, the middle-class person, by taking money out of their pockets and, for many, taking the jobs out of their lives. It is a bad, ill-conceived bill and something this government should be roundly criticized for. They should be deservedly ashamed that they even introduced it.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you to the member for his participation. Questions or comments to the member?

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): I want to commend my colleague from Mississauga North, particularly for raising the issue of the Oakville and Mississauga brew clubs in his remarks on this bill. The Oakville Brew Club is located in my constituency and Mr Offer and I, of course, represent adjacent constituencies.

The people associated with this business have indeed contributed not only to job creation in our community but also very much in other activities in the community that they can now afford to do because they are business people in the community. I think it's very clear that they see a direct impact on the operation of their business through a reluctance of the consumer to continue to use their products and the opportunities for using their products. They feel this bill will create a domino effect that will mean their contributions to the economy overall, through other purchases they might make as a business and through purchases that are made through their own stores, will cease.

The other aspect is with respect to the decrease in the tax base as a result of this tax. When businesses go out of business, they don't pay tax.

Mr Turnbull: I listened very attentively to what the member for Mississauga North had to say. In many respects I agreed with what he had to say about the misdirection the government has taken. However, I really feel he was shedding some crocodile tears when you consider that many of the problems this government has were created by the previous Liberal administration.

I know when he gets up he's going to say how wrong this is, but the fact is they increased taxes, during boom times, 33 times. Did they use it to pay down any debt that existed? No, they didn't. They added $10 billion to the accumulated debt of this province in just five years. They were the best years, arguably, this province has ever been through, yet they added $10 billion.

I remember the last election when I was campaigning against a Liberal incumbent, and at an all-candidates meeting he got up and he started saying, "Yes, there had been an increase of $5 billion." I was just almost salivating, wanting to jump up. The Libertarian candidate got up and she very quietly produced two copies of the budget: the last Conservative budget and the last Liberal budget. She read from it.

I was going to say $10 billion; she said it was slightly more than $10 billion. But during the best five years that this province has ever had they added $10 billion to the debt. When are you ever going to pay off debt if you add during the best times? They added 33 tax increases and they took Ontario from being a relatively low-tax administration to the most heavily taxed place in North America.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: We should have a quorum, I think.

The Acting Speaker: Would the clerk determine if a quorum is present, please.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals (Mr Alex McFedries): A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for further questions or comments to the member for Mississauga North. Any further comments? Seeing none, the member for Mississauga North has two minutes to respond.

Mr Offer: Very briefly, I want to thank the member for Halton Centre for supporting the brew-your-own establishments and for clearly indicating how this particular Bill 138 has hurt the brew-your-own establishments in her riding and certainly, as I think we know, in many other ridings.

I also want to take a moment to thank Gerry and Susan O'Connor of the Mississauga/Oakville Brew Clubs who have taken it upon themselves to clearly articulate what the impact of Bill 138 is all about in terms of their being able to continue on, in terms of the type of the commitment they have made, in terms of the way in which they were trying to create jobs and how they were representative of a group of people who were in a recession, making a success of establishments, employing people and having those people pay but obviously contribute to the tax structure of this province.

The member for York Mills has gone off on another type of a tangent and I certainly look forward to a forthcoming debate on particular parties' records. I certainly recognize that in an area such as ours in Mississauga and in the regional municipality of Peel many of those tax revenues were used to build schools, public elementary and high schools, separate schools, public and elementary, were used to improve hospitals in our riding, were used to improve the services within. I certainly look forward to discussing that in the future.

This bill is a bad bill hurting a great many middle-class people.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Turnbull: I believe it would be appropriate that we had a quorum, and the government is responsible to have a quorum in the House, because I do intend to point out a few things that it's doing wrong.

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

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1640

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills now has the floor.

Mr Turnbull: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I think it is appropriate that we have the government here to listen to the comments that my constituents are giving me about this budget and the budget measures.

When I look at the efforts of this government to kill the democratic process, I'm rather disgusted, but first of all, let me just read some of the opening remarks by the parliamentary secretary in opening this debate. He said:

"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." Well, whoopee-do that they've exempted those. "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."

The parliamentary secretary went on to say at a later date:

"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."

Mr Stockwell: That's bunk.

Mr Turnbull: What a load of rubbish. What a load of absolutely unadulterated rubbish. You know, this is the same trick that municipalities get up to where they say, "Oh, we're going to have huge increases," and then they don't come in quite as much, and then people say, "Oh, well, it wasn't as bad as we thought."

You know, the taxpayer is fed up with shell games, and I've used this expression on many occasions in this House. The kind of tactics this government is getting up to are such that if you were doing it on an orange crate on the corner of a street, the police would arrest you for it. You'd have to have somebody checking at the corner to make sure you weren't doing it.

The budget was brought in in May of last year. We've had two days of debate on the budget; two days, as compared with the normal debate of about 10 or 12 days on the budget. There have always been not less than five days, consecutive days, of budget debate. We had two days. The government has stopped us voting on the budget.

The parliamentary rules, as you know, Madam Speaker, allow for certain votes of non-confidence, and they are as follows: We have one vote of non-confidence after a throne speech is brought in, one after debate of the budget, and the official opposition party is allowed three motions of non-confidence per parliamentary session, which means as long as the government doesn't call an election or prorogue the House, and the third party is allowed two motions of censure which could lead to the dethroning of the government. This government is very careful to avoid at least one of them by simply not bringing any further debate on the budget.

I'm always struck by the name of this party that is in government, the New Democratic Party. It is indeed a new definition of democracy when you absolutely eliminate the rights of the opposition to express the feelings of the electorate.

This is a party which came to power and won a majority government with 37.8% of the vote. You may recall that is less of the popular vote than Frank Miller got, and these are the people who got together with the Liberals to throw the Conservatives out on a vote of non-confidence. They've got less of a mandate than Frank Miller had in terms of votes, but they have decided, no, the people should not have a right to be heard by limiting the amount of debate.

