Journal des débats 1994-avril-18 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): Last Thursday marked a very important achievement by six municipalities in my riding of Brant-Haldimand because now the county of Brant and the city of Brantford have access to the enhanced 911 public emergency reporting service.

I congratulate the councils of the city of Brantford and the county of Brant on this important achievement. A great deal of time and effort has gone into bringing this important initiative to the residents of the entire county and the city.

The proposal was initiated by the council of the county of Brant some four years ago and required a great deal of research and coordination by county and city staff and the strong support of the Southwestern Ontario Wardens' Association.

This important initiative was accomplished locally without any involvement or assistance from the Ontario Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Recreation. This was a perfect opportunity for the government to work with the county to provide leadership so other communities across the province could benefit from their experience. However, the province was of little assistance, and now other municipalities are looking at the Brant county-Brantford initiative as a prototype.

Brant county will be the first jurisdiction to use the most advanced 911 system that is available. Small municipalities in rural areas will benefit from the Brant county example because of the unique billing system: a few cents on each subscriber's telephone bill.

I congratulate the city and county on this important initiative.

DUFFERIN AREA HOSPITAL AUXILIARY

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I rise in the House today to acknowledge all the hard work and dedication the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary has provided to the community of Orangeville and district. The hospital auxiliary is celebrating its 40th anniversary this year.

With a membership of 180 volunteers, the auxiliary has provided support to the staff and patients of the Dufferin Area Hospital by operating a gift shop, assisting at the admitting desk, in the emergency department, operating rooms, ambulatory care, and has even provided clerical support in the labs, as well as fund-raising for the hospital building and equipment fund.

As with many organizations in our community, the Dufferin Area Hospital has been busy raising funds for the new hospital. Later this week the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary will fulfil its pledge to the hospital building fund and turn over the last instalment of its five-year commitment to the building fund of $350,000.

I would like to congratulate the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary for all the important duties it performs in and outside the hospital. The care community would not be able to have the wonderful quality of care that it has currently without the support and assistance of the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary.

As politicians, we often talk about how communities must look after themselves by focusing on community-based programs. We can all learn valuable lessons of community support from the Dufferin Area Hospital Auxiliary and how it has worked tirelessly in our community for over 40 years.

I wish them all the best and hope their next 40 years are as successful as the previous 40.

UXBRIDGE FAMILY RESOURCES SHOW

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I'm pleased to rise in the Legislature today to inform the House about the Uxbridge Family Resources Show to be held at the Uxbridge seniors centre on Saturday, April 30, 1994, between 10 am and 4 pm.

The family resources show is sponsored by the Durham West Childcare Initiative. It's a celebration to promote the importance of the family and togetherness in our communities. It will be a forum for family organizations and clubs that demonstrate the resources and services they have to offer the Uxbridge community in a fun and festive environment in celebration of 1994, the International Year of the Family.

The day's events are going to include some children's entertainers, the Joseph Gould Jazz Band, which you've heard me speak about before because it has won gold, karate demonstrations and story readings. There will be a supervised children's play area, refreshments and many information displays, all about family resources and services in the Uxbridge area of my riding.

The Uxbridge Family Resources Show will be a great opportunity for everyone in the Uxbridge area to find out about the many local sports clubs, service clubs, schools and churches in the community.

I'm pleased to have the opportunity to announce that right here in the Legislature today. I invite anybody who might be here or watching or who lives in the Uxbridge area and all members of the Legislature, including yourself and your family, Mr Speaker, to attend and enjoy the show at the Uxbridge family show. It'll be the 1994 -- it might be the first one of many to come -- Uxbridge Family Resources Show.

STUDENT DEBATING COMPETITION

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Recently the Ontario Student Debating Union held its 1994 provincial seminar and debating competition at St Andrew's College in Aurora. This competition was held to select the Ontario participants for the Canadian student debating championships to be held later this month in Winnipeg.

Six students representing different geographical regions of the province and from three different debating categories were selected from the Aurora debate. The top bilingual competitor was Neil McGraw of Collège Notre-Dame in Sudbury. The top French-language debater was Stéphanie Malherbe from the Lycée Claudel in Ottawa.

The top four English-language debaters were Sacha Thacker of Lorne Park Collegiate in Toronto, Dawnelee Hill of Fort William Collegiate in Thunder Bay, John Matterson of the Ursuline College in Chatham and Robert Mulvale of White Oaks Collegiate in Oakville. Of particular note is Dawnelee Hill of Thunder Bay. As a person with a disability, having less than 3% vision, Dawnelee's participation was an inspiration to us all.

Next month all of these competitors will be meeting with the Lieutenant Governor here at Queen's Park. I believe all the competitors deserve our congratulations and the winners our best wishes for good results in Winnipeg.

1340

ORGAN DONORS

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): The week of April 17 has been designated as Organ Donor Awareness Week, and on behalf of my caucus colleagues, I would like to take this opportunity to raise public awareness about this important issue.

Last year 566 Ontarians received organ transplants, transplants that meant a chance at a new life. Sadly, almost 1,000 others are left playing a waiting game, uncertain that a donor organ will ever become available. Unfortunately, this tragic situation occurs because the public is unaware of the importance of donated organs. Too few people in Ontario have signed organ donor cards and discussed their wishes with their families.

This critical need for donors is what prompted the Mutual Group to take action and launch, in the fall of 1992, a national organ donor awareness program, By Mutual Consent. This program believes that by providing accurate information about organ donation and encouraging families to discuss this important issue, some of the barriers that currently prevent donation from occurring can be broken down.

I congratulate the Mutual Group on making a solid commitment to organ donation and I would encourage all members of this House to join the Mutual Group at a reception to recognize national Organ Donor Awareness Week this Wednesday evening.

In conclusion, I urge you to remember that each person in this province can make a difference in addressing the critical need for organ donors by signing an organ donor card and ensuring that our family members are aware of our wishes. "By Mutual Consent" we can break barriers to organ donation.

INJURED WORKERS EDUCATIONAL NETWORK

Mr Mike Cooper (Kitchener-Wilmot): I rise today to inform the members of this Legislature of a book launch that took place in my region on March 24. The Waterloo-Wellington Injured Workers Educational Network, which was formed last spring, officially launched its first project, A Guide to Filing a WCB Claim.

The network serves a multipurpose role in our community. It provides a localized support group for individuals seeking information, support and advice. The network is a community-based organization bringing together diverse agencies, organizations and groups which deliver services to injured workers in the Waterloo-Wellington area.

The booklet is written in plain language. It offers dos and don'ts and explains the process and the steps that are involved. For those individuals, especially those not having union representation, who have never had to deal with an injury claim before, it can be rather intimidating when they do not know what to expect. As with anything else, education is a key element to understanding, assisting and guiding.

The educational network is composed of various individuals and representatives from local unions, employee associations, injured workers and representatives from various service organizations and agencies at the municipal and provincial levels. Each of these representatives brings to the education network valuable experience and understanding of the system and the process.

I wish to take this opportunity to commend this group for its efforts, its understanding and its desire to enhance service delivery and empower injured workers through education. The booklet is unique in that it provides information specific to the services in the Waterloo-Wellington area, unlike other more general brochures which are available.

I understand this is the first of many projects for the Waterloo-Wellington Injured Workers Educational Network and I wish it well in its joint efforts for information-sharing and education.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Dalton McGuinty (Ottawa South): The Minister of Finance has announced today that he has decided to reduce his tax on the brew-on-premises industry. I have raised concerns about this tax on at least five occasions in this House and I have spoken to the minister informally about the problems his tax would create and has created.

My first response to the minister's announcement today is to say thank you. My second response is to ask him two questions.

First, why did he not reduce the tax earlier, when it was plain for all to see that it was killing business and putting people out of work?

As soon as the tax was implemented last August, sales volumes plummeted by as much as 50%. Shortly thereafter, people started losing their jobs and businesses started to close. In fact, to date, over 400 people have lost their jobs and dozens of operations have gone bankrupt or into receivership. The minister steadfastly refused to lower his tax, while employees lost their jobs and small business entrepreneurs lost their businesses and their homes they had put up for security. This tax reduction comes too late for these victims.

My second question for the minister is this: Why did he ever even implement this tax at such a high rate in the first place?

You-brews had been a small business anomaly in Ontario. They were growing and thriving during the recession. They had created 2,000 jobs and 235 small businesses before the tax took its toll. Our Minister of Finance cannot be forgiven for failing to recognize that this fledgling Ontario small business industry, instead of being penalized with taxes for growing, ought to have been, at a minimum, left alone to prosper and to create jobs.

The new tax took a success story and turned it into a tragedy. The minister, incredibly, turned a silk purse into a sow's ear.

BICYCLING SAFETY

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): I'd really like to congratulate the London Free Press, the Toronto Sun and other media for promoting safe cycling and the wearing of bicycle helmets.

In Ontario two million cyclists, including almost 500,000 people over the age of 15, rely on bicycles as their primary means of transportation. The Highway Traffic Act recognizes bicycles as legitimate vehicles entitled to share the road. They must be equipped with a working bell, horn and proper lights.

As of October 1, 1995, approved bicycle helmets will be mandatory when cycling. At Queen's Park, a bicycle safety team has been formed to effectively implement this legislation. It includes representatives from the ministries of Transportation, Health, Education and Training, the Solicitor General and Correctional Services and Culture, Tourism and Recreation as well as the Ontario Head Injury Association, the Children's Bike Helmet Coalition, police services, the Ontario Cycling Association and cycling groups from both Toronto and Ottawa.

The mandate is to raise bicycle safety public awareness and modify behaviour in order to reduce the number of bicycle accidents, the resulting injuries and their associated economic and societal costs. One of the team's goals for 1994 is to increase the acceptance of helmet use and to educate the public on the correct way of wearing bicycle helmets.

I'd like to show the Legislative Assembly this wonderful poster, produced by the government, to encourage young children, especially adolescents, to wear their helmets and to be safe.

CONSERVATION

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): On Friday, April 15, my colleague Fred Wilson and I had the honour of unveiling for the Napanee Region Conservation Authority its conservation strategy. The NRCA, together with other agencies and the public, has developed a shared vision for the Napanee and Salmon River watersheds and a clear path to get here. The conservation strategy will guide the authority's activities over the next decade. The 1990s have brought new challenges to the authority but also many opportunities. The strategy offers creative ways to deal with expected challenges and a way to deliver the programs efficiently and effectively.

Innovative ways to manage resources include new partnerships with the public and other agencies, improved public relations and outdoor education, better protection of environmentally sensitive areas and involving residents in efforts to improve the health of the natural environment. The strategy turns its focus to anticipating and addressing problems before they occur rather than reacting to them later.

The Napanee Region Conservation Authority will also improve its financial situation through various means of increasing its resources and improving efficiency.

The application of the conservation strategy will contribute to improvements to wetlands, woodlands and wildlife managed by the authority and ultimately to improvements in water quality in the Bay of Quinte.

I would like to congratulate the NRCA board, its chairman, Wayne Parks, its manager, Terry Murphy, and all those who contributed to the conservation strategy.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

IMMIGRATION AND REFUGEE POLICY

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): This is National Citizenship Week, and it is being marked across Canada this week to celebrate the privilege of belonging to this great country, Canada. It is a time to thank Canada for its generosity and to ask ourselves how we can contribute to its future.

Ontario has always valued the immense contribution immigrants and refugees have made to the province's social, economic and cultural life, and unless we are from the aboriginal community, we are all immigrants or descendants of immigrants. It is therefore ironic that the federal government chose to announce decisions last Friday which will affect newcomers, immigrant settlement organizations and all Ontarians.

Federal Immigration Minister Sergio Marchi said that effective May 15, the adjustment assistance program, also known as AAP, will be restricted to government-sponsored refugees. Effective June 1, fees for immigration services will increase, including the introduction of a $500 application fee for permanent residency for successful refugee claimants, who were previously exempt.

1350

As my colleague Tony Silipo, Minister of Community and Social Services, pointed out to reporters at a press conference last Friday, changes to the AAP will hurt an estimated 5,000 indigent independent immigrants and in-Canada refugees living in Ontario for less than a year. Since many of these people will not be able to find work immediately, they will have no option but to seek social assistance until they are employed. This will end up costing Ontarians an estimated $16.5 million annually in additional social assistance costs alone.

It is unacceptable that the federal government continues to download costs to this province. The decisions Ottawa announced last Friday come on top of the ceiling on Canada assistance plan payments and signal a continuing abdication of financial responsibility to the people of this province. Before Ottawa released its budget in February, this province asked the federal government, and especially our Ontario colleagues, to address the cap on CAP issue. It didn't, and now it is exacerbating the situation with its latest action.

The AAP has been on the books since 1948, providing necessary assistance to newcomers. Ontario will be particularly hard hit by Ottawa's changes because it is home to 59% of all immigrants and refugees who come to Canada, yet it receives only 39% of federal immigration funding for settlement and language training. Ottawa spends $760 on every immigrant who comes to Ontario, compared to $1,900 for those who settle in Quebec and $1,500 for those who settle elsewhere in Canada.

I am dismayed at this unilateral federal action, which was made without appropriate consultation with either this government or community partners despite the fact that Ontario is about to begin negotiations with Ottawa on a provincial-federal immigration agreement.

This just emphasizes even more the need for a bilateral immigration agreement. According to Mr Marchi's statement, Quebec is exempted from the federal decisions because it negotiated a bilateral accord signed in 1991.

Ottawa's decision to modify the AAP will have a devastating effect on many newcomers to Ontario and indeed to Canada. The restriction of AAP will result in ending federal financial assistance for food, clothing and housing to eligible indigent refugee claimants who have been accepted as UN convention refugees to Canada.

I'm also concerned that legitimate refugees, unable to pay the newly introduced application fees, will not have access to landed immigrant status, denying such refugees their full participation in our society. Several community organizations have already expressed fear that the federal government's actions last Friday will add new obstacles to refugees who have left life-threatening situations to come to Canada. Community organizations serving newcomers will have to deal with additional pressures resulting from these changes.

The changes to AAP, the continued cap on CAP and the absence of fair treatment for Ontario in settlement and language-training funding are not fair. They are not fair to Ontario, they are not fair to the newcomers who choose and want to contribute to our society, and they are not fair to the many organizations that help newcomers settle and integrate into our province.