I see the member for Cambridge nodding his head, saying it's not true. Well, it is true. Two days of debate --

Hon Mike Farnan (Minister without Portfolio in Education and Training): On a point of privilege, Madam Speaker: I'm listening carefully to the member, as always, as he puts forth his views, and I do believe there is a misinterpretation here.

The fact of the matter is that he may question the government on issues, but surely he should not question the people of Ontario, who have given a legitimate mandate by electing a majority of New Democrats to represent this province in government, however it irks the opposition Conservatives. It is hard for them to accept the fact that this is a government legitimately elected by the population of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The privileges have not been violated. The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: Obviously, I've hit a raw nerve. The fact is, you have allowed us two days of debate on the largest tax grab in this province's history, tax measures which allow for $3 billion in tax increases, and by the time you take out some tax increases which the Liberals brought in, it nets $2 billion, theoretically. In three years of government from this party, we've had $4 billion in net tax increases: $4 billion.

And where are we today, Madam Speaker? I'll tell you where we are. They're bringing in $2 billion less in revenue, because we've hit the tax wall. We are now the most heavily taxed administration in all of North America. If you don't think that has an implication for creating jobs for our children and the unemployed people of Ontario, then you must be smoking something funny, and I think you are inhaling.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order. Would the member please address his remarks to the Chair.

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, it's surprising that you say that after the way you handled somebody from your own party when they --

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Madam Speaker, we've had two days of debate. I am absolutely disgusted with this government. We have had three downgrades of this government's credit rating, and I believe that imminently we may have a fourth. Well, that would be their record: four years in office, four downgrades, because there is no doubt --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Spot on.

Mr Turnbull: I hear one of the members from the government babbling on about "Spot on." We remember when the Treasurer said that they were spot on. He was so spot on that his numbers were completely wrong and we had a downgrade. That's precisely what I'm talking about, that we had downgrades because they were so un-spot-on.

We talk about a $16-billion potential deficit this year.

Mr Fletcher: Sit down.

Mr Turnbull: You can imagine any number: You tell the public it's going to be $16 billion, and you come in at less than that. That's not fair. That's a shell game.

I hear some of the members saying, "Sit down." They don't like hearing the truth. I challenge each and every member of the government to refute any matter of fact that I have presented here today. Indeed, the Provincial Auditor doesn't like what the government is doing.

1650

What have we got here? We've got a government which is attacking jobs. We've got a government which is discouraging business to be in this province. We've got a government which is discouraging home ownership. The Toronto Home Builders' Association has estimated that the cost of these tax measures on constructing new homes is in the thousands. If that doesn't go to the heart of job creation, I don't know what does.

We've got an interesting new industry in Ontario called you-brew where you go and you brew yourself beer or wine, and this government is taxing what the people do as a hobby with their own materials. It was a new industry. It was an industry that was creating jobs, badly needed jobs, and indeed I see today that Canadian you-brew companies are going to the US and setting up down there because it's a new concept there. We pioneered it, but it's moving to the US because this is an environment which is unfriendly to those businesses, and we'll lose those jobs.

This is the government which wants to increase taxes to the common people who make their own beer and wine, and yet goes to Chrysler in a year of record profits and forgives it a loan. Can you imagine a government which goes to one of the most profitable corporations in the world, in the automobile construction business, and says, "Don't worry about the fact that you're giving your chief executives and in fact all of your workers huge bonuses" -- in some cases as much as one year's salary as a bonus -- "we're going to forgive your loan"? That is not being fiscally responsible with the taxpayers' money.

Small businesses are suffering. I'll give you an example of how this tax measure affects small businesses.

One of my constituents, who owns Fuchs Watch Service -- it's a two-person operation -- has said that the warranty tax, the 8% retail sales tax on parts and labour, will directly attack him. He is the importer and distributor of Swiss watches.

When people buy Swiss watches, they pay for a warranty included in the price. Let's have no doubt about it: When you buy a product and it has a warranty, you've already included the cost of that in the price. It's very simple. So the people have already paid sales tax on that warranty, but this government says, "Wow, there's a new way that we can tax something," tax parts that have already, in effect, been taxed in the price of the new car, and in this case, my constituent, Mr Fuchs, said that he is having to pony up the retail sales tax when he services watches under warranty.

The Swiss manufacturer is not about to rebate him anything for this. He's just out of luck. He also notes that there is an additional burden, a paperwork burden, as a result of this, because there are yet more forms to fill out. His wife, who does all of the bookkeeping for the business, now takes days per month for all of the compliance of all of the different levels of government forms to be filled out and mailed, as opposed to hours when they first set up in business. That, my friends, is a direct attack on jobs.

Mr Fuchs is very concerned. He set up his business some 34 years ago. He's paid taxes and been a contributing member of society and now he's worried about his very existence because of measures that this government has taken -- not just this government; it's successive governments and things that they have done. But you know the old saying about the straw that broke the camel's back. This government has been heaping a lot of straw on the camel lately, and we're concerned that maybe we have broken the camel's back.

We only have to look at what the government has done, piling up taxes on cigarettes, and then it had to retreat, along with the federal government, to a ridiculous extent. I would suggest that had they not increased taxes as much as they did, they would never have been in the position that they had to reduce them as much as they have now, and now we've got a huge hole in revenues because the tax on cigarettes has been rolled back. Well, my friends, you're to blame, because you didn't see that you were coming up to the tax wall.

In the time since 1985, when the Liberals and then the New Democrats have been in power, we've had a 53.5% gain in income. The average person in this province has increased their income by that amount, but taxes have gone up by 73.4%. The tax burden has increased by almost 50% over the rate at which incomes have gone up. If people think things are hard to get, to make ends meet today, it's because taxes are 50% higher than they were in 1985 when Ontario was competitive, had an advantage over many provinces. But we're not competitive any more and as a result we are losing jobs, and jobs are the most precious item we can offer to the people who are out of work and the young people who are coming up through the schooling system, because we don't want to see them having to go to the US or other provinces to get jobs. We want them to stay here and enjoy the wonderful province we've got, that we've been privileged to enjoy.

This government has taken away the commercial concentration tax, that much-hated and reviled tax that the Liberals brought in. They've also taken away the tire tax, which the Liberals sold to us by saying they were going to use the money for recycling and research on recycling. I wonder if you happen to know the number -- I do -- of how much they spent on recycling. One percent of the revenue they got on that huge tax grab, which disappeared into general revenue, found its way into any recycling project at all. It was a complete failure. It was just a tax grab.

This is the reason the government of today is in so much difficulty. It isn't just the actions of this government; to a great extent it's the actions of the previous government, which increased the size of the civil service at a time when businesses were flattening out the pyramid, and increased debt and increased taxes, not a good combination and certainly not a combination which leads to the creation of jobs.

The impact of auto insurance is quite interesting. Here we have a government that always used to campaign on bringing in government-run auto insurance.

Mr Stockwell: Government what?

Mr Turnbull: Government-run auto insurance. Do you remember that? The Agenda for People. I remember them talking about this for years, how they were going to reduce the tax burden, they were going to reduce the cost of automobile insurance. And here's a government that not only has failed to reduce the cost of automobile insurance but is now taxing it so that people who need their automobile to go to work are paying 5% of the premium to this government. For what? For nothing, because they're not getting value.

This is the government that is doing everything to make us uncompetitive, and it has succeeded. In 1985, taxes were 8.8% of our GDP. Today, after Liberal and NDP governments, they're 11.2% of GDP. That is a burden we're going to bear for a long time, because not only have we increased taxes but we've increased debt. In the time since this government has been in power, it has doubled the amount of debt this province has, in just three and a half years doubled the debt, the accumulated debt we've got since Confederation. I can't think of a worse indictment. One doesn't have to shout and scream. You can just very quietly say they have doubled the debt in three and a half years.

1700

In fairness to them, this has been an awful recession, the worst recession we have known since the 1930s. And yes, welfare costs have gone up, but not all of the welfare costs have been as a result of people being out of work. They have increased the benefits. They have stopped home visits to ensure that those people who are claiming welfare are in fact unemployed, to check out their circumstances and that they qualify for welfare. You may recall that the Liberals stopped the spouse-in-the-house requirement, so if somebody is living common-law with a wage earner, no matter how much money they get, that person can claim welfare. That is one of the significant reasons that welfare has gone up substantially.

I'm separating that out from the quite legitimate increase in welfare as a result of people being laid off and not having jobs. We should be able to respond and help many of those people who legitimately don't have jobs. I suspect we need to give them more help, but we can't because this profligate government has spent money in every other area.

I know it's a trivial matter, but I always remind the government, when I'm talking about the way it spends money, of the fact that it gave $50,000 to unions to create a new union song. Come on, get serious. Fifty thousand dollars to create a new union song? Let the unions pay for it themselves. How dare you spend taxpayers' money that way?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Through the roof.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): Anybody have any Valium? Any Valium in the House?

Mr Turnbull: I see I've woken up some of the parishioners over there who spent $50,000 of taxpayers' money on creating a new union song. How many jobs did that create? They spent $20,000 on sending a group of union activists away to a humour school. Gosh, I'll bet that created some jobs.

I don't care what party you belong to, you've got to start waking up to the fact that the people of Ontario are suffering. We are losing jobs because of measures of government. Businesses have become a lot more efficient, and we can be viable in this province, we can be very competitive because we have certain advantages, but governments have taken away any advantages we have.

If you take out of the equation the amount that taxes have risen and fees by government agencies at the federal, provincial and municipal level, we haven't had any inflation. We've probably had deflation over the last few years. There is the problem. All levels of government, of all political stripes, are not coming to grips with the fundamental problem we have, that governments have gotten too large and are doing too many things.

Many of the people who truly need help from government are falling through the cracks because they don't quite fit in this program or that program. Then there's another group of people who are merrily ripping off the system.

We have health cards which, when seniors reach 65, they can trot down to Buffalo and sell, because we're not demanding that the old health card be handed back at the time we give them the new health card. I am told by some doctors that they believe the going rate is $3,000 for an illegal Ontario health card, which the person doesn't need any longer because they've just got their senior's health card.

These are practical ways we can address this problem so that the taxpayer can save some money and then you don't need to take these tax measures.

But hear me and hear me good: We have to allow the opposition parties to express openly and fairly the concerns of the rest of the people over and above that 37.8% who voted for the present government. This government has changed the House rules so we can't have any of the bell-ringing. Remember the bell-ringing that occurred in the previous government's time in office? We can't do that. We're limited in our debate. We're limited in all of our parliamentary manoeuvres.

I can tell you when these people are in opposition after this next government, and there won't be many of them, they are not going to have anything to say if either of the opposition parties cut them off on debate, because they don't deserve any debate because they've done it to us. They don't allow us a proper debate of the most important aspect which drives our government: the gathering of revenue, which impacts all of job creation in this province.

Just to wrap this up, I want to say that we've had a very serious impact on jobs as a result of the tax on auto insurance premiums of 5%. We've probably impacted the cost of new housing by as much as $10,000 per house as a result of the tax on sand and gravel and clay and soil and unfinished stone, because it goes into the aggregates and the sands and everything that goes into making the concrete, the cement, and we have hit a small but interesting new business, the you-brew business. We're allowing people to you-brew at home, but as soon as they go out of their house and use some equipment that they rent, "Oh, oh, let's tax them."

This government has put a tax on the parts and labour component of warranties, a sales tax, when the people have already paid the tax on it in the new price of the product, and at the same time this government has gone to Chrysler, the most profitable automobile manufacturer in North America, and in a year when it has given bonuses of up to 100% of salaries, they've said, "We're going to forgive you the loan that we gave you." I forget the number but it was --

Mr Stockwell: Seven million.