I am therefore calling on Mr Marchi to rescind his decision on changes to the AAP and to discuss with his provincial counterparts, as well as community partners, how we can all work together to provide appropriate support to newcomers in the most effective, efficient and cost-efficient manner.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Responses?

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): It is quite unclear, frankly, just what the purpose of the minister's statement has been today. If we look at the first two paragraphs, I think all of us in this House can well agree with the minister that we want to celebrate National Citizenship Week, that we want to celebrate the fact that so many people continue to choose to come to Canada, to become Canadians, to participate in Canadian life and to give to this country their talents and all that people from all over the world can give. All of that we support in what the minister has said and we believe equally in that.

But the rest of the statement is one where frankly what one hears is a kind of selective outrage that's going on. The minister chooses to talk about some things the federal government has done. What about her own government and what it has done to refugees and what it has done to people from other countries who have come here?

Why, if this government says it feels so strongly about the issue of refugees, did the Minister of Community and Social Services last summer say that for sponsored immigrants on welfare, their cheques were going to be cut to $50? That was done last summer, done with no discussion, just wham, it was done.

If this government feels so strongly about the question of refugees and immigrants, then why did the Minister of Health rise in her place only a few short weeks ago --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Beer: -- to announce that she's taking $48 million out of the system in terms of helping refugees, in terms of allowing foreign students to be on OHIP?

What we have here, I simply say to the minister, is that there's an awful lot of hypocrisy that's going around, both federally and provincially, on this issue.

The minister says, "We're going to sit down and start to negotiate a federal-provincial agreement." Well, where have you been? This is 1994. Where were you in 1993? You could have negotiated an agreement. Where were you in 1992, in 1991? You have not negotiated an agreement, and by the minister's very own words, the fact that the Quebec government had an agreement meant, therefore, that it was protected from this change. Where has this government been in arguing the case for better immigrant settlement and adaptation and better treatment of refugees?

I remind the minister responsible for citizenship that it was the federal Liberal government that finally acted on the question of work permits. This was something that we and I, as minister, had put to the previous government, and it is something Mr Axworthy moved on and said yes, it makes sense. Refugees don't want to get social assistance, they want to work, and a way of doing it is to ensure that they can get work permits.

Where also has this government been on the subject of English as a second language?

Again there needs to be a negotiated settlement to ensure we have the dollars necessary for those settlement programs. The question is not, does the federal government have a responsibility? We agree with the government. They do have a responsibility. But this government has a clear responsibility, knowing full well that there is no immigration agreement between the federal and provincial governments and knowing full well that the Canada assistance plan is going to end and will have to be replaced with something else.

Where are you? Where are your ideas? Where are your plans? Where are your proposals to sit down with the federal government, with other provinces, if you wish? Remember that in terms of immigrant settlement agreements --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Beer: -- there are six provinces that already have signed agreements with the federal government.

This government has been in office since the fall of 1990, and it never seemed to be important to them in 1990 or 1991 or 1992 or 1993. Now, all of a sudden, we get this statement from the minister, which is supposedly having something to do with National Citizenship Week, and what it turns out to be, in the words of Jim Bradley, is that it's number one and number two and whatever other numbers are at play where you blame everything on the federal government.

There are things that the federal government, of whatever political stripe, does that we may not like, but what we have to do in this place is to call the government's tune and say, "If you've got specific proposals to improve the way in which immigrants and refugees are dealt with, then let's put them forward."

Go out and negotiate that agreement. Go out and make changes to the ESL agreement. Recognize good things that the federal government has done, such as allowing the work permits. But that's what you should be doing: getting up today in this House and announcing what positive measures you are going to do. Are you going to go back and change what the Minister of Health did earlier this spring and change what the Minister of Community and Social Services did last summer? That's the challenge.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The member for Burlington South.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Let's just take it right to the people. Let's go to the people now. We're ready.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. It's your time. The member for Burlington South.

1400

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I am quite shocked at the machinations and the responses coming from the Liberal benches.

At the outset can I just simply say that nothing in this announcement today changes the capacity of Canadians to welcome new Canadians. Nothing in this announcement today diminishes the compassion that our country has to welcome new Canadians. What in fact is contained in this document, rightly or wrongly, is a clear understanding that all Canadians are having to struggle with the ravages of a recession and that all Canadians are sharing in the responsibility of seeking solutions to the economic times we find ourselves in.

I think it's fair for our country and indeed this province to look upon today's announcement just as a worker who's been laid off at the General Motors plant in St Catharines has to look at today's announcement, just as a family struggling to survive on social assistance in this province, just as a small businessman who's laying off several of his long-time employees. All Canadians, and that includes all of us who are ourselves the products of new immigration to this country, have a responsibility to look upon this announcement as a new challenge.

The largest opportunity that faced the leadership of the Ontario government on this issue was opened during the Meech Lake discussions. It's very clear that it was in those discussions and in that context that Quebec clearly enunciated its vision of where it belonged in our country. It tabled in those discussions what its view was on immigration and what it was prepared to do to determine its own future with respect to immigration. At that time, David Peterson, the Liberal Premier of Ontario, chose not to take a similar position for Ontario, and so today's announcement is clearly an indication of the failure on the part of the Ontario Liberal government in 1989 and 1990, during the Meech Lake and subsequent discussions, to deal with the issue of a federal agreement.

Today the Minister of Community and Social Services, who stands in this House on a weekly basis and is, quite frankly, assaulted by all members of the House for the problems that exist in this province, problems around the growing number of our citizens on social assistance, the growing number of vulnerable children in this province -- this is yet one more issue that has fallen on to his table, along with the Premier's, to deal with with the federal government.

I listened intently to the member for York-Mackenzie, who presented himself for the leadership of the Liberal Party, and I am sure that he personally has his own sense of priorities for this province that he would have brought had he become the Liberal leader. For that reason, I suggest that he save his speech, the one he gave to the government and to the Conservative Party of Ontario today in the House, and share that with the 98 federal members who were just recently elected.

The dialogue should begin immediately with those individuals who won in the last federal election to represent Ontarians' interests, not just the Ontarians who are today paying the taxes for this province -- we're told time and time again that Ontario taxpayers pay a disproportionate amount, a larger share, in order to share in the vision of our country. But it's equally important that those 99 or 98 federal Liberal members of Parliament begin the dialogue as to what kind of home we are going to provide for new Canadians in the province of Ontario.

There will always be a home for new immigrants in Ontario. It's part of the vision of Mike Harris and the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario. But I remind all members of the House that nothing in this announcement today diminishes the capacity of our country to welcome these people and nothing diminishes our ability to work with these people and their families to ensure that they become contributing members of an Ontario society to assist us back on the road towards prosperity.

That's what Mike Harris believes and that's what the Progressive Conservative Party feels about this announcement today.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): My question is to the Attorney General. If anybody needs the protection of gun control legislation in this province, it has to be the Attorney General, because she keeps shooting herself in the foot.

She has done it again at the SIU, the special investigations unit, where the SIU has had to suspend a special investigator who was hired under circumstances where he was subject to charges for obstruction of justice and forgery with the Waterloo police department. Minister, you know that you've had this problem in the past; in fact, in December, with another hiring. Would you please tell the people of Ontario why and how this could have happened again.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): As the member is well aware, appointments to the civil service are not done by politically elected officials. There is a process that goes forward, and a very clear process that goes forward, under which people are hired under the public service. That process was followed in this case.

The member is well aware that the allegations that have been brought were not known to either the Waterloo Regional Police or to the SIU, that thorough checks were made and thorough reference checks were made, and that this has arisen subsequently. One of the issues we need to be clear about in this kind of case is that this kind of allegation can arise no matter how much care in hiring is undertaken.

I would simply say to the member that we take very seriously the concerns that have been raised about the personnel in the SIU. We have undertaken and are continuing to undertake with the various police organizations in the province a review of the hiring practices to ensure that they meet the standards that are followed by the police. I will have no further comment on the particular allegations that have been made.

Mr Chiarelli: Minister, you will be judged by your conduct and you will be judged by how you fulfil your responsibility. You are the minister responsible to the people of Ontario and to this Legislature for the SIU. On December 14, you were asked a question by the leader of our party about Mr Fred Winston, another case where a person was hired without any proper checking of credentials, a person who was hired as an investigator of our police across this province.

If you expect the police to have any confidence in the administration of justice, how can you possibly continue to have hiring practices of investigators that show that it's complete incompetence? You are responsible for the SIU and you have to answer.

Let me read briefly what you said to this House in December: "It is not only police officers who have to be concerned about the very serious and very sensitive mandate of the SIU but all of us and all citizens, because this is an extremely important part of our community accountability of our police forces, and it is of interest to everyone in the province that the integrity of the unit be maintained."

Once again, Minister, how can police officers and the public across this province have any respect for the SIU when you can't even hire its investigators in a proper fashion?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The hiring round in which the case that the member has just cited took place and the most recent allegations happened at the same time. We undertook, following that hiring round, a review of the hiring practices because we agree with the member that it is of very serious consequence.

This subsequent allegation has come up, and again I would say to the member that we take it just as seriously as we did before. It was part of the same round, and the review that is being undergone in terms of any future hirings is a very serious undertaking on our part and one that we are doing in conjunction with the partners in the police community.

We agree that the police have every right to expect that those who are investigating their behaviour are beyond reproach. It is of very great concern to us that this sort of problem has occurred, but now that we know it has, we are taking the steps that are there.

This is not a new situation. It is the same round of hiring that went on before and there were obvious flaws which we have already admitted to and are taking steps to ensure do not occur again.

1410

Mr Chiarelli: Minister, you and your ministry have admitted to flaw after flaw with respect to the SIU. It has been a comedy of errors, very sad errors, from the beginning. You have undertaken to review it; you've undertaken audits. Nothing has happened; nothing's come back to this House. There have been no reports on this to the people of Ontario. It is time that you accept your responsibility, that you place some responsibility for this in the hands of the legislators of this province.

I'm asking you now, Minister, will you refer to the standing committee on administration of justice all these problems that have occurred with respect to the SIU? There's only one way that you're going to restore confidence in our police officers and the public across this province and that is to get some sort of open discussion where everybody can get involved in it and where the people can be satisfied that you're actually doing something. So will you in fact refer this matter to the standing committee on administration of justice so that the people of the province can get to the root of this problem?

Hon Mrs Boyd: The audit report and the response of the director of the SIU have in fact been released to all the members of this Legislature. We made an undertaking in our response to the audit report to undertake consultations with the police community, with their official representatives, and with representatives of the broader community who have expressed equally serious concern about the SIU, and that we would be back with recommendations as a result.

We are involved in a very intensive process looking at some of the procedural issues that have been raised, the relationship with the coroner's office, the kind of process that is involved in these investigations and how to sort out the independence of the various forces that are concerned. When that is completed, we will certainly come forward with additional response.

Many of the issues raised in the audit report have already been rectified. In the report of the director to the audit report, there is a very clear accounting of the steps that have already been taken and put into place which have corrected many of the deficiencies that the audit report pointed out.

We have some issue with some of the suggestions that the audit report had and we are discussing those with those most concerned. I would say that in the past few weeks the opposition has been very concerned with referring many issues to the administration of justice committee, and it is very clear that there is a concerted effort to try and ensure that this committee is overloaded in its work. There are many ways to accomplish the same goals, and I will not commit to make a reference to the justice committee of this report until our consultation is complete.

CANCER TREATMENT

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): My question is to the Minister of Health. The minister's own report on cancer care tells of the need for new specialists and new equipment so that cancer patients will get the treatment that they need when they need it.

In fact, that need is urgent. For over two and a half months the minister has been sitting on a report that says that if funding and approvals aren't in place immediately for two new radiation machines at the London Regional Cancer Centre, cancer patients in southwestern Ontario will not be able to get the treatments that they need.

The London cancer centre is already under pressure to meet regional requirements and it's already operating with extended hours. Putting new machines in place takes time, and those machines are needed urgently in less than a year. If the minister doesn't act immediately, it won't be merely waiting lists that we're concerned about but the availability of treatment itself.

I'm asking the Minister of Health if she will commit today to provide the funding and to ensure the speedy approvals and to guarantee that those radiation machines, which are required in the London Regional Cancer Centre, are on stream and operating in less than a year. Will the minister indicate to us that she is willing to act?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As the member is well aware, just recently, on April 8, I released the government's cancer strategy for the future, Life to Gain: A Cancer Strategy for Ontario, a strategy that provides for a network to coordinate services, for a task force to look into prevention, for improvements to support services to meet all of patients' needs as well as expanded treatment.

We are working with the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation to review their needs, of which of course the London cancer centre would be one, and I'm not in a position today to say yes or no to the member's question. But I can certainly assure her that as we review the future plans of OCTRF and the need that it has identified for additional radiation machines and other expansions of the treatment network, I'm quite confident that we are in a good position to meet the needs of cancer patients in the 1990s.

Mrs Sullivan: The minister refers to her report which was issued in April and made absolutely no reference to a document which she had received from the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation two months prior to the issuing of her report, which identified the very specific urgent needs, including the need for two new machines and a commitment to fund those machines at the London cancer centre. The report is quite specific: Without those machines being put into place, there will not be appropriate treatment available in less than a year. In less than eight months, there will not be appropriate treatment available. The minister's had that report for over two months.

Once again, I ask the minister, will she commit to this House today that people in southwestern Ontario will have access to and availability of radiation treatment when they have cancer that requires that treatment?

Hon Mrs Grier: I know, because of the member's very real and genuine concern about this issue, she will be very pleased when I'm able to tell her that her facts are quite wrong. In fact, as we work with the OCTRF to have it review the plans it submitted to us a couple of months ago, we find that the number of machines and the need are very much in sync. I can assure her that people in southwestern Ontario will have the same quality of care and the same access to treatment as people anywhere else in this province.

Mrs Sullivan: I refer to the report, and the report itself says that planning must begin and funding must begin immediately to put those new machines in place. The minister is incorrect in her interpretation of what's included in that report. The report also says that there are up to 80 radiation oncologists who are in a position of shortfall. The minister is in fact misstating what's included in this report.

I also want to indicate that while her cancer report used fancy words, there was absolutely no commitment to action other than setting up committees, and we need more than that. We need a real commitment from this minister, including a commitment of dollars and a commitment according to a time line.