Mr Turnbull: Seven million, my colleague says. Why do you do that? Why do you do that? It's very interesting that where this government spends money is always in a union outfit. Why do they do that? Is it payoff time? This same government has just sold the GO rolling stock and it's leasing it back, and they've sold it so that the deal closed in Bermuda. I wonder why. Could it be something to do with a tax angle? A tax angle.

This government, this is the NDP that always used to roil against corporate welfare bums, companies that legitimately were using the existing tax structure to order their affairs so that they paid the least amount of taxes so they would have money to pay their shareholders and their employees and reinvest in the business. But this is the government that says: "That's bad, unless you happen to be a unionized outfit. Then we'll give you money, we'll forgive you loans, and as well as that, we're going to use the same tax structures. We'll use them ourselves in sale and leaseback."

I can tell you that in the commercial real estate business, almost invariably when companies started to sell their assets and lease them back, it was a dead giveaway that they were in deep financial trouble and the end was nigh. I can tell you that the people who bought those sale and leasebacks really took big risks and often blew their brains out as a result of it, and they were not highly attractive propositions. Often they wanted all kinds of other guarantees. The guarantee, unfortunately, is the taxpayer of Ontario, who is saying: "Don't tax me any more. Otherwise, I'm going to leave." We're losing jobs because of this government's action.

They can have all of the rhetoric they want, but the fact is that they are attacking the small and medium-sized business sector, and that is the sector which creates jobs, not the large corporations which are unionized that these people are trotting down and forgiving loans to.

1710

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments to the member for York Mills?

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I sat and listened carefully to most of the member's comments with respect to Bill 134, and I find it very interesting actually --

Mr O'Connor: Bill 138.

Mr Owens: Sorry, 138 my colleague tells me -- that the party federally that brought us the goods and services tax -- a small business person I saw in the newspaper, and you probably did as well, Madam Speaker, was showing receipts where the small business owner had to turn down $45,000 in sales because the purchases had been voided because the purchasers had refused to pay the Tory-induced, Tory-rammed-through goods and services tax. So I find it a little bit difficult to listen to this member of the third party talk about the NDP and taxes, particularly sales tax.

I find it particularly difficult to listen to this party when one of their former treasurers, Frank Miller, who went on to become Premier for a short period of time, put the provincial sales tax on feminine hygiene products for women, thinking that this is an option for women and it doesn't matter that you add another percentage, that they can make the choice between either using the product or not.

Again the member is not quite on base when he talks about this government destroying jobs and sending capital fleeing from this province.

Mr Stockwell: I suppose after a while you get used to a government member standing up talking about a lot of jurisdictions and legislators who had nothing to do with what we're talking about today. I suppose after a while you get used to a government that simply, on any issue that it has to deal with, blames somebody else, be it the federal government, be it us, be it the Liberals in opposition.

I suppose you're supposed to get used to it, but it's just incredible to think that the member from Scarborough would stand in this House today speaking about a tax bill and then talk about the GST and talk about taxes instituted 10 years ago by a Conservative government on feminine hygiene products for women.

It makes me wonder: Is there nothing that this member can't speak to with respect to the piece of legislation before us? The sad indictment is that it's absolutely pathetic to look at the defence offered by the member for Scarborough Centre. It's painful to see this member stand up, not even defending the tax, not defending his government, talking about Brian Mulroney and Frank Miller.

This member as well as this government have to jump-start themselves into the 1990s. We've long since left the 1980s, and I feel for these people, because they're going to get back to the electorate, and the electorate isn't talking about Brian Mulroney any more. The electorate isn't talking about Frank Miller. The electorate's talking about Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren, and they're not even talking about Steve Owens in his own riding. Frankly, they don't even know who Steve Owens is. They're talking about Bob Rae and they're talking about Floyd Laughren.

When we talk about this in the future, I'd ask you, I beg you, deal with the issues. Deal with your new tax. Explain them. Tell us why they're good. The member for York Mills was sensational. I think it was a great speech he gave, and I was expecting somebody on the other side to stand up and defend him. You are pathetic.

Mr O'Connor: As I sat here and listened to the member complain about not having an ability to speak on a budget item -- he said that -- here we are, we're talking about a tax bill that's part of the budget bill. He's speaking on the budget bills because this is part of this, and I bet you he stood in his place, oh, I don't know, half a dozen times anyway, and spoke about it. Then he talks about driving business out of Ontario.

Mr Speaker, I want to tell you a little bit of good news, because we never talk about enough good news in here. Last week, as the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health I had the opportunity to go to Etobicoke, Engineering Fibre Optic Systems; EFOS, they call themselves. It's a growing little company that has decided to invest in Ontario -- yes, Bob Rae's Ontario -- in Canada; 90% of their business is abroad; high-tech jobs, and their employees are growing all the time. In fact, the reason their jobs are even growing is because they're getting recognized that as employers they can add through Jobs Ontario.

This Bob Rae Ontario government, for the first time ever, recognizes that it costs money to train people. We've created Jobs Ontario. They complained about it, they wanted to scrap it, yet here we've got a growing company, John Kennedy and Glen Harvey from EFOS, who are part of the whole economic development that is happening even within the Ministry of Health. They are increasing their workplace, they're investing in Ontario, and the opposition complains.

Every once in a while you've got to speak positively about something. They don't know how to do that. Jobs are coming here. Let's talk about something positive for a change and let's get off this here where you don't have a chance to speak.

Hon Mr Farnan: I've heard the honourable member for York Mills speak in this House on innumerable occasions and it strikes me that this member has a problem. The problem is that the people of Ontario actually elected a progressive, effective New Democratic government in the 1990 election. Much as he wants to deny the fact, much as it disturbs him, the reality of the matter is that the people went to the polls, they voted democratically and indeed, a majority of members --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): A point of order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to rise on a point of order, much the same as the point of order that the member himself spoke of when he rose on a point of order to the comments that were made by the member for York Mills. I rise on the same point of order. The member for Cambridge made the point of order at the time that there was a 37.8% total vote for the members of the government side --

The Speaker: The member does not have a point of order. The member for Cambridge.