The minister announced that there would be operating funding for some new machines that were placed in Toronto, Kingston and Ottawa, but made no commitment to increase the operating funding for the Princess Margaret Hospital at which there will be new machines to increase their complement to 16 machines, double the current capacity. It makes little sense for the minister to provide half a loaf when a full loaf is due.

I'm asking the minister if she will commit today to providing appropriate funding to the Princess Margaret Hospital so that it can indeed operate the machines that will now be in place this year.

Hon Mrs Grier: The member quotes from a report that was received two months ago and it says planning should begin immediately. What I'm telling her is, the planning began immediately. The planning now shows the number of machines we need is different from the number in the report she's quoting, precisely because we have committed funding to longer operating and better utilization of the existing machines. I'm sorry she's unhappy that things are getting better for people with cancer in this province, but that happens to be the reality.

With respect to Princess Margaret, I also know that she will be delighted to know that I have in my hand a release from Princess Margaret that commends the government for its cancer network, indicates Princess Margaret's support for what we've done and confirms Princess Margaret's willingness with us to work to meet the needs. The problem is that we have a cancer strategy, we have a plan and we've put funding in place, something that has not happened in this province before.

1420

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I have a question to the Minister of Transportation and it follows a story in the Hamilton Spectator.

Minister, on January 10 a deal was signed between three unions and a consortium bidding on Highway 407. Ten days later, these unions held a fund-raiser for the NDP, and I believe you were there.

I have a copy of a memo from Michael Reilly of the Labourers' International Union of North America regarding that fund-raiser. It says:

"It's important that you personally apply yourself to making the evening a success by calling those contractors and influencing them as to the importance of the said evening in the purchasing of a table, a half-table etc: as much as you can squeeze. Don't take no for an answer.

"I am sure I don't have to tell you that the prestige and the name of 183 is important and must be maintained for all future lobby efforts that benefits."

That evening raised $100,000 for your party. As I've said, I believe, Minister, you were at that.

Eleven weeks later, that consortium that signed a deal with the unions was awarded the 407 contract. Minister, is $100,000 the going rate for government contracts now?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): I can assure the critic opposite that there is absolutely no link between a fund-raiser and the awarding of the contract regarding the superhighway 407. Allegations of this type are just preposterous, nothing short of this. I think the member opposite is spooking himself as he dims the light.

Very early in the process, when the process was put forth, cabinet distanced itself from the decision-making process by appointing four deputy ministers to choose a winner. The confidentiality of the process was supervised and certified by Price Waterhouse.

Mr Turnbull: This is extremely serious, Minister. When you announced that the CHIC had won the bid, you said they offered the best value for money. You did not say that it was because they gave the lowest bid. Minister, was CHIC the lowest bidder for the 407 project, and will you disclose the bid to confirm this?

Hon Mr Pouliot: First and foremost, let me set the table so the member opposite will have a clear picture. The request for proposal stated that there shall be no lobbying attempt to any politician or to government officials, so therefore I don't know if it was the lowest bidder. I understand that negotiations are still going on. What took place in the first instance is that a consortium was chosen to negotiate, and within a matter of three to four weeks we are hopeful that all the details will be released.

Mr Turnbull: That answer is absolutely alarming because he said he doesn't know whether they were the lowest bidder. I have a copy of the agreement between CHIC and the three unions. It clearly says that no other workers shall be allowed to work on the 407 project in exchange for a commitment that there will be no strike action taken by the unions. As well, it provides for a wage increase of up to 22% over the five years. I have been informed that the losing bidder did not sign a deal with the unions -- listen to this, folks -- because they were told not to by your staff, Minister. Minister, why did your staff advise them not to sign a deal?

Hon Mr Pouliot: One can really appreciate the tone here. You don't really have to be too clever to tell the member that he's imputing motive and by doing so indirectly soiling the reputation of four deputy ministers, trying to find a flaw in due process.

I go back to his original question. The question that I'm quoting verbatim and answered will attest to it: "Is $100,000 what it takes to buy or secure a contract?" Put your seat on the line when you impute motive, my friend. This is a contract well over $1 billion. Enough is enough. You can't grab a club and say things when you have no responsibility. Put your seat where your mouth is. Of course, the process is flawless. Negotiations are still going on and in the fullness of time we will release all that is to be known and said. We're aboveboard regarding the most important highway project in North America.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): New question. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I guess the question from the member still stands: Why did your staff tell them not to sign the deal? You didn't answer that.

ONTARIO HYDRO AGREEMENT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): My question is to the Chair of Management Board regarding the deal reached by the Power Workers' Union and Ontario Hydro. Under the terms of that deal, not one single Hydro worker will be laid off in the next two years, whether there is any work for them to do or not.

When I asked the Premier about this, I was told that $67 million from the employee pension fund would be used to cover the cost of this unprecedented job security. Today we learned that 6,000 Hydro managers can block the use of this money because they belong to a different union. The bottom line is that the Power Workers bargained away something they had no right to put on the table.

What will this mean to Ontario Hydro now that you can't get the $67 million from the pension fund? I had suggested earlier that this means 600 to 800 employees, who are no longer considered valued employees because there's not work for them, will now be kept on payroll for two years because your government signed an agreement it didn't have any right to sign. What is the cost to the taxpayers? What does this mean to Ontario Hydro?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): The member should know that the question he's asked should have been directed to the Minister of Environment and Energy. Unfortunately, he's not here today.

I don't have any direct contact with the negotiations between Ontario Hydro and its unions. As a matter of fact, neither does the government. The member suggested in his question that the government signed a deal it had no right to sign. The government is not a signatory to the deal between Ontario Hydro and its unions. I'm certainly prepared to ensure that the Minister of Environment and Energy is made aware of his question so that an answer can be provided.

Mr Stockwell: When this announcement was made, this group over here seemed to have lots of ties to this particular agreement. They stood in this House, applauded and broke their arms patting each other on the back. Now that this deal is derailing, they want nothing to do with it. The fact is simply this, I say to you, Mr Management Board Chair: that you committed to a deal that was going to take $67 million out of the pension fund at Ontario Hydro. You agreed during that negotiation that 800 jobs would not be declared surplus, costing the taxpayers $50 million.

We learned on CBC Radio today that the pension fund money cannot be accessed because 5,000 particular employees will not allow you to touch it. The simple fact remains that you were given $67 million you can't access. You have committed to two years of no layoffs and will have 800 surplus employees coming to work with nothing to do.

I ask you once again: What is the cost to the taxpayers? What is the cost to Ontario Hydro? Does this now jeopardize your promise that Ontario Hydro rates will not go up, considering that you cannot access this money?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member across the way continues to play very fast and loose with words. As I've already suggested, the agreement to which he's referring was an agreement between Ontario Hydro and its employees. I'm not familiar with the details of that agreement. I will ensure that the Minister of Environment and Energy is aware of the question he's raised and that he will receive an answer.

1430

Mr Stockwell: This is from a minister who just stood up and said "playing fast and loose" with the information. He's admitted himself he knows nothing about it, so how do you know anyone's playing fast and loose with any of this information? That's the shame of the whole thing. I've stood in this place and told the Premier about this and he started referring to Professor Irwin Corey, for heaven's sake. That's how much he knew about this particular deal.

I say, through you, Mr Speaker, to the minister: As far as your friend the Power Workers' Union is concerned, it is Ontario Hydro's problem, not the union's. John Murphy says, and I quote from CBC Metro Morning: "If the society does take that position, if they do challenge and are successful in stopping Ontario Hydro getting the relief of $67 million, then the company really has to figure out a way of coming up with that $67 million." In effect, he said: "Tough. We signed a deal. We're going to live by it."

You've signed a deal you had no right to sign, so now you're $67 million in the hole and he doesn't care. He's not conceding anything because he's got a signed contract, a contract I warned you about three days after you signed it.

What assurance can you give Hydro customers that they will not be on the hook for this incredible, expensive and illegitimate deal that will now see 800 employees go to work for two years at Ontario Hydro, costing the taxpayers $50 million to $70 million, and there will be nothing for them to do?

Hon Mr Charlton: The member opposite continues to contend that this government signed an agreement it had no right to sign, when it signed no agreement at all. Perhaps that's a reflection of just how little he understands about that of which he speaks here in the House today.

I repeat my comment of earlier: I will ensure that the Minister of Environment and Energy becomes aware of the questions he's raised so he can provide a full response to the member.

CHILD CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last Thursday I addressed a question to the minister regarding whether his government had put forward a specific proposal --

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): Wrong minister.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Who else is there to ask, Frances?

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. You can start again.

Mr Beer: Thank you, Mr Speaker, and I will begin again. My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. Last week I asked a question, whether the minister and his government had submitted a specific project to the federal government for child care reform. The minister in his answer indicated that he had.

I've subsequently learned that not very long after meeting here in the House, the minister had a discussion in his office with representatives from a variety of child care reform groups and that he indicated at that meeting that no specific separate proposal had been submitted for child care reform to the federal government. Just so the minister is clear, we're not talking here about Job Link, which is a program that encompasses many things, but specific to child care reform.

In addition to chatting with people who attended that meeting, I have doublechecked with the office of the federal minister, and as of this morning no specific proposal had been received from this government on child care reform. We have also talked to people in the Ministry of Community and Social Services who have also said there is no specific proposal.

Minister, I ask you to clarify the public record. My question again is simply this: Have you sent to Ottawa a specific, written, cabinet-approved proposal regarding child care reform?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): Let me hasten to remind the member -- if he wishes to look back at Hansard and the answer I gave him, I will say to him today what I said to him then, which is that I have spoken with Mr Axworthy on at least the three occasions I outlined to him about both the child care needs of this province as they relate to Job Link and the child care needs of the province as they relate to child care reform.

I made it very clear to him, as I did to the people I met with last Thursday, that a specific written proposal on the first part, on the Job Link connection to child care, had already been submitted to Minister Axworthy and that a written proposal on the reform initiatives had not been given to him. I said that to him last time he asked me the question, so there's no difference between what I'm saying today or indeed what I said to the people I met with and what I said to him the last time he asked me this question.

The specific written proposal to reflect the kinds of things that I have discussed directly with Mr Axworthy is being put together now and will be going there very shortly.

Mr Beer: With respect, that was not clear from your answer in the House the other day. The answer you just gave is a far fuller and more specific answer. What I question is why you did not give that answer here in this House but chose to wait until you met with the child care advocates. What you said in this House was that you had asked him on several dates. I assumed that therefore a proposal had gone forward. But we were discussing very specifically proposals around child care reform, because it is you and your government who have been arguing that the federal government is not prepared to fund or to assist in funding child care reform. In Ottawa, Mr Axworthy said they have funds under the strategic initiatives fund to in fact help Ontario.

My supplementary question is twofold. First of all, I find it absolutely incredible that this government, which has been in power since the fall of 1990, would not even have a proposal ready to go as soon as that new government came in last fall, particularly because they had set out the concept of their strategic initiatives fund during the election. You still aren't ready. You haven't put it forward. You've simply said it's going to come.

Would you tell us, will that proposal be to Ottawa before the end of this month and, when it is ready, will you table it in the House?

Hon Mr Silipo: I don't know whether I'm going to be able to table it in the House. That's not necessarily because I would not want to but because in terms of fulfilling the nature of our discussions with the federal government I'm not sure it would be appropriate.

But let me be very clear. I wish I were able to find the Hansard much quicker, but I will find it and I will read it out to the member again on another occasion so he's clear that what I'm saying to him today is in no way inconsistent with what I said to him the last time he asked me this question, that on each of those occasions I met with Mr Axworthy, I discussed the child care needs of the province both as they related to Job Link and also as they related to some of the reform initiatives. I can say to the honourable member that Mr Axworthy was quite interested in both of those pieces.

It's important to point out also that the strategic funds the federal government has outlined were not outlined until the federal budget came out in February. We have been working very hard to get the package together and to provide the written package to Mr Axworthy. But I can assure the member again, as I did the last time he asked me this question, that Mr Axworthy knows exactly what we are asking for, and if he's interested in funding there won't be any excuse for him not to provide the funds.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIONS UNIT

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General. It appears that last Friday a gentleman by the name of Wayne Allen was suspended as an SIU investigator. He was hired in spite of the fact that he has been charged by Waterloo police with obstructing justice, forgery and obtaining a secret commission.

My question is a little different from the question from the Liberal Party, which was the party that formed the SIU. My question is quite simply this: When Fred Winston was hired, it was clear that the fault for the hiring of Fred Winston was Mr Morton's. Now it appears that Mr Morton -- and this is the interesting twist in this scenario with Mr Allen -- says: "It wasn't my fault that we hired this person. It was the government's fault because they wouldn't let me properly investigate."

Who does bear responsibility for hiring investigators at the SIU? Is it Mr Morton and his policy or is it you and your policies?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): In fact it is the same question that was asked before. These two people were hired at the same time under the same process, and the allegations that have been made about the most recent case have been subsequent to that. All the employment checks, all the reference checks were done in that case, unlike the previous case, and all of them showed that this person had a clear record at that time. The allegations have surfaced subsequently.

1440

The answer I gave the previous member is exactly the same answer I would give to the member who is asking now: Civil service employment is under the Public Service Act and is clearly spelled out in the Public Service Act. It is true that some of the hiring practices under the Public Service Act are different from the hiring practices under the Police Services Act, and it is exactly that difference that we committed to look into in December. There have been no hirings since December. In fact, we continue to have those consultations with the police community and with the public service commission on the exact way in which we can ensure that the kinds of difficulties we encountered in that particular hiring round do not continue to plague the agency.

Mr Harnick: The minister says, "Same time, same process." What I have to say is, "Same time, same process, and you hired two lemons."

It's interesting. Mr Morton made a speech this past February, and in response to a question concerning the SIU's hiring practices he stated, "I am the person who takes full and complete responsibility for the hiring of personnel."

What I want to know, Minister, is whether you or Mr Morton will take charge of what's going on at the SIU and accept your responsibility for developing a policy with respect to hiring SIU investigators. Lord knows how many more of them have problems in their background that you don't even know about because you have no policy to deal with properly checking their backgrounds in a place as sensitive as the SIU.

I want to know whether you or Mr Morton will develop a policy for hiring investigators at the SIU so we can hear again that this won't ever happen again.