Hon Mr Farnan: Mr Speaker, I would note that the clock has been running through this and I would appreciate your judgement in this.

Let me put it this way: In the past there have been Progressive Conservative governments elected with less than 50% of the vote in the province of Ontario and in those days they were indeed, some of those governments, mildly progressive, not like the Conservatives we have in Ontario at this moment in time, who are so far to the right that they embarrass Attila the Hun.

The reality of the matter is that we have a progressive government, democratically elected with a majority in the province, and we are doing an effective job.

The Speaker: The honourable member for York Mills has up to two minutes for his reply.

Mr Turnbull: I wish I had more than two minutes. The fact is, there wasn't one single member of the government who rose to defend this budget measure. The points that I made in terms of attacking jobs, all they talked about is how they were creating jobs, but the fact was, they didn't respond in any way to the job losses which are associated with these tax measures. The fact is, the best they can manage is talking about a federal government and blaming them and somehow trying to equate them with us.

I can tell you, my friends, the former federal members of the NDP certainly didn't want to talk about your efforts, and in fact, Steven Langdon was more than not wanting to; he said you were wrong in what you were doing. This government cannot defend its own measures. All they can do is blame somebody else.

You know, Harry Truman had a sign on his desk and it said, "The buck stops here." I think Bob Rae must have a sign on his desk saying, "The buck stops somewhere else," because they have never accepted any responsibility for what they are doing.

1720

There was some nonsense about feminine hygiene products being taxed.

Interjections.

Mr Turnbull: Of course it was wrong, in the same way, my friend, that it's wrong to tax auto insurance. You talk about feminine hygiene products being optional; of course they weren't. Neither is auto insurance. You go to jail if you don't have auto insurance. Wake up. This is a job-killing bill.

But I spoke about the fact that they have given us only two days of debate of the main budget and have never allowed us to vote on it, and that is wrong.

The Speaker: Is there further debate on this bill?

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I'm particularly pleased to have an opportunity to stand in the House to discuss Bill 138. One of the things that strikes me immediately is that the taxes that we're talking about in this bill have been occurring through this province for some time now; as a matter of fact, about a year, roughly.

When you think about that, I'm slightly offended that we haven't had an opportunity as legislators, as people in the Legislature, to speak to a bill that has affected my constituents in a rather dramatic fashion. I hope that in the few minutes I have to speak I can talk a little bit about Algoma-Manitoulin and how this particular bill affects those people whom I represent and indeed those people in northern Ontario. Perhaps I might even mention a little bit about how it affects all of Ontario.

First, after having heard some of the debate to date, I should remind members what we are actually talking about. What this bill actually does is it allows a sales tax on metered parking, it has provisions to tax brew-your-own establishments and it changes insurance premiums to taxable for retail sales tax purposes.

In the fine riding of Algoma-Manitoulin we are not terribly concerned about taxes on parking meters. We do not, to my knowledge, have parking meters. We might wish we did, but that particular tax does not mean an incredible amount of money to the people I represent, although when they go to Sudbury or maybe to Sault Ste Marie or maybe even visit the fine metropolis of Toronto, they might be somewhat annoyed by knowing that now even parking is being taxed. But in Elliot Lake, in Espanola and certainly in Mindemoya this is not one of those tax grabs that is going to annoy them greatly.

The brew-your-own, which is the second change here, is one of the strangest taxes I think I can probably consider, and my constituents would probably find this one to be a very, very curious tax, because it's a tax on small business people. Across the north there are a number of brew-your-own establishments. They are not owned by big conglomerates; they're owned by individual people trying to make a living in the face of what could be said is probably depression in the north rather than recession. They were doing modestly well until Mr Laughren decided that taxes on the products would be imposed. As you've heard from other speakers, the tax has changed the dynamics of this business incredibly.

Small businesses that were making at least marginal profits, were returning a little bit of money to the pockets of their owners, were providing some jobs, are now going out of business. We know they can't stay in business. And for what? I cannot imagine that the amount of revenue coming from these particular brew-your-own establishments is significant to the province of Ontario.

I understand, and I think all members understand, and I'm certain that my constituents understand, that governments have to tax. If we're going to provide services, we must have money. But to put people out of business for very little money is something I find a very curious statement on the part of the government. It's certainly a very anti-small-business statement. It is a statement that says, "Regardless of what revenue we are going to get, we're going to put you out of business." That, to me, doesn't make sense.

Now we come to the third part of Bill 138, that does affect my constituents and affects them dramatically and directly. That is the tax on auto insurance premiums, on household insurance premiums or insurance premiums for group insurance, on a great number of --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Considering how we're interested in how this tax affects the people in the member's riding, I think there should be a quorum to hear it.

The Speaker: Could the table officer determine whether a quorum is present.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Senior Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Journals: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin may resume.

Mr Brown: I want to talk a little about auto insurance taxation. I want to remind members that this is not the first increase in taxes on auto insurance since this government came to power. As a matter of fact, the government imposed, I believe in the 1991 budget, a 3% hidden tax on automobile insurance premiums. So we start with 3% and now we add 5%, making --

Mr Stockwell: Eight per cent.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Stockwell -- 8% tax on automobile insurance premiums. I was one of those who ran in the 1990 election, and I listened to New Democrats talk about auto insurance and the ripoff of the big insurance companies and the ripoff of the OMPP, how this was destroying people's ability in my riding to drive their cars to work, to partake in all the activities that a normal family partakes in, because there isn't mass transit in my riding, with the exception of the fine city of Elliot Lake. In the rest of the riding, if you're going to go to work, if you're going to partake in recreational activities, if you're going to go to church, you're going to have to have a vehicle. It isn't an option. It isn't something you can choose. If you're going to get there, you have to have a vehicle.