Hon Mrs Boyd: I have several times this afternoon and will again commit to the member that that is exactly what we are doing, in conjunction with the official representatives of the police community and in conjunction with our colleagues at Management Board who are responsible for the operation of the public service in the province. I would say very clearly to the member that that undertaking was taken by the director to me and in response to the audit report, which required the same thing, and that that is precisely what we are doing.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. Minister, we have recently heard of the benefits of the tremendous capital investment your ministry is making in my area, in Durham region. Durham region is benefiting dramatically from the expansion of the 407 that's propounded, and the GO Transit expansion to Oshawa is being eagerly awaited. We know it'll be arriving by the end of this year. Some $53 million is being spent to bring this line to Oshawa and some 1,060 person-years of employment are being created. This will benefit Durham region and my riding -- Oshawa, Whitby -- dramatically. Is everything on schedule, Mr Minister?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Indeed a difficult and timely question. Yes, the commitment to expand rush-hour GO Transit service remains, and this will be done in 1994. You're right: The government has committed $53 million to expand GO Transit service to Oshawa. What we want to do, simply put, is to provide a safe, reliable and affordable service and yet honour the commitment to Whitby, where 32 trains will remain in service. This is a win-win-win situation we're looking forward to sharing with the users.

Mr White: Just this morning, I have received in my mail a number of cards -- just this morning's; I haven't received this afternoon's mailing as yet. These cards all reflect the concern of people in my riding not only that we have that GO service the minister spoke about but also that we reinstate an adequate level.

We have from my riding, my constituency, concerned about those issues, people who have used the GO train service for 21 and 22 years, who are having that service cut back. They're wondering why we're spending the capital money on that. Will you be willing to listen to their concerns and look at a fuller level of service as it expands?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Departing from form, with high respect, Mr Speaker, may I have a couple of those cards?

Mr White: I'll give you a thousand.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I say to Harry Smith, I say to Shirley Jones, that we will monitor the demand. If the demand is there, we will go from rush-hour to full-time service in the not-too-distant future, depending on availability of funds. I would like to meet the demand.

TOW TRUCK INDUSTRY

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): My question is for the Attorney General in her capacity, as they say, as the chief law officer of the crown. The issue relates to the vultures who hover around parking lots in Metropolitan Toronto and other communities waiting to tow cars away, charge them a big price and inconvenience the people.

Gwen Rideout of Ajax has written a public letter where she has brought to everyone's attention the fact that on a Saturday morning recently, about 1:15, her car was towed from a visitors' parking lot where the posted sign read, "Cars without a permit between the hours of 2 and 5 am will be towed." The daughter was visiting friends and came down at 1:15, but the car had already been towed.

The police refused to press charges of theft. This person feels it was theft, because the car was towed away contrary to the signage that we see.

This is just one example of what we see happening on a pretty widespread basis. Could the Attorney General tell us whether she believes that people who take away and tow cars in these circumstances, the parking lot pirates, should in fact be charged for doing so?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I'm hardly going to give the member a legal opinion about such a matter, and he's well aware of that. He is quite right that other communities, not just Metropolitan Toronto, have this problem. I must say that it is a cause célèbre in my own community, that we have a very enterprising towing company that is currently the subject of a municipal campaign by someone who is campaigning for mayor on the grounds that the municipality should control these towing contracts.

I would say to the member that there is enough concern about the various jurisdictions that I'm certainly prepared to look at what our ministry would do, but charges of course are laid by police officers. Municipalities do license these towing companies. There is a shared responsibility in these matters. I would be very happy to look into the issue for the member, but it appears to me that this is not a simple matter of making a decision based on the kind of facts that he's brought forward here.

Mr Bradley: Very often the people who are the victims of the vultures who hover over the parking lots are those people who are visitors to Metropolitan Toronto or to other larger centres in the community, because they don't know the practices. They may believe the signs, may believe what people are telling them are the rules.

It is alleged as well that there are municipal law enforcement officers who get up to $30 for spotting cars to tow. They're called bounty hunters. Would the Attorney General tell us whether she believes this is appropriate, for people to be paid as bounty hunters for vehicles that are parked in parking lots, not illegally?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Where the responsibility for parking has been handed over to municipalities, those kinds of decisions need to be made by the municipalities themselves. If indeed the municipalities have made a decision that it is appropriate for them to hire and to enable people to undertake that kind of a situation, that is their decision. What I privately might think of such a thing is hardly at issue. We have indeed agreements with many municipalities about the responsibility for parking, and those municipalities need to take that responsibility where they have assumed it.

1450

ALCOHOL SMUGGLING

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, the LCBO revenues to the province have decreased by $90 million over the last two years. Do you suppose this is because Ontarians are drinking less?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): That's a very straightforward question. I believe that there are a number of reasons why revenues have dropped in Ontario. Part of it is that people are drinking less.

Mr Eves: Well, surveys done in the United States of America and here in Canada indicate that Canadians and Americans drink per capita almost exactly the same amounts of alcoholic beverage. So the minister will know that in fact Ontarians are not drinking less and that isn't the problem in your declining revenues.

Even Mr Brandt, the conservative man that he is, estimates that the province loses about $800 million a year in revenue to illicit underground liquor sales in the province of Ontario. That translates into at least a half a billion dollars a year in shortfall in revenue to the Treasurer and the province of Ontario.

In the past 10 years the minister will know that seven distilleries have closed in the province. She will also know that there are approximately 300 to 400 illegal wineries operating in the province and she will also know that tobacco smuggling networks are now trafficking in liquor sales. What are you and your government doing about this increasing problem?

Hon Ms Churley: First of all, I will say that studies show that people are drinking less spirits and more beer and wine, and that is a fact. But the member did ask about the smuggling problem.

Taxation obviously usually comes under the Finance minister, but I certainly hope that the member is not suggesting that this government reduce taxes on alcohol. We have already lost $500 million from this treasury that could be going to programs that we sorely need in this province, so I hope he's not asking us to do that.

I think he's behind here. The province has been dealing with this problem for a couple of years now. We have put a number of steps in place and will continue to do so. We've set up the illegal alcohol task force. It's important that all government agencies and all of the police community work together on this. It is a serious problem, as the member suggested, and we are doing that.

We established investigative service units to combat illegal activities in June 1993. We've granted officer status to provincial offence officers, who actually have more inspection responsibilities and abilities. As you know, Mr Speaker, the investigative services unit has increased its staff. There is a lot of activity out there.

It's very important that people be educated about this issue as well, because there are health issues related to this. Some of the alcohol that's smuggled contains very dangerous products. I urge all of us in this House to let people know that there are serious health risks involved and that this government is involved with the federal government and will continue to do everything it can to combat smuggling, but we will not be reducing taxes.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr David Winninger (London South): My question is directed to the Minister of Community and Social Services on the issue of student welfare. Many constituents in my riding, including teachers dealing with high-risk students, have expressed concern to me about how student welfare is being abused.

I recognize that some students suffer serious physical, mental, emotional and sexual abuse in their homes and that these people need protection at all reasonable cost so they may be educated or trained in a secure environment as they rebuild their lives and take their place in society. However, there is a perception that other students are leaving home merely to collect student welfare because they don't like the rules, the curfews or other parental controls.

Minister, what steps are you taking to curb abuse of the welfare system by those under 18 years of age so that funding will be protected for those who have a genuine need?

Hon Tony Silipo (Minister of Community and Social Services): I appreciate the question and I do acknowledge that in fact a similar question was asked by the member for St Catharines some time ago. I appreciate this point being raised again because I think that it's an important issue for us to discuss.

Like the member, I would agree that we need to be careful that we keep in mind that the basis for this provision existing in the legislation is to allow for support to be given to those young people who are indeed victims of abuse or in other ways fit the definition of "special circumstances" that is outlined in the legislation. Where there is some outright abuse, part of the work that we are going to be doing through the case file reviews that I announced earlier will help us to check that situation.

Beyond that, as I've indicated earlier in this House, I believe that what we need to do in this area is to define more clearly the rules that apply, define that term "special circumstances" in a more detailed fashion, and then to ensure that it is applied in a more consistent fashion throughout the province. We are doing some work now to outline that and to put that out into the system in a useful way.

Mr Winninger: I would ask then what communication there has been with educators, students and welfare case administrators to ensure that student welfare benefits are used appropriately.

Hon Mr Silipo: Again, I can tell the member that certainly informally the discussions are continuing, but I know there are some specific initiatives that are being taken also with respect to pulling people together in a more organized way.

There is on May 5 in Kingston a session which I think is the first of a number of sessions that are planned that pull together the kind of people the member referred to -- educators, youths themselves, people from the system and others -- to help us look at which specific changes need to be made.

I think that out of those discussions we will have some clarity that we can bring to this issue and then be in a better situation to sort out the perception from the reality of what the problem is here and to continue all of that in the spirit of continuing to provide the support to those young people who need it.

INTERPROVINCIAL TRADE

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): I have a question for the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. Earlier this month you attended a conference of ministers dealing with the issue of interprovincial trade barriers. In a report of the meeting you're quoted as saying:

"Lankin backed off a proposal under which her government would retaliate against other provinces that don't open their markets to the same degree as Ontario. Instead, Ontario agreed that all provinces would treat all companies as well as they treat their own, with some exceptions."

Minister, that sounds very fair and equitable, but it really is a recipe for inequity. If you'll look at the free trade agreement, I want to give you an example of a situation under the Glass-Steagall act in the financial sector: "Canadian financial institutions, securities dealers, banks wanting to do business in the United States are prohibited because of the Glass-Steagall act." Notwithstanding that, the United States says in Canada they're allowed to do it: "We want to be able to do it in Canada but you can't do it here, but we will give you an undertaking that if we ever change our rules, you'll be able to do it."

That is the kind of thing that could happen under your proposal. Because Ontario is the main economic force in Canada, it is the desirable place for a lot of the other provinces to want to do business. It is very easy for them to say, "This is the way we treat our particular companies in our provinces, but we want to be able to treat your particular companies in the same way as you treat them."

1500

That to me indicates what you're going to have is an extension of the same kind of inequities that we have now where we are prohibited from dealing in other provinces, where the other provinces would be able to deal in Ontario. Could you respond to that?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): I thank the member for the question. I actually think we hold a very similar opinion on this issue.

I would take issue with how the press reported a change in position, and I'll set out for the member that there are two approaches. One is reciprocal non-discrimination and the other is national treatment that he's identifying in his question.

Reciprocal non-discrimination, which is the position Ontario has been putting forward in these negotiations as being the basis of how we would proceed with bringing down barriers, says, like we did with Quebec, "Unless you bring down your barriers with respect to construction contractors and construction workers not being able to work in Quebec, then you won't have that access in Ontario any more."

For those provinces that don't bring down barriers, then they would have to deal with the same situation in Ontario, because we feared that this could be a game of negotiations in which Ontario, which is a very open economy to begin with, gains nothing in terms of access to other markets and others continue to have access to Ontario, and that the whole goal of those who want to see interprovincial trade barriers coming down could be thwarted by not having a tough reciprocal approach in this.

The other approach of national treatment has some of the pitfalls that you talked about. There are yet, on the other hand, a number of provinces that feel that this is consistent with GATT and free trade agreements that we've signed internationally.

The position I've taken in negotiations is to speak very strongly for the need to absolutely minimize any general exceptions to this trade deal, and in fact got agreement from the federal government and from some others to take general exceptions out of the overall agreement --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Holy smokes, Mr Speaker, let's go. Time.

Hon Ms Lankin: -- and to move into some of the sectoral agreements, to have very specific, transparent and known exceptions that we would negotiate on.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Is this a tape recording?

Hon Ms Lankin: I will wrap up. My commitment to the province here and the message I delivered at the table was that the success of those sectoral agreements will in fact determine the answer to whether or not Ontario agrees to an agreement that doesn't have reciprocal non-discrimination and moves to a national treatment agreement.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I would urge the members to keep their questions short and sweet and the answers short and sweet.

Mr Kwinter: Minister, in all the reports that came out of your meetings, there was one particular issue that I didn't hear anything about, and I think it's absolutely critical to any kind of interprovincial trade barrier resolution. That is the dispute settlement mechanism. In a country where there are no borders, there are no custom forms going from one province to another, how are you going to make sure, without casting any aspersions on our neighbours, that in fact these things are going to carried out? Who is going to be able to police it and who's going to be able to adjudicate any particular abuses if they're identified?

Hon Ms Lankin: Again, there are a number of approaches that could be taken on dispute resolution. Ontario has taken the position that it should be effective, ie, it has got to work, it has got to get resolved for people as to questions, concerns or complaints that they have; that it should be inexpensive -- we don't want to see one that would have a cost to private parties or governments that would be difficult to bear; that it shouldn't create a huge bureaucracy to administer this agreement; that it should not involve recourse to the courts and legalities and long-drawn-out processes. We want to see one that has at its base effective political mechanisms for governments to deal with the issues, government to government, and resolve them within the context of an agreement.

There are a number of proposals that are being developed which come at the possibility of this from slightly different ways. One of the issues is the access of private parties to the dispute resolution mechanism, and at what stages in the dispute resolution mechanism. Those are things that are all currently under discussion and under negotiation, and I'd be pleased to keep the member informed on an ongoing basis.

I want him to know that there are negotiations, meetings going on this week on this issue in Vancouver. We're actually very hopeful that we'll be arriving at a procurement agreement, which will be the biggest piece of all of this.

Lastly, I want to say that the member might read reports from the minister from Alberta, who indicates that there are seven provinces lined up on one side and three on the other. I hope he has been misquoted, because it certainly wasn't the indication of the provinces at the meeting I was at in Halifax. I think in fact there's a growing consensus, and the leadership being shown by the federal government in this has been helpful as well.

WORKPLACE HEALTH AND SAFETY AGENCY

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Under section 10 of the Occupational Health and Safety Act, the Lieutenant Governor in Council is charged with appointing all members of the board of directors of the Workplace Health and Safety Agency, including the executive director of the agency.

The executive director is charged with managing "the operations of the agency in accordance with the directions of the board of directors." This individual is to be the CEO of this organization, responsible directly to the board and appointed by the government. The act is very clear about this.

Could you tell us today then why the agency is proceeding to hire, with your blessing and your knowledge, a new executive director through regular civil service competition and make that person accountable directly to the two vice-chairs at the agency rather than the board of directors? Is this not a direct violation of the act by your government?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'd like to get back to the member across the way with that specific question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The time for oral questions has expired.