New Democrats in 1990 talked a lot about reducing automobile insurance premiums through something called public auto insurance. But we know what happened to public auto insurance. The reason, I take it, that public auto insurance was never put before the people of Ontario as legislation was the very fact that it would cost more, not less, and that therefore it shouldn't happen. But then the government decided to impose a tax, to impose a tax of 3%, to increase the rate artificially by 3% through a tax grab. That one was hidden. Then they come along and introduce Bill 164, a bill that has increased insurance rates throughout my constituency dramatically. Then they impose a retail sales tax of 5%.

This is from New Democrats, from people in this province who promised the people who voted for them that there would be a better auto insurance system in Ontario, that the rates would be lower. The people in a riding like Algoma-Manitoulin, which is very large, depend on personal vehicles to go from one place to another. Their costs have now increased dramatically.

I think I know what the people in Algoma-Manitoulin will think about the NDP policy on auto insurance, a policy that has increased premiums by 20% to 25% over what they said were unconscionably high rates in 1990. I think I know what they're going to think. I think I know what my constituents will think about a party that goes out and says: "We're about lower insurance rates. We know you have to get to work, we know you have to have a vehicle. We know that's part of the northern experience. Therefore, we're going to do something about it." What they didn't tell people was they were going to increase the cost of that very same insurance by 25%.

1730

That's maybe bad enough, but when you consider that in a previous budget this government decided it would increase gasoline taxes by 30% -- it increased gasoline taxes by 30% -- you have to wonder about the commitment it made in 1990 to the people in my constituency, certainly to the people of northern Ontario, and of course to the whole province.

We find these kinds of regressive taxes on a lifestyle we must maintain. We can't get on the TTC. It isn't there. We pay for the TTC, like all Ontarians do, through our taxes, but we can't use the subway. I was hoping the constituents could at some point maybe go from Providence Bay to Mindemoya on a subway, but I think that would be a little expensive and hard to sell to any Treasurer of the province.

This particular measure being debated about nine months after it took effect is passing strange. We're standing here in this place right now scratching our heads and saying, "Why would a government do this?" I have to give the Minister of Finance some credit for being somewhat astute in 1993 when he presented his budget. He seemed to understand that Ontarians were hitting the wall about taxes, that there was a growing underground economy. I would suggest to you that this is one reason he introduced a tax on automobile insurance premiums. He knew they would be collected. That's the beauty of this. He knew there was no way of avoiding paying a retail sales tax, because some insurance company, some insurance broker, has to collect it at some point and send it to him. It's not something you can do underground, unless you choose not to insure your car.

At least in some ways the Treasurer back then understood that the tax wall had been reached, that people would not pay more taxes for less services, and if there's anything this government's been about, it's pay more and get less. He used this rather interesting vehicle to get at your pocketbook because you can't avoid paying it. You pay 25% more, at least, than you did in 1990 for automobile insurance because of the very measures this government has taken.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: They are really interesting points the member makes, and there should be quorum to hear them.

The Speaker: Would the table officer determine whether a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin may resume his speech.

Mr Brown: Thank you, Mr Speaker, I always enjoy seeing my colleagues come out for one of my efforts in the House.

As I was saying when I was interrupted, the automobile insurance premium tax is hurting the constituents in Killarney. It's hurting my constituents in Meldrum Bay. It's a real problem for the many seniors in my area. We have seniors who are actually moving to our area in great numbers, because what we have is a bountiful amount of very good housing and, as you know, the city of Elliot Lake has encouraged many seniors to come.

But one of the realities of seniors is that they have fixed incomes, and one of the realities is that in most cases they need and want their cars, and one of the realities is that they have difficulty paying increased premiums to the Minister of Finance of this government.

I think the seniors of this province, and particularly in an area like the one I represent, are going to have great difficulty and are having great difficulty, because they tell me so through writing, phoning my office, coming in to see me, stopping me on the street.

They're concerned about this tax grab by a government that it seems they can do nothing about and have great difficulty understanding how it adds up with the promises of this particular political party that is now governing the province of Ontario that were made to them in 1990 in the famous, or infamous, Agenda for People. I think they're going to find that really quite strange.

The other problem with this tax on insurance moves into the group insurance area, where people now have to pay tax on the premiums on their group health insurance. If you have health insurance through your company, guess what? The government is now taxing you.

I have a sister who works for the federal government. She was quite surprised that, gee, in her paycheque there was a large deduction for Bob Rae's tax on her group insurance. The federal government, for whatever reason, had not got into the system early, and they had to pay a lump sum payment.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think we should hear more about his sister and there should be a quorum to hear it.

The Speaker: Would the table officer determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin may resume his speech.

Mr Brown: I was talking about group insurance and the effect premium increases are having, and there are premium increases. Certainly if you talk to anybody who's in a labour union, anybody who's a manager, anybody who owns a business, one of the great problems they have today is controlling benefit costs, benefit premiums, in order to make sure the people in the workplace have the effective and proper amount of benefit coverage.

It's getting increasingly difficult for employers and employees to negotiate good benefit plans, and one of the reasons is the increased pressure on the system. Now, on top of the increased pressure on the system -- which we know is happening anyway; that's going on -- a government imposes unilaterally an 8% tax.

Mr Speaker, what do you think is going to happen? I know what I think is going to happen. I think companies are going to have a very difficult time in providing the benefits to their employees at the level they are providing them at today. I don't think there's any question about that, and I think adding an artificial 8% cost to these premiums will mean less benefits.

1740

If I'm the union steward, if I'm the union negotiator going to see the company, I don't think I appreciate the fact that the company's bill for insurance for me and my colleagues has gone up artificially 8% and the company somehow has to absorb that. I think when I go in to bargain, I would like to get some better benefits and I think this just makes it more difficult for both labour and management to be able to provide the kinds of benefits that most members in this Legislature would expect people to have. That's what it does.

There seems to be a trend, and this bill informs it. The trend is to get revenue where it usually can't be seen. Who knows that group insurance premiums are being taxed, unless you get a bill? I know some superannuated teachers are upset, I know various groups of retirees are upset about this, but most people don't know. So it seems like a good place to get revenue.