WRITTEN QUESTIONS

Mrs Barbara Sullivan (Halton Centre): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise on a point of order with reference to section 97 of the standing orders, particularly paragraph (d). This section of the standing orders is with respect to written questions which are placed on the order paper.

I have now 22 questions on the order paper. Five of them are substantially past the period of time when the response is required from the minister under the orders. Section (d) of the standing orders indicates that:

"The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days unless he or she indicates that more time is required because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he or she declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made on the Orders and Notices paper following the question...."

There has been no such a notation with respect to the questions which are overdue. There has been no indication that a minister declines to answer. There has been no indication that more time is required on any of these questions.

The questions refer to the operation of the OHIP fraud line, feasibility studies and cost analyses on the Ontario health card photo identification feature, environmental sensitivities, the chiropractic review and the full accounting of the $647 million which has been promised for long-term care reform.

These are important questions. I have been asked by many organizations and individuals to seek the responses to these questions. We know that the purpose of a written question is that the issue is perhaps not of urgency, which is covered --

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Thank you. Minister, perhaps you'd like to give some explanation to the question that is requested of you. Would you have any explanation at all?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): No.

The Deputy Speaker: You have no comments to make? There's nothing the Speaker can do, except to ask the minister. The minister has no comments.

Mrs Sullivan: Mr Speaker, the standing orders are very specific. They say, "The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 calendar days," and there are precise --

The Deputy Speaker: Let me repeat to you, for your benefit, what I have said is that the minister heard you. She didn't want to make any comments whatsoever and the Speaker is not in the position also to answer the question for the minister, so I believe that the Chair has treated you fairly.

1510

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that notwithstanding standing order 96(h), the requirement for notice be waived with respect to ballot item number 50.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

PETITIONS

GUN CONTROL

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

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens;

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm;

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen to an alarming rate;

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Tim Murphy's private member's Bill 149 to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

I support this petition and will be affixing my name.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads as follows:

"Whereas the previous provincial Liberal government of David Peterson announced its intention in its budget of 1989 of requiring all school boards to provide junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario" --

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Not true. Not true.

Mr Arnott: -- yes, it is true -- "to phase in junior kindergarten; and

"Whereas the government is downloading expensive programs like junior kindergarten on to local boards while not providing boards with the required funding to undertake these programs; and

"Whereas the Wellington County Board of Education estimates that the operating costs of junior kindergarten will be at least $4.5 million per year; and

"Whereas mandatory junior kindergarten programs will force boards to cut other important programs or raise taxes; and

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

"We demand that the government of Ontario cancel its policy of forcing junior kindergarten on to local school boards."

It's signed by a number of my constituents and I endorse it as well.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): I rise to present a petition on behalf of the hundreds of residents who live in my riding in the community known as Wilmot Creek.

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned, therefore petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows," and I hope the Tories are listening, particularly the member from Mississauga:

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

I've signed that petition and I know the member for Northumberland is in agreement with that.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Bill 45 will change the meaning of the words 'spouse' and 'marital status' by removing the words 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it.

"We believe that there will be an enormous negative impact on our society, both morally and economically, over the long term if fundamental institutions such as marriage are redefined to accommodate homosexual special-interest groups.

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, but since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined by the Ontario Human Rights Code and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references to sexual orientation should be removed from the code.

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to refrain from passing Bill 45."

I have signed the petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Like my colleague from Durham East, I too have a petition, only this one is from the residents of Twin Elms in Strathroy in the county of Middlesex. They petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

I have signed my name to this petition.

GUN CONTROL

Mr Robert V. Callahan (Brampton South): I have a petition signed by a number of the citizens of the province of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas it is imperative that we make our streets safe for law-abiding citizens;

"Whereas any person in Ontario can freely purchase ammunition, even though they do not hold a valid permit to own a firearm;

"Whereas crimes of violence where firearms are used have risen at an alarming rate; and

"Whereas we must do everything within our power to prevent illegal firearms from being used for criminal purposes;

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Tim Murphy's private member's bill, Bill 149, to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario Outdoors Card."

It's signed by a number of residents.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

AMMUNITION CONTROL ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LA RÉGLEMENTATION DES MUNITIONS

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

Bill 151, An Act to control the Purchase and Sale of Ammunition / Projet de loi 151, Loi visant à réglementer l'achat et la vente de munitions.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): The bill restricts the sale of ammunition to persons holding a valid Ontario Outdoors Card with the appropriate hunting licence or a valid firearms acquisition certificate.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLEVÉ SUR LES EMPLOYEURS RELATIF AUX SERVICES DE SANTÉ

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

Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act / Projet de loi 110, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'impôt prélevé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accidents du travail.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): The government is proceeding with its amendments to the Employer Health Tax Act to ensure that self-employed individuals pay provincial health tax.

Since 1990, employers in Ontario have been helping to fund, through an employer health tax, our health care system. The government is moving now to equalize this situation by requiring people who are self-employed to pay their fair share of health tax as well.

This bill would ensure that self-employed individuals with income of more than $40,000 a year, some of which must be earned in Ontario, pay the employer health tax. Individuals in this category will be taxed on their net self-employment income according to a similar rate system that applies to Ontario employers.

After consulting with stakeholders, the government has agreed to provide the self-employed with a 22% tax deduction on their health tax otherwise payable. This deduction will compensate self-employed individuals for the fact that they were unable to claim health tax as an income tax deduction on their self-employment income.

The government recognizes that Ontarians who earn self-employment income from businesses located in jurisdictions other than Ontario have legitimate concerns about the application of this tax to their self-employment income earned outside of the province. After consulting with these stakeholders, the government has agreed to apply the tax only to the proportion of an individual's self-employment income allocated to Ontario for personal income tax purposes. This will prevent double taxation should other provinces implement a similar tax.

The employer health tax for self-employed individuals will apply to fiscal periods ending after December 1, 1992. There will be prorated relief for 1993 fiscal years which straddle the date of the 1992 budget announcement. The revenues this tax will generate will help the government to continue to provide quality health care for all Ontarians.

1520

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments? Are there any other members who wish to participate in this debate?

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I rise to participate in today's debate as the Revenue critic for the official opposition. I have some very strong feelings about Bill 110 and I'd like to put my remarks today not only in the context of Bill 110, which is An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act, as it has been stated, but also in the general context of tax policy.

These debates on taxes and tax policy are a very good opportunity for people who are watching the debate to have a better understanding of how taxes -- tax policy, fiscal policy -- have impacts on our economy and perhaps what some of the alternatives are.

I'd like to start this debate by reminding the parliamentary assistant, you, Mr Speaker, and members in this House as well as people who are watching that once again we have an example of a piece of legislation which is a result of last year's 1993 budget tabled by Floyd Laughren almost exactly one year ago. The legislation itself to implement that budget announcement was not tabled until October 26, 1993, and here we are today, April 18, 1994, debating second reading of legislation.

For those who understand the legislative process, they will understand my frustration. We have a piece of legislation implementing a tax which the government has been collecting now since last year. We know that this was part of the 1993 budget. The 1994 budget is yet to come and we have just heard from the parliamentary assistant today that they will be making some changes to Bill 110 and bringing forth amendments.

What I found interesting and frustrating was that just last week we debated the retail sales tax bill, Bill 138, and today, April 18, a week after that debate, where we were in exactly the same situation of debating a piece of legislation almost a year after it had been announced, and certainly almost a year after it had been implemented, we see an announcement from the Treasurer where he is announcing a lowering of the produce-your-own-beer-and-wine tax on last year's tax. We know that the Treasurer will be bringing forth his new budget within a matter of weeks, some are predicting days; most are expecting the new provincial budget before the end of April.

One can only wonder whether it was the debate in the House just last week that convinced the Treasurer to make this change in the tax structure for those who produce their own beer and wine. I would hope that the debates in this Legislature do influence government policy. As the representative for the riding of Oriole since 1985, I have said on numerous occasions that I believe that an individual elected to this Legislature can influence public policy no matter which side of the House they sit on.

Having had the opportunity to serve on the government benches between 1985 and 1990, I will tell you that you can certainly influence in a more direct way the development of public policy as a member of the government and as a member of the executive council, the cabinet, but as I believe is shown by the announcement today by the Treasurer in advance of his new budget, I believe an individual on the opposition benches can influence public policy in a positive way, notwithstanding the fact that it is often in the form of criticism as well as offering alternatives and advice to the government.

I find it absolutely amazing that within weeks of the new budget, the Treasurer would announce that he is going to be amending a piece of legislation in this House, implementing last year's budget, that has not yet completed second reading, and this is just weeks before the new budget. Talk about creating chaos. Talk about creating frustration. Talk about sending out the wrong signal of stability and predictability. As much as we welcome the reduction in taxes to the produce-your-own-beer-and-wine industry -- we do welcome those; it is long overdue.

The announcement today by Mr Laughren, the provincial Treasurer, says that these debates are long overdue, especially if we are going to be able to influence the government not only in the fiscal and economic policies that they are bringing forth to the province of Ontario, but also in delivering the message to them that the number one priority for my constituents in the riding of Oriole and the number one priority of concerned citizens across Ontario is a strong economy and a hope for a job in the future.

There are people who have lost their jobs who always believed that they had secure jobs. There are people today in Ontario who are worried they are going to lose their job tomorrow. Therefore, in order to give those individuals confidence that they will have an opportunity to live and to work and, yes, to play in the province of Ontario, and to give individuals confidence that there will be opportunities for their children in this province, the tax policy of the government is extremely important because tax policy can dampen the economic activity in the province of Ontario.

Sometimes I do feel like a broken record because over and over again we offer the government good advice, we offer them good suggestions and they simply don't listen to us. As we begin the debate on Bill 110, which is an amendment to the Employer Health Tax Act and some amendments to the Workers' Compensation Act, my theme will be similar.

As I said, once again we see a piece of legislation which is a year late, tabled in October to implement a budget that was presented last spring of 1993, and here we are having second reading of a piece of legislation that could affect 38,000 self-employed people, people who consider themselves small businesses, and we know that it is the small business, the singular, often self-employed, the entrepreneur, those who are building small businesses in this province, who make up 85% of the economic activity in the province of Ontario, not just those 38,000 but the hundreds of thousands of individuals who are actively employed in the small business sector.

Certainly, the 38,000 of those who would be classified as self-employed are the ones who have a very significant interest in Bill 110 and are quite frustrated that at a time when the economy is just beginning to recover -- we know that recovery is slow and we know that it unfortunately is not producing as many jobs in the private sector as we would like -- they see Bill 110, which yet again is anything but an economic stimulus. It is a further economic depressant, particularly for those individuals who, for the first time, are having to face a new tax. I have said this before and I will say it again: Tax reform should not mean tax increases.

1530

We heard Bob Rae proudly stand in this House and refer to his new tax commission, a mandate for looking at fair taxes in the province of Ontario. What people thought that was going to mean was the moving around of taxes, tax reform, making sure that people paid their fair share. But more and more I've heard people refer to the NDP tax commission not as the Fair Tax Commission but as the More Tax Commission. If there is one thing that the province of Ontario cannot tolerate at this time, as we just begin to come out of this recession, it is new taxes.

I believe that everyone should pay their fair share of taxes, and if in fact this were a tax reform bill that extended the opportunity to pay a fair share, one could legitimately argue that the overall rate could be and should be reduced for everyone. I think there would be tremendous support for the notion that says, "If you are going to expand the base on the tax to include those who rightly should pay their fair share, then this should not be yet another revenue grab, this should not be seen as the government attempting to take more, and certainly at this important time in Ontario, as we want to see economic recovery and jobs created in the private sector, this should not be a time when government takes additional dollars out of the economy in the form of new taxes."

Bill 110 will take additional dollars out of the economy in the form of new taxes on the 38,000 self-employed individuals who will have to pay the EHT. What I'd like to say again, since we are now discussing the employer health tax, is the history of where this tax came from. It's important to put on the record that at the very same time that the employer health tax was brought into being in the province, Ontario health insurance plan premiums were eliminated. So in fact you did have real reform. You had the elimination of what some saw as a very unfair tax called premiums for health insurance benefits, called OHIP. Those premiums were a tax, and that tax was unfairly being paid.

Why was that tax unfair? Because what we saw in the province of Ontario was that the OHIP premium was being paid by some employers; some employers were paying all of it; some employers were paying part of it; some employers were paying none of it. We saw as well about 11% of the population of Ontario were paying their own premiums, and who were those people who were paying the premiums? Primarily they fell into the category of those who could least afford the premiums: the working poor.

The other thing that we saw was a huge bureaucracy collecting premiums. Yet we know that because of the values of compassion within the province of Ontario, if there was someone who could have and should have paid their premium but didn't, and found himself in a medical emergency, he did receive care. No one was turned away. As it should be, we responded to the needs of individuals in the province of Ontario by looking after those who were in a needy state of medical emergency.

Then the policy of the government said -- and this was not just the policy of the Liberal government; this was also the policy of the Conservative government before us, and I believe that it was a just policy: "If you pay three months in back premiums, we will cover you for all of your expenses." So it was very unfair, in my view, to continue OHIP premiums. We know that there was only a small portion of the total costs of health care in Ontario paid for by OHIP premiums. The intention of the employer health tax was never to pay the full shot of the health care costs in the province of Ontario.

One of the benefits of our single-payer plan in Ontario, that's our Ontario health insurance plan, is that health costs are funded from numerous sources. In the past it was premiums; now it is the employer health tax which pays today just a portion -- I think if you would look at the figures you would see that the employer health tax today is paying for about 16%, 17%, maybe 18% of the cost of health care in the province of Ontario.

Where does the rest of the money come from? That's a very good question as we debate the employer health tax. We know that some of the money, some of the resources we spend on health care through the Ministry of Health, comes from personal income tax, a portion of it comes from sales tax and a portion of it comes from corporate taxes as well. Some of it undoubtedly will come from the varying fees and licences.

How can I say exactly how much comes from each one? You can't, and that's because the way the province of Ontario collects its resources and then allocates its funds is one where all the money goes into one big pot and that big pot is called the consolidated revenue fund. Then the province, through the treasury, says to each ministry, "For the services, this is how much you will receive."

We know the Ministry of Health is receiving almost one third of all of the dollars collected by the provincial treasury. We know that, of the approximately $17 billion that's spent by the Ministry of Health on behalf of the taxpayers of the province of Ontario, the employer health tax generates less than 20% of the total cost of health services.

Why was it called the employer health tax and why have we kept that name? Well, when we look at how we fund health services and when we consider not only what's happening in Ontario but what's happening in other jurisdictions, we know, and we believed at the time we were in government, that it was extremely important for employers to have an interest in the health of their employees. We know it is extremely important for business to feel that they are participating in helping to keep the costs of health care services down and under control. We also know, particularly from our neighbours to the south, that often business is looked to to share the cost of providing health services for their employees.

An example in the United States today, where the debate on how they're going to be providing health care to their population rages -- and, unfortunately, I believe it's become a very partisan debate rather than looking at the examples of what the options are for them. I don't wish to offer the Americans any advice during this debate but rather to explain to Ontarians who are watching what is happening. I think sometimes we tend to export our rhetoric to the United States, particularly our rhetoric about some of the concerns that we have within our system, and they feed it back to us and then we buy it.

In fact, the debates that are going on in the United States are because the Americans, an overwhelming percentage -- a recent Harris poll that I heard the results of suggests that almost 90% of the population in the United States are dissatisfied -- I'm sorry, I've got the number wrong. It was almost 70% -- 67% of the people in the United States were dissatisfied with their own plan for the delivery of health services and almost 90% of Canadians were quite satisfied with the method that we use for the delivery of services.

It's important that that be a part of this debate because one of the things we know is that the cost of health care services to employers in the United States is a very significant part of the Clinton plan. But even before the Clinton plan, payment by employers for their employees' health coverage was the way that the United States functioned.

1540

The result of that is that in steel, for example, what we've heard from Lee Iacocca and others in the steel industry is that health care costs employers more than steel and almost $700 per employee in the United States, whereas in Canada -- and this is one of our competitive advantages -- the cost to employers on the same basis would be approximately $50 or $60 per car for employees. So it's $700 a car, more than the cost of steel, in the United States; $50 to $60 per car in Canada.

That is an enormous competitive advantage, but what it signifies in the North American context and around the world is that business does have an obligation to help keep their workforce well and healthy. Also, because of their interest in sustaining and maintaining our competitive advantage in Canada, it is very important for us to be very aware of the implications of a payroll tax such as the employer health tax.

I can tell you that when the employer health tax was brought in, the amount of revenue that it was expected to generate was in fact considerably less than what it is generating today. The estimates that we had from the treasury on how much revenue would be generated from the employer health tax were less than what is actually being generated.

I can say with honesty that it was never our intention to see the employer health tax take as much in the way of revenue out of the employers, if you will, from their payrolls, as has been the reality. It is one place where rather than just extending the tax to generate even further revenue, if I were giving the government a place, and I am giving the government a place, where it could look to lower the tax, the employer health tax, in my view, would be a very good place to look. The reason is because payroll taxes, which the employer health tax is, can be seen by many to inhibit job creation. Particularly at a time in the economy today when what you want to do is spur job creation in the private sector, relief on the payroll tax would be a very good place to start.

So I would say to the government that Bill 110 could be amended, and should be amended, to reduce the rate so that you would see this as a benefit to the payroll taxes of employers, who could then create more jobs in the private sector.

I'm sure that one of my colleagues is going to say, "Well, why didn't you do that when you brought the tax in?" That's a fair question, and I'm going to answer that question here and now today. When this tax was brought in, Ontario's economy was booming. It was so buoyant that many thought it would continue for ever, and I was one who hoped and prayed that it would have, because Ontario led the western world in economic activity at the time that we eliminated premiums for OHIP and brought in the employer health tax. In those times, as I said, our estimates of the revenue that would be generated from the employer health tax were less than the amount of revenue that it is actually bringing in.

So you have an opportunity as government, since the taxes that it is generating are higher than what was anticipated or desired at that time and the economy has changed -- rather than being the most buoyant economy in the Americas, in North America, and in fact in the western world, what we have is an economy that is struggling to come out of this terrible recession that has ensued since those buoyant and happy days of the late 1980s. One of the ways that you could respond to that as you extend, through tax reform, the employer health tax to all of those, who would be more than willing to pay their fair share as long as they didn't feel they were paying more than their fair share -- then I think you would have much greater support for Bill 110 or a bill of its type.

There are a number of things that I'd like to say, but I don't want the debate to go on for too long. I do believe that the extension of the employer health tax in the way the government is doing it really will hamper the kind of entrepreneurial spirit of the individual self-employed that is needed at this particular time in order to ensure a stronger recovery in the province of Ontario.

I also believe that one of the things government must do is eliminate red tape, eliminate the kind of bureaucratic, "one more form to fill out" kind of attitude of government. What I see in the way that the EHT is being implemented is in fact more bureaucratic red tape, more forms, more paper and more of that burden on the small business person, the self-employed, who can least afford, in many cases, the kinds of expertise to fill out all of these forms on their behalf.

The proposed structure -- and I am looking for some clarity in the form of amendments from the parliamentary assistant, because I think the government is responding to one of the big arguments that I was going to make about the employer health tax with amendments. So I'll be watching for those amendments very carefully, because I think that as it is proposed in Bill 110, unamended, this will unfairly penalize people who invest large amounts of capital in their businesses in Ontario, and also those who have income from sources outside Ontario.

I think I heard the parliamentary assistant say that they would be making amendments that would address that concern. The only thing I would say to him is that the problem with placing the amendments today, on April 18, 1994, is that, again, you've been collecting this since last year and the people who are paying and must pay have waited too long. That was the sort of change that in my view should have come when the legislation was tabled in October. Certainly the government had sufficient time to see how this act was being implemented and how the tax was being collected from the time it announced it in the budget in April until it tabled the legislation in October.

Here we are offering amendments to this piece of legislation almost a full year after it's been in place. I would ask the parliamentary assistant, have you been collecting this tax? What are you going to do? Will your amendments be retroactive so that you can refund to those people if you have collected the tax inappropriately? Will the amendments be retroactive to the date when the tax started to be collected? Now, if I'm mistaken -- and it could be that they have not been collecting the tax -- then in fact I'd ask that they clarify that so that if there is any confusion out there, people will know.

The other reason I ask for it to be clarified is my assumption that some of this may be done through the income tax system. If it's being done through the income tax system, the final filing date for income tax is April 30 and therefore the timing of this could not be worse for individuals who will be affected by the EHT. So I'd ask for some clarification on what the implication here is.

Some clarification, I think, would be helpful to those individuals who are concerned about the impact, particularly for those who have made large capital investments, as well as those who have income from other sources outside Ontario but where the payroll and the earnings actually are within Ontario. I'd ask for those to be clarified by the parliamentary assistant before the end of the debate today. Perhaps he could when I wrap up my remarks, which will be in just a very few minutes.

1550

One of the things that I'm always asked is, "What would you do differently?"

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I've never asked you. I've never asked the member for Oriole, "What would you do differently?" We don't want you to get in.

Mrs Caplan: I hear Mr Cousens asking the question yet again. He does it all the time in his two-minute responses, so I'm going to pre-empt him today. I see he is in tears, he is so upset. Sometimes around this place it's good to have a little laugh. We can't take ourselves too seriously. But I do take Mr Cousens very seriously when he says, "What would you do differently, Elinor?"

I'd like to place on the record the recommendations of the Liberal minority report for the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of the province. These are our recommendations for this coming budget, which is coming down within the next few weeks. I hope the Treasurer has listened. He's had these recommendations for some time now, but I would like to place them on the record.

There are seven recommendations and I will just take a few minutes to put them on the record. What you will notice is that many of these recommendations were very similar to the Liberal minority report on the budget last year. The Finance minister didn't listen to us last year, but I'm hoping he will listen to us this year.

The first is probably the most significant and important recommendation. It's the reason I will be opposing all of the budget bills from last year's budget, because I believe it was wrong fiscal policy last year to raise taxes in the province; I believe it was wrong economic policy to raise taxes. I think it hurt the economy. We are saying to the government, "The 1994-95 budget must contain no new or increased taxes," and that includes fees.

Second, "The 1993-94 budget" -- that's the one that's coming now -- "must present Ontarians with an action plan for getting the economy moving again." That may well include some tax decreases, and I hope we see it will, such as was evidenced today by the tax decrease on the produce-your-own beer and wine.

Third, and this is extremely important if the business community as well as consumers and citizens in Ontario are going to have confidence, "The government should adopt the accounting standards of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants for both the public accounts and the budget statements." If he did that, maybe the Provincial Auditor would then attest to those budgets and it would instil greater confidence in the budget-making capability and the books of the province. That is extremely important, if we are going to have investors confident enough to invest in Ontario.

Fourth, "In order to instil a sense of confidence among consumers and investors, the government must keep to its deficit reduction plan set out in the 1993 budget without resorting to questionable bookkeeping." According to Mr Laughren, they're already off by $2 billion; they're not going to make the $6.8 billion. It's my hope that we will see the deficit plan come in at $8 billion or less. I would have preferred to see the achievable $6.8 billion that was in the expenditure reduction plan, but I fear we will not.

Fifth, "The government must initiate a serious review of public expenditures. The government must examine how to 'reinvent' itself and redefine how it delivers its services."

I'm going to put this statement on the record, because it is something I believe in fundamentally as a Liberal. I believe very strongly that if the government would embrace this, we could get on with delivering of services that the people of this province need and want in a way which is certainly both more effective, more efficient and more affordable, and that is:

"Government should provide only those services that government should provide and that only government delivers best. The government should decide which tasks can be best performed by other levels of government or the private sector and which tasks should be eliminated entirely."

Sixth, "The government must initiate measures to get the" --

Mr Cousens: How many points do you have?

Mrs Caplan: I have seven points. "The government must initiate measures to get the Workers' Compensation Board costs under control and ensure that employers do not face any more assessment increases." It's extremely important.

Seventh, "The government must restore the balance of current provincial labour law to ensure that both sides have equal rights in the bargaining and organizing process."

That is the standing committee on finance and economic affairs Liberal minority report. It's their recommendations to the government of an alternative fiscal and economic plan that we believe, if the government would follow it, would bring prosperity to Ontario.

The other thing I'd like to say is that I'm very proud of the work that's been done by the Lyn McLeod job task force. As we are discussing tax policy and fiscal policy, I would commend to anyone who hasn't seen it the Getting Ontario Working Again document that has been put out by our leader and our caucus. I know many people have seen it. The report is available. It is a comprehensive plan to get Ontario working again, and it has a five-part plan for success.

The one that is probably the most significant when you're discussing tax policy is that if the government commits itself to getting Ontario working again, we would do that by setting the kinds of goals that would be a stretch, that would require getting everyone to work together to reduce unemployment from the levels that Bob Rae has said are likely during his term of office and beyond.

We're saying that's not good enough, that if you had a government with the kind of foresight and vision Lyn McLeod and her team are proposing, tax policy and economic policy and social policy could go hand in hand to renew the vitality of the Ontario economy.

Let me tell you what this paper has to say about taxes. That's only one part of the plan, so it's important that we look at it comprehensively, but because we don't have a lot of time, I'd like to place on the record what they say about taxes.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I understand she's reading from the book, because she keeps making reference to it. I'd be really interested to get a copy of that book and I want to know if that's available for circulation to all the members. Can we get one?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): That's not a point of order. The honourable member for Oriole, please resume your participation in the debate.

Mrs Caplan: We would gladly make a copy available to any member of the public or any member of the Legislature who would be interested in reading the paper.

Under the part of the recommendations entitled "Letting the Economy Breathe," the Liberal task force found that the job-creating sector of our economy, that is, the private sector, feels stifled "as it looks to grow and expand. If we can find ways to let businesses 'breathe,' we are convinced that they can and will grow and create jobs" in the private sector of the province.

"(a) Taxes: There is no doubt that economic growth in Ontario is being hampered by taxes. We are recommending that we set a goal of actual tax reduction -- specifically a 5% reduction over a five-year period.

"The [jobs] task force fully appreciates the challenge of this, considering the province's substantial deficit and continuing spending pressure.

"However, we have concluded that the necessary economic growth to generate the incremental jobs may not be possible without some tangible evidence of action by government to improve consumer and business confidence.

"In very general terms, to effect a 1% annual decrease in the level of taxation, Ontario would need to see an incremental annual 0.5% growth in the real GDP. The task force believes that the total plan for the 'Getting Ontario Working Again' team should have the potential to deliver an incremental GDP growth in that range."

We speak about a dramatic reduction of regulation and paperwork, and of course that is extremely important, and we set the goal of a 50% reduction in the cost for businesses in dealing with regulation and paperwork imposed by government.

We also speak about the need for deficit management and make the commitment to a balanced operating budget within the first mandate of a new government.

1600

As I said, I'm not going to go through this in detail. This speaks to an alternative, a plan, a suggestion for fiscal and economic policy. It also has some very specific and concrete suggestions regarding tax policy. With a budget coming out in just a few weeks, there is still time for the Treasurer to reconsider the misguided tax policy of the NDP government, which during this time of economic recession has been devastating to the private sector, to businesses and to individuals in this province, who would have preferred to have the additional dollars to spend on capital investment or purchases for families.

I don't think anybody believes there are easy and simplistic solutions. I certainly don't. However, I do think that with a government that perhaps, rather than being ideologically driven, would open its mind -- if they would open their minds to ideas and suggestions such as the ones we have put forward, I think we could see a better economy, more jobs and certainly a greater sense of confidence and predictability coming at a time when that's exactly what Ontario needs.

The last thing Ontario needs is a bill like 110 that simply raises, or attempts to raise, additional revenues in the province. We know what's happened in the past when NDP tax policy has attempted to raise an additional $3 billion. The actual fact is that we have seen $2 billion less collected in revenues in the province, notwithstanding the additional tax structures and tax increases that have been put in place by the NDP.

I am aware that the world has changed. I know that in the late 1980s the province of Ontario was prosperous and led the western world in economic activity. I know that today we are lagging behind many of our neighbours in economic recovery. I think the difference between leading your neighbours and following your neighbours is leadership in government. I'm proud of the leadership in opposition that Lyn McLeod has put forward, the alternatives and the suggestions that the Liberal caucus has put forward.

I would say to the NDP government, which should be focusing its time and its attention on governing and not simply on electioneering, that this is a good time to look at changes of policy that will help the economy of Ontario rather than further hindering it. I believe that Bill 110 will further hinder the economy of the province of Ontario, and I will not be supporting Bill 110.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): It's a pleasure to stand here this afternoon after listening to the Liberal critic. I'm somewhat taken aback at this new level of zeal to be tax fighters like the Tories.

If you go back to the budget of 1984-85, which saw revenues of $23.38 billion, I wonder where she was when that was increased by almost $2 billion in revenue enhancements to $25 billion, or where she was in 1986-87 when it went up almost $4 billion, or in 1987-88 when it went up $3 billion, or in 1988-89 when, my goodness gracious, it went up $4 billion again. Then in 1989-90, when it went up $5 billion, I wonder where she was.

I'd also wonder where she was in the last year of the Liberal mandate, when their spending increased by 14.7%. The whole time they were in office, their spending went up at astronomical rates. Meanwhile, in my riding, for example, they couldn't find any money to expand the hospital in one of the fastest-growing areas of Ontario -- no money. We found that money at a time when funds were decreasing. The 5% reduction they are talking about, the balancing of the budget they are talking about -- they don't give any ideas of how they're going to do it. A 5% reduction in my hospital is going to lay off 100 nurses. I'd like them to say how they're going to supply and keep people working when they're laying off that number of people from my hospital in my riding and in my schools and all over the province.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): I hope to have an opportunity later today, if there's time, depending on how long the critic for the third party goes, to speak on this bill. But I want to congratulate the member for Oriole who, as usual, brings a rather descriptive analysis of the government's legislation.

Fundamentally, what the member is saying is that there is an obvious loss of any confidence in the business community to invest in Ontario. This is not just opposition rhetoric. We hear this everywhere we go. I recently completed a two-month outreach tour on workers' compensation. The minister will be, I'm sure, delighted to read the report, which will be available later this week. Hopefully, the government will look at some of the ideas, because they're not my ideas; they're ideas that were brought to me as the critic and to our outreach tour from people all over the province.

The one message we heard was very, very consistent, and it came from the supposed great supporters of the NDP. It came from the labour movement, it came from the small business community in Thunder Bay and in Ottawa and in Chatham and in Barrie and in Peterborough and right across the province. They said, "We're not getting jobs created in this province because nobody has any confidence in the future of the province."

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Oh, come on.

Mr Mahoney: Everybody, Randy, said that, because they had no confidence in Bob Rae or Floyd Laughren.

So what do we get? Your response to try to create jobs in the province is to bring in a week-long session of tax bills. That's the NDP's response to try to get the economy going. When are you going to get it, guys? You increase taxes and you decrease the revenue you need and we all need in this province. Wake up.

Mr Cousens: Are these Liberals we're hearing from? Are these the very people who in 1989, when Robert Nixon was the Treasurer, came in and announced the employee health tax? That was Bill 89.

By the way, I saw the member for Oriole yesterday at the Armenian centre in her riding. There isn't any doubt that you are an excellent politician, because you can come together, as we did yesterday, in a non-partisan way and support a group of people within our society, as we both did fairly and nicely. You were so hospitable to me there that I have to say, when I speak to you now, I hope you won't begrudge the fact that we're now in the Legislature and can no longer have that social grace that was so nice yesterday. But I compliment the member for yesterday, as I was in her riding at the Armenian cultural centre. It was a fine event and we both shared the platform and said the same kind of thing.

But today I'm here listening, and is this the same Elinor Caplan I was with yesterday? I am thinking of you more as the person who was on the David Peterson cabinet. You could confirm for us, were you in the cabinet when the employee health tax was first thought of and discussed? Were you in the cabinet when the Treasurer came forward and said --

Mrs Caplan: OHIP premiums.

Mr Cousens: "Is the way we're going to get rid of OHIP premiums, go with an employee health tax?" Were you there for those discussions? If you were there for those discussions, how could you today, with any conscience at all, come out and make the speech you just did? I don't sense it's the same person.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. One final participant, the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance.

Mr Sutherland: I'd like to respond first of all to some of the technical questions the member for Oriole raised. Let me just say that Bill 110 was introduced on October 26, 1993. The first instalment for the self-employed was not due till November 15, so therefore there isn't any retroactivity for out-of-province payments. We're not proposing any new amendments. Bill 110 replaces the old Bill 27, and the changes were made when we brought in the new Bill 110 versus Bill 27 regarding out-of-province people.

1610

The member for Oriole, in her remarks, though, talked about changes that their new jobs thing is going to do and about reorganizing government and the services it provides. Where has the member for Oriole been? Look what that government did throughout the 1980s in health care. Rates increased by an average of 10% per year. We've got that down to 1%, working in cooperation with our partners out there: hospitals, doctors, nurses, all the different groups out there. We are changing those services. We are, in terms of long-term care reform, going to more community-based services.

The member talks about the Workers' Compensation Board. Do you know what the unfunded liability of the Workers' Compensation Board was in 1980? It was only $400 million. Do you know what it was in 1985? It was $6 billion. By 1990 it was over $10 billion. The fact is, in my view, that the Liberals have no credibility on Workers' Compensation Board issues because they didn't deal with it. They didn't manage those issues.

This government has been dealing with the very difficult economic times. We've been out there creating hundreds of thousands of jobs in cooperation with our partners. We are making the tough decisions on Ontario Hydro and on the Workers' Compensation Board, decisions both the Liberals and Tories ignored. They didn't deal with them. They ignored them. They didn't manage them, and that's why we're having to do it now.

The Acting Speaker: This completes questions or comments. The honourable member for Oriole has two minutes in response.

Mrs Caplan: In my two minutes in response I'd like to just take issue with the member for Durham West, I believe, who suggested that in the last year of a Liberal government the spending was a 14% increase over the previous year. That is absolutely untrue. The Nixon spending plan had an increase of 6.8%, and when the government changed in September 1990, halfway through the year, Bob Rae took over a spending plan of 6.8% increases and ran it up by the end of the year, six months later, to 14% and a $3-billion deficit. Even with that $3-billion deficit, they were still in an operating surplus position, something which they then turned into a huge deficit the next year of almost $10 billion and a huge operating deficit of $6 billion.

I want to remind the members that they inherited an AAA credit rating, which has been downgraded three times because of the fiscal policy and taxation policies and economic policies of the Bob Rae government. If you want to know the test of confidence, it is frequently the test of that credit rating, which is a test of business confidence in this province.

If you don't think the test of confidence is also reflected by consumers, when they see the province's credit rating downgraded three times in four years, what they say is that something is fundamentally wrong with the economic management of the province by Treasurer Laughren, Bob Rae and his team.

Bill 110 is just another example of the misguided policies of this government. The incompetence and the ineptitude have led to unprecedented loss of confidence, justifiably, by the people of the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cousens: The people in Ontario remembered the Liberals when it came to September 6, 1990, and it wasn't just one or two reasons why David Peterson and his government were removed from office; it was the arrogance of that government. They were taking advantage of the province of Ontario. It was the 33 taxes. It was the downloading to the municipalities. So the people of Ontario on September 6, 1990, saw fit to change governments.

Democracy works in strange ways and I wish I had had more influence to get the people to vote for someone other than the New Democrats, but you win some and you lose some. Our party at least survived the election and we will survive to run another.

We're dealing with Bill 110, and Bill 110 is another one of those very thick little bills that seem innocuous: An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act.

You almost get used to taxes because we've had so many levied in the last several years by the combination of the Liberals and now the New Democrats. Here they are, they're raising taxes. We had 33 tax increases in the short five years of the Liberals being in power and then we've had 32 tax increases since Bob Rae and his group were elected. It's been a lot of taxation.

What it's done is to make Ontario one of the most heavily taxed jurisdictions in North America. It has made us uncompetitive and unattractive for outside investors to come and invest their money into this environment known as Ontario. It's made Ontario a place that has stumbled economically, not unlike other jurisdictions as well. During the last few years, we have seen a very painful time for pretty well all countries; eastern Europe has gone through it. I don't think anyone in the world has survived this tough economic time. But during the 1980s, when things were booming, at that time the government could have maybe been a little bit like Joseph when he went to Egypt. He was there, and the Egyptians, during their period, and he said, "There's going to be seven years of great feasting and there will be large harvest and following this there will be seven years of famine."

We didn't have seven years of great harvest, but there were at least five, and then we had five of devastation. During the time the Liberals were in power, we saw just exactly how rich we were because the spending was without much thought or consideration and it was a government that just --

Mrs Caplan: That's crap.

Mr Cousens: The honourable member for Oriole, is that the kind of legislative language you would want to use in the presence of microphones? I won't repeat that.

Mr Perruzza: Go easy on her, Don.

Mr Cousens: I wouldn't want to repeat that four-letter word.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): Arrogance, Don, arrogance.

Mr Cousens: No, no. This is not a day for recriminations too much, but it's time to remind the Liberals that they --

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): You're going to be gentle today.

Mr Cousens: I don't want to be totally gentle either. I think the Liberals have a very short memory and I wanted to ask the honourable former Minister of Health, was she around the table when the employee health tax was first discussed?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): We live in the future, not the past.

Mr Cousens: You sure as heck do, a party that brought in the employee health tax and which was supporting it back in 1989, it was part of Bob Nixon's biggest budget ever, and now comes along and says, "Well, you're making some amendments and changes to it and we just can't support it."

You can't use the word "hypocritical" in the Legislature and I wouldn't want to use it, but I can't think of a better word to describe that which has been said and done today. One can't use that langauge here, so I have to be very circumspect in what I'm saying.

The people in Ontario did not like the employee health tax then and they don't really like it now and the --

Mr Bradley: They didn't like the OHIP premiums you brought in.

Mr Cousens: You know something, Jim, you're right. They didn't like OHIP premiums, but now we're in a position where who pays for the health care of the province of Ontario?

A person, in this new bill: Bill 110 I think is doing more the right thing. It's at least making sure that the holes are filled where the Liberals didn't fill them back in 1989. The New Democrats are not so stupid after all. If there's any money left on the table and they can find it, they're going to get their graspy little hands on it. This bill is going to make sure they close all the doors and avenues for anyone not paying employee health tax.

I don't want you to forget, members of this Legislature, that the employee health tax is one of those taxes that was brought in by the Liberals during the time of David Peterson, and we just heard the member for Oriole, Elinor Caplan, berating the government for making some modifications to it. She should be kicking herself around the block for letting that get in in the first place in 1989. How she can come in here with this sense of high and mighty attitude that they're doing the right thing by opposing it today is beyond me.

I want you to know that I was going through some of my old files and --

Mr Bradley: If you are going to talk about the future, I'll stay, if you are.

Mr Cousens: No, I'm going to deal with the past for a while, Jim. I want to remind the people of what the Liberals are all about.

Hon Ms Churley: There are no Liberals in the House.

Mr Cousens: Just for the record, I know we're not supposed to comment on people present or absent in the House, and in that case I won't be specific, but there isn't one Liberal in the House today and that's probably because they know I'm going to have a few moments talking about them, because it's all part of the record and people have a way of forgetting that record.

1620

Having listened so intently to Elinor Caplan, the member for Oriole, I'm inclined to believe that she doesn't want to even try to remember what went on in 1989, because it was the decisions made by her and the David Peterson government that led to the downfall of that regime, and it was the kind of thing they did that raised such ire, such anger, such angst of people who were saying, "We want to lobby the government to come up with some fairer system of paying for our health care system."

I was looking at some of my old clippings, and I won't go into the file which is inches thick, but there was one, Richard Mackie of the Globe, who said it well:

"The Ontario Liberal government intends to ignore intense opposition and proceed with a controversial tax plan that would hit the province's businesses with what critics charge is a system of double taxation. The proposed new tax, the employer health levy, would be a payroll tax to replace premiums for the Ontario health insurance plan, 70% of which are already paid by employers."

Mr Perruzza: That was one of the better things they did. Don't attack that one, Don. Come on.

Mr Cousens: I'll just go on. Mr Mackie goes on to say:

"The officials in the treasury ministry say that the Liberal government has no plans to change the tax despite lobbying efforts directed at Treasurer Robert Nixon and Industry, Trade and Technology Minister Monte Kwinter."

Monte Kwinter happens to have won a few big battles in that government along the way, but this was one even he could not win. Today, to hear from the member for Oriole, it would appear that there are some members of the Liberal caucus who don't even want to remember those days.

The people of Ontario are not well served when we just continue to find more ways of taxation. As I touch on Bill 110 today, I want to go into something of the history of the bill. I'd like to review the bill itself and then I would like to deal with some of the comments of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which has done a tremendous amount of research on this particular tax and what it means. I would like to draw attention as well to the Fair Tax Commission that has a fair amount to say about employer taxes, and then I'd like to deal just with taxation in general.

First of all, we go back to what the Liberals brought in in their bill, Bill 76 I think is what the number was back then. The early days in 1990 are when you started having a new level of taxation and that was taxation of payrolls. It took effect January 1, 1990, and it was another increase at the same time as Mr Robert Nixon introduced other changes to the income tax law. It was a badly implemented bill. It was badly implemented in a number of ways.

If an employer is paying attention to our debate today, they'll remember that they paid tax twice because there are some employers -- 70% of OHIP payments previously had always been paid by employers. When this new tax came in, it didn't have a way of having a smooth cutoff of those who were paying their OHIP fees. There were some employers who were paying double: They were paying the new tax and then for those who had paid in advance for their OHIP fees, they had to pay a second time. As it came in, the Liberals really at that time had little consideration about the smooth implementation of this tax.

This government across the floor -- we're dealing with another bill and we've got plenty of evidence of how they were so hasty in bringing in the tax on other matters. I shouldn't divert to it, but there's the tax on the home brewery, and they're coming in with amendments on Bill 138 that will rectify some of the goofs they made last year. At least they've got the courage and the time to do it in this time frame to repair some of the damage they did, but the people in the Liberal caucus at the time the payroll tax for health came in listened to no one. They made no amendments to the bill. They were in lockstep together. The Liberal caucus and David Peterson and Robert Nixon all went in lockstep together over the cliff, as they went and took the whole province into collecting another $2 billion in taxes -- not another, but added to the taxes they had, and I'll go into how much more they got out of it.