When you put this kind of sneaky tax into place, you're grabbing money without people being able to say: "Yes, that's what it's about. I understand I'm getting this benefit and that this is the tax I have to pay for it." What they're really saying with this is: "We've got to hide it. We've got to collect it through means that people don't really see it coming out of their pocketbook directly or we won't get it."

In the very same budget that this bill comes from, we also know there's over $200 million of fee increases, increases to things like Outdoors cards and moose licences and you name it: increases in fees that people have to pay.

In my role as critic of the Ministry of Natural Resources I have seen a huge increase in the amount that companies and individuals have to pay to harvest our crown forests. Mr Speaker, you'd be surprised to know, I'm sure, that the area charges for forest companies have doubled in the last year and that the stumpage fees have gone up dramatically. We're about to find out that they're going to increase $2.50 or $3 more very shortly.

It comes to a point where somebody has to say: "Are the rates in Ontario competitive? Is the taxation that we are levying, whether it be by fees or whether it be by kind of insidious measures like this retail sales tax grab, providing value to the people of Ontario?" Because taxation is really about value. People don't mind paying taxes. Nobody really likes it, but they don't mind if they see that there's value.

For the last four years we have seen, I believe, overall, a tax increase in the province of Ontario of about 12%, we have seen and will see about a doubling of the accumulated debt of this province and we will see a dramatic decrease in the amount of services that people are getting for the tax dollars they're paying. It's about value. People are willing to pay taxes if there is value.

I think on behalf of my constituents in Algoma-Manitoulin, I can fairly say they don't believe the decrease in hospital beds at St Joe's in Elliot Lake, the cutting of services at the Manitoulin Health Centre, a decrease in our ambulance service, problems with seniors' programs, especially the drug benefit program, and many others -- they don't see those as increases in service. I don't think many members of this House will either.

I would suggest to you that any tax measure has to be evaluated on its value, on value for money, on that kind of very reasonable and rational approach. The people in my constituency are seeing less and less and it's costing them more and more. I don't believe that they would ask me, as the person who represents them, to support a tax grab as large as this one.

We talk about tax grabs, and I believe that this is the largest tax grab in Ontario's history. The second one happened in 1984, under the Miller government, as good as my friends over here in the third party are at avoiding that issue.

The fact is that the increase in taxation is not just something that this government has done. The taxes in this province have been raised by all three political parties, and they've been raised because we are providing increased services -- or should only be raised if there are increased services, increased value to the people of Ontario. The fact is that by any stretch of the imagination, this government has failed that test.

My constituents would instruct me to not support the government's budgetary policy, they would instruct me to vote against Bill 138, and they would instruct me to do everything in my power to bring about an election if that is at all in the cards, and I want to tell my constituents that I will do my best to accomplish all three of those.

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for Algoma-Manitoulin for his contribution to the debate and invite any questions and/or comments. Is there further debate on this bill?

Mr Stockwell: I guess the dilemma faced by the government at this time is trying to defend year-old or two-year-old tax measures to the general public. There's clearly no segment of the population out there, no broadly based segment of the population, that in fact would support --

Mr Brown: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe there's a quorum present.

The Speaker: Would the table officer determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his debate.

Mr Stockwell: I would like to thank the member for Algoma-Manitoulin for ensuring that the proper numbers in the House are in fact here so we can carry on the business that the government deems necessary for the people in this province. I would add that the government members are responsible to keep a quorum. In case the viewing public doesn't know, they've done a rather poor job today. They would receive failing grades on ensuring 20 of their members are actively aware of what's going on in the Legislature today.

Hon Allan Pilkey (Minister without Portfolio in Municipal Affairs): Your caucus wouldn't even listen to you. They've all gone home.

Mr Stockwell: I see the ex-minister of Solicitor General, and I forget how many ex-ministers he was --

Mr Pilkey: There isn't a single one. You're babbling on incessantly with no support from your caucus.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: A junior minister from Oshawa who gets a car. Actually, a junior minister's job isn't too bad when you think about it. You get the car, you get more money but you don't have any responsibility. That's kind of a great thought. You wouldn't have to spend your time at the cabinet table, but you get to run out to your car and go to McDonald's for lunch any time you want.

So having noted that interesting sidebar, it's rather interesting that this government, which often talked about previous legislators and previous governments --

Mrs Sullivan: Number 6.

Mr Stockwell: Number 6, right -- and the regressiveness with which previous governments implemented tax hikes. We could argue long and hard about the tax hikes, and clearly this government thinks they're warranted.

1750

What I find the most interesting is the places they decided to increase the taxes. When in opposition, this government often spoke about regressive taxes. Their definition of a regressive tax was based not on ability to pay. A tax that was based on ability to pay was a progressive tax, a tax that the socialists could buy into. The Treasurer himself was often a speaker of this.

A regressive tax was one that was solely based on purchasing, particularly on items that all people needed to purchase, and therefore everyone was charged the same amount of money or same portion of tax. That became a regressive tax because it wasn't based on the ability to pay; it was simply based on a broad sector of the economy.

It's curious, having recalled those heady days when in opposition Bob Rae would often stand and talk about regressive taxes and how they were the terrible things that made the poor poorer and the wealthy wealthier and those kinds of regressive tax were something that he would never stand for and he didn't believe in, and that kind of terrible stuff would never happen under a socialist in Ontario.

We sit here today -- I stand -- and we talk about the taxes that have been implemented by this government, particularly as part of this bill, Bill 138. It's funny, you know, because every tax that you deal with in this act is what Mr Bob Rae, QC, would've classified as a regressive tax. Think about it.

Insurance on your car: Why is that a regressive tax? Because if you own a car, you have to have insurance. The law says you have to have insurance to drive your car. So everybody who owns a car, as wealthy as you may be and as a working poor person who's just getting to work and back to keep your job, or a farmer or a person in northern Ontario where there isn't public transportation or people in rural settings where they don't have the ways and means to get around, they have to buy a car or a truck. So what is this tax classified as? A regressive tax.