The Liberals collected $2.6 billion in this tax. The other thing is, this tax is not inflation-indexed, so the government profits from inflation. What it means is, it's just a percentage, so whenever the payrolls go up, automatically, because it's a percentage, it will just continue to increase. It isn't locked at any level right now. It just continues to grow and grow and grow. The rate is graduated from 0.98% to 1.95% of an employer's payroll, and the maximum is payable on payrolls of just $400,000 or more. It goes into the whole new philosophy of a payroll tax.

I don't think the people of Ontario are well served when they don't have some way of recognizing their contribution towards health care. I don't know the perfect solution, but I know that to administer this tax requires a huge bureaucracy. You're talking about the time and preparation of another tax by all the employers who have to submit it, and then the users of the system have no real sense of who's really paying for it. It's as if health care is free. What a failure that is on our part, because there's nothing free. It comes from a combination of sources, but every one of us pays in one way or the other for every service provided by government. For those people who think that health care is free, they've got another think coming.

None the less, the employers started to carry the heaviest part of the load in this payroll tax that was brought in by Mr David Peterson and his government. A survey that was completed by the Ontario PC Party in 1990 found that 67% of the respondent employers of the private sector, universities and hospitals would hire fewer people as a result of this tax. Fewer people could get a job after this tax was brought in because of the high cost associated with it. A company or a university or an institution only has so much money that it can spend on people and services. If the overhead goes up, then how do they compensate for it? They have to pay the employer health tax, so what they end up doing is removing a certain number of people along the way.

I'm satisfied that when this tax was brought in in the first place it was one of the disincentives for hiring people. Further, it was one of the reasons why people started to lose their jobs in 1990. The cost of running a business became so much more excessive that businesses had a more and more difficult time to justify all their actions because a certain percentage of that income was going into employer health tax.

I remember very, very well one of the major employers in my community, and the employer health tax was going to take his bottom line profits for his company for that year. It ended up that his bill for the employer health tax, with the number of employees he had, was over $60,000. He made the point to me, "Don, that's the amount of money that I would have made in profit for my whole business at that time."

Now, people aren't aware that some of these companies were struggling as much as they were, but this, as another tax, cut into his personal income. It took money away that he could have invested into new opportunities, into hiring new people or into pouring it back into his business. When the money was taken away from his business and given to the province of Ontario, then it was that much less money that he had to build and prosper and to create a business that really had such great potential.

That's what we have to do: make sure that the employers of the world have a reason to continue to invest in Ontario, to invest in their business, to invest in jobs and, in so doing, to create opportunities for young people and others who can follow after them.

This is a classic case; I wish I could use the name of the company. It's a very prominent company, owned by one person. He has several hundred employees. His total take-home profit at the end of the year was taken away from him through the employer health tax. So when you come along and say, "Isn't that too bad? Maybe he's too rich as it is," no, he works hard. He's got a huge investment. He's getting the minimum out of it, and when you bring in a tax like this -- and his prices are all fixed and structured; he's facing tough competition from everybody else -- how then can he survive? All he can do is obey the law.

So when our survey that was taken back in 1990 found that 67% of employers in the private sector would hire fewer people as a result of this tax, that's a fact.

1630

Another survey found that 19,500 small businesses had to lay off workers in response to the new tax. Do you realize that 19,500 small businesses had to lay off workers in response to the new tax? What happens is that if you continue to levy taxes on business and you take that money away from them that they could otherwise spend on people, jobs, development, new machinery, new equipment, new something else, you take away the chance for jobs.

I say to the Liberal Party that when they brought in the employer health tax in the first place, they did it with very poor insight into the effect that it would have on the marketplace as a whole. The Ontario Restaurant Association, back in 1989, said that the payroll tax will eliminate jobs in the hospitality industry. It's the same situation, the same as my first instance of a larger company where their total amount of profit for the year was absconded by the government in its tax. The government's own experts warned that the payroll tax would impair job creation, and this is something that came out of the then Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in 1989, and that's one of the reasons that the former Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, Monte Kwinter, was fighting hard to keep the government from introducing the employer health tax. I just wish that he'd won that battle, but he didn't.

Another survey conducted, when Manitoba introduced a similar payroll tax, found that 40% of small businesses in that province either laid off workers or reduced hiring as a result of that kind of employer health tax in that province. What it did in the case of Manitoba is it forced the government there to roll back the tax. Now we're going to see a rollback of one tax by the NDP in the province of Ontario although it's been devastating to the small breweries and wine-makers, a growing, good, small-business enterprise in the province of Ontario. Because the tax was so onerous and heavy, most of their businesses have suffered terribly because of the high tax per litre on -- I was going to call it fuel -- beer and on wine. So the government is now coming forward with recommendations to cut that back. It's too bad they can't be retroactive on that one, because they've already done the damage to those small merchants.

This tax, an employer health tax, is just seen as an innocent way for a government to skim the money off the top so the government's coffers are more full. At the same time, the employers who are providing an opportunity for business are the ones who are suffering.

We have a number around here in the Legislature that $50,000 of taxes is enough to remove one job. What happened on this one is that we already had OHIP. A large part of OHIP was paid for by employers, maybe 70% of it, and the remainder was picked up by the employer health tax, so the difference is what we're really talking about when we change the system.

Employers can only take so much. If we begin to look at the impact on people who run businesses, of all the taxes that we have, you begin to understand just why people are resistant to start up companies, why people are moving their businesses outside of this jurisdiction and why people just are not investing in the province of Ontario.

We saw this as well in further surveys. There was a survey that showed 81.6% of exporters in Ontario said the payroll tax would make them less competitive in export markets, because what it meant was that in order to get the money back they had to raise the cost of their products and services in order to break even. There's nothing wrong with making a profit. In fact, it should be good. It's something we in the Legislature should be encouraging. Wouldn't it be wonderful if people in the province of Ontario had some extra money in their jeans and then they could go out and they could spend it and then it would keep the economy going? The consumer confidence would be such that I think we could fuel a tremendous amount of growth and enterprise in the province of Ontario.

Likewise, for those who are investing here and doing business elsewhere, if they end up having a high cost of doing business in Ontario, then that cost has to be passed on to whomever it is they're doing business with.

There isn't any doubt that this employer health tax that was introduced by the Liberals back in 1989 had the biggest impact on small businesses. The small business coalition, led by the Ontario organization of small business, said, "Payroll tax would discourage small business from locating in Ontario." That was in the Financial Post on November 16, 1989. Again, the payroll tax hit smallest businesses the hardest. Most firms with fewer than 10 employees didn't pay OHIP premiums. Now, they say, all of them are having to pay a payroll tax.

You wonder, how many of the businesses in Ontario are small business? That's really the strength of this province.

I'm the honorary chair of the York Technology Association. This is a high-tech association that is in northeast Metro and south York region. We have maybe 110 members, but on our associate list we probably have 250 companies that are part of what York Technology is all about.

We did a survey on the size of the companies that make up the association, and to my surprise, there are only about 15 of the 110 companies that are large corporations of over 50 employees. The vast majority of those companies are under 50 employees, and I'd say over 50% of them are under 10 employees.

What we have is that entrepreneurial spirit where people are out there starting a business. When you look at the people over the last few years who have lost their jobs and in order to find a fresh opportunity are starting up their own businesses, they're suddenly finding that one of the painful things about doing business in Ontario is complying with all the government regulations and all the government guidelines. It's tremendously complicated, and there they are. It's just another cost of doing business.

So the small business sector was tremendously hard hit, because until the employee health tax that was brought in by the Liberals in 1989, they didn't have to pay the cost of OHIP. It was paid for by employees, and employees realized that that's part of the cost of just life -- living -- so individuals would pay their health tax themselves through OHIP.

Hospitals, universities, colleges and schools: When the province came through with its great change in employee health tax in 1989, public institutions also had to pay that tax. So schools, universities and hospitals ended up paying $85 million more that year. It wasn't budgeted. Here was something that they suddenly had to pay out.

Again, people forget about the fact that everything that happens through Queen's Park and the Legislative Assembly has a rippling effect that ripples through to many different sectors, and when you're looking at municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals -- we call it MUSH, because it comes together rather nicely -- all of them ended up having to contribute towards the employee health tax. Therefore they had to raise more taxes locally through their local tax base, and that too became an impact, a negative impact, on the one taxpayer back at the local municipality.

Is it any wonder there is an increasing tax revolt in the province of Ontario? Is it any wonder that you're seeing more and more growth in the underground economy? Anyone who's involved in the underground economy, who is totally illegitimate, isn't paying an employee health tax. It's hard to get all those l's right. They're not paying an employee health tax, because if they're making their money illicitly, illegally, underground, they're not paying it. It's only the legitimate companies that are paying it.

I just can see the impact that it's had. Certainly, what we have seen in the last few years was the philosophy that was part of the then Treasurer of the province of Ontario. Robert Nixon made it clear that, in his mind, the municipalities had more money to spend. Some of them had large reserves, but as far as he was concerned, they had more freedom and scope to increase their taxation levels, so let them pay more. And when he said that and he thought that, it was an impact on the small people of the province of Ontario, who own their own home, who own their own condo, who are living in an apartment, but they still some way or other end up having to pay more.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): People like you.

Mr Cousens: People like me, poor little guy from Markham, who end up having to pay that extra in taxes because of the extra levy that's been laid out by the province of Ontario that municipalities had to pay.

In the magnanimity of Mr David Peterson and Bob Nixon back in 1989, there they are saying: "Health charges are all going to be free. Your employers are going to look after it for you." People forgot that the local taxpayer paying the bill was picking up the extra costs for health services, for OHIP itself, through their additional taxation levels. The burden that government under David Peterson put on local government is something we have never gotten away from.

1640

Unfortunately, once you bring in a tax like that, once you bring in those changes, you don't reverse them. That's the hypocrisy of politics. If someone comes up and says, "Oh, I'm going to start saving you money," don't believe us when we say that. All you can really hope is that a politician will say, "I'll freeze taxes; I'll hold the line; I'll try to find ways of doing it," because if we ever can save some money, what we've really got to do is plow it back into the deficit.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Should we believe Mike Harris?

Mr Cousens: You sure should. Should we believe Mike Harris? The answer is yes. Should we believe someone else you might support? I'd say think twice. We can catch them on a few things. Mr Harris is an honourable man, and I'm pleased to be part of his party.

Mr Wiseman: We're all honourable people in this place.

Mr Cousens: We use that terminology in the Legislature. We're all honourable people, even the member for Durham West, I guess.

The Acting Speaker: Can you please address the Chair.

Mr Wiseman: Particularly the member for Durham West.

Mr Cousens: I was thinking particularly the member for Markham.

What we have to look at is deficit. When you talk about administration, a government that's in charge of things, in 1985, when the Conservatives said goodbye to Ontario -- no, it was the other way around. People said: "Goodbye, Conservatives. You have had your turn, and we want someone else to run it." At that time, the total accumulated deficit for the province in 1985, in round numbers, was about $30 billion. Is that right, Mr Tilson?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Absolutely.

Mr Cousens: Our total deficit was $30 billion.

Mr Tilson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Markham is now getting into the real facts of why this province has collapsed, and more people should hear what he's about to say. I don't believe there's a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: Are you asking for a quorum?

Mr Tilson: I am indeed, sir.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have a quorum?

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Markham may resume his participation in the debate.

Mr Cousens: I wish more Liberals would come in. I'm stuck with only the honourable member for Oriole.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Markham erroneously suggests that it's the responsibility of the Liberal caucus to maintain a quorum. It is not. The standing orders say it is the government's responsibility to maintain a quorum.

The Acting Speaker: That's a point of information, not a point of order. The member for Markham.

Mr Cousens: The member for Oriole is right, the government has a responsibility to keep its numbers here. But for my benefit and my enjoyment I wish there were more Liberals to suffer what I have to say. That's all I'm trying to say.

Mr Wiseman: How many Liberals are there here anyway?

Mr Cousens: There is one who represents the party very well. I don't want to get into that.

I was talking briefly about the deficit. When the Tories left government, for whatever reason, in 1985, the accumulated deficit --

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General and Minister of Correctional Services): They were thrown out.

Mr Cousens: So we were thrown out. We were sent out to pasture for a while, and we have been in pasture long enough, I can tell you. We want to come back.

The total accumulated deficit at that period was $30 billion. There were a few other little expense accounts, but $30 billion was the total.

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I pointed out to the member for Markham that there was also an operating deficit when the Tories left and they had just lost the AAA credit rating.

The Acting Speaker: That's not a point of order. You can correct your own record; you cannot correct another honourable member's record.

Mr Cousens: Don't be so interruptive. I didn't say a word when you were talking, although I was listening intently because I couldn't believe this was coming from your lips.

Anyway, I want to remind the member for Oriole and any Liberal or anyone else who's talked that the total accumulated deficit of the province of Ontario in one set of books -- you've got the others, unemployment insurance and Hydro and a few others, but let's just take the big pot, the trough we call the province of Ontario. In that, the total accumulated debt was $30 billion. I said it a minute ago, before the quorum call, and it is still $30 billion.

During the period of 1985 to 1990, when David Peterson and Bob Nixon and my good friend the member for Oriole were in the Peterson government, the deficit for the province of Ontario went up 25%. It went from $30 billion to $40 billion.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): A third.

Mr Cousens: Is that a third? It went up a third. The honourable member for Nipissing, my leader, Mr Harris, has just corrected me, and I will take correction from him any day.

In five years it went from $30 billion total. More than 120 years it took Ontario, Upper Canada, to have that big a deficit, and then in five years the Liberals added a third, so it went up to $40 billion. Now here's the best part of the story.

Mr Tilson: What is it now?

Mr Cousens: What is it now? Could it be up another 10% or something? No, it's gone up by $10 billion a year since Bob Rae and the socialist NDP, the red party, came in. It's now going to be close to $80 billion accumulated deficit in the province of Ontario. I'm saving this for the last part of my speech.

The fact is that it started largely during the period 1985 to 1990, when Ontario started to be mismanaged. The mismanagement --

Mrs Caplan: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would point out to the member for Markham that members of this House are supposed to always give factual information. The fact that the Liberal government had a AAA credit rating suggests that it received a Good Housekeeping seal of approval. It was definitely not mismanagement.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Markham has the floor. The member for Oriole will have the opportunity of responding