Son of a gun, it's a socialist standing up and saying, "Let's put forward a regressive tax on insurance," insurance, by law, that we say you must have, and tax them across the board.

Mr Perruzza: Here comes Bob. Hey, Bob.

Mr Stockwell: This may be difficult for the member for Downsview to take in. I suggest he take Hansard home, reread it tonight, and he'll catch on. Regressive tax is something he doesn't believe in. Regressive tax, I know the member for Fort York doesn't believe in because I remember the regressive tax issue with the market value assessment, and I remember the positions put forward by those people on the other side of the House, how municipal taxes were a regressive tax. It wasn't based on ability to pay, and it should be done away with. Well, market value assessment got in the way and all that terrible stuff. They never rectified that problem.

But insurance, got to have insurance on your car, got to have it on your car in any part of this province, and this government slapped a provincial sales tax on insurance that did not exist before.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: The Minister of Agriculture should know this because this is a concern brought forward by many of the farming community in Ontario. Many of the farming community said: "I need these vehicles. These are part of my job. These help run my farm." And he's saying, "No matter how wealthy you are, no matter how you can afford it, you pay that provincial tax on the insurance."

Gosh, you'd think it wasn't a socialist in power any more, but my eyes don't fool me; it is.

Warranty tax: Here's a good one. Floyd was sitting around one day and he was saying, "Where can I go to find more tax?" One of the mandarins in the back office in the dark room somewhere got a bright idea, scratching his head, and said, "Why don't we tax warranties?"

You see, I remember the days when warranties really were free. "This is a free warranty." Well, it wasn't really free. We all knew full well a warranty was something you paid for in the price of the purchase you're making, so the warranty price is built in.

If you bought a toaster or a blender or a car, they provided you with a warranty. You knew the manufacturer had built into the price a cost component to take care of that warranty, but Floyd's mandarin who got the bright idea, got Floyd's ear one day, and he said: "Boy, they won't figure this out. You just tax the warranty. So if they ever come back in to fix that item that used to be what they thought was free, we'll tax them." So Floyd decided to tax a warranty.

It seems to me that if the price of that warranty is built into the product or commodity you're purchasing, this in fact becomes a double tax. Also, it becomes a regressive tax, because warranties on cars are on all cars now, from the smallest to the largest, from the most expensive to the most inexpensive.

So we have here another example of socialist Ontario: another regressive tax contained in Bill 138. You'd think that wouldn't be the case. You'd think that socialists would not want to implement regressive taxes that penalize not just the wealthy but a broad cross-section of the community, regardless of how much money you make. You'd think socialists used to believe in that. They did, but on the way across the floor they got bonked on the head and they forgot all kinds of things.

What else did they forget? Well, here's an interesting one. This is even better, because this is not just a regressive tax, this is a tax on the less affluent, let's say -- I don't like saying a tax on the poor; this is a tax on the less affluent -- because they decided one day that people who were operating brew-your-own operations weren't paying enough tax.

Why? Well, we all know why. The big unions got together at the big breweries and came into Floyd's office and said: "Mr Floyd, we've got a problem here. You're taxing us to death to such a degree, and the taxes we are paying on beer are creating a marketplace where we have to sell our beer for x, and somebody can go out and open a brew-your-own and sell it for something significantly less than x."

Who are the people who were using those brew-your-own establishments? Lo and behold, this is worse than a regressive tax, because I'll say this: People making oodles of money and the wealthy probably weren't going to brew-your-own. I don't have statistics, but I would bet that the person who went to brew-your-own was the guy, probably a man, who went to this store because he wanted to avoid the oppressive, obnoxious, overbearing, overregulated taxes when he bought a case of beer.

Think about it. They went in to buy a case of beer and it was $31, $32, whatever it came to. Then they'd go to a brew-your-own establishment and pay something significantly less because they couldn't afford to pay the price for that case at the beer store. So who do Bob and Floyd and the mandarins put their heads together and hammer? Not the wealthy, not even the upper middle class: the poor guy who's trying to eke out a living. He thinks with the toil and sweat of his own hard work he would brew his own beer, take it home and while the hockey game was on, have a drink of beer, and no, he's not paying this enormous amount of taxes. But Bob and Floyd got him.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: He's in full flight. The fact is that he's saying some rather important things and I don't think there's a quorum here to listen to him.

The Speaker: Would the table officer determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: The honourable member for Etobicoke West may resume his speech.

Mr Stockwell: Bob and Floyd got together and said: "How are we going to hammer these working-poor people who, with the sweat and toil of their brows, would go out and brew their own beer and get away with not paying our taxes? How are we going to get those guys?"

Floyd decided, "We'll get them; we'll just tax the brew-your-own." So they're not taxing the beer, they're not taxing the purchase; they're taxing the sweat off their brows. They're taxing hard work. They're taxing a Saturday morning that you get up and go out and brew your own beer, working hard, sweating and doing it. Floyd says, "We're going to tax the sweat off this man's brow."

Is nothing sacred? No longer can you just go out, work hard and toil. Now they'll go into your back gardens, count how many vegetables you've grown and start slapping a tax on the vegetables grown in the backyards of Metropolitan Toronto. Is there no level this government --

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Given that there is only one Liberal and two Conservatives, I don't believe there's a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Would you determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: There is a quorum present.

The Speaker: We've determined that a quorum is present. There is a quorum present. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: You know, Mr Speaker, it just is poetic justice that this guy could stand up and have his shoe fall out of his mouth. Here he goes again.

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I've just counted. Given that there's only one Liberal and two Conservatives, I don't believe there's a quorum in the House.

The Speaker: Could the table officer determine if a quorum is present.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is not present, Speaker.

The Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: A quorum is now present, Speaker.

The Speaker: It now being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 10 of the clock tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 1802.

13 avril 1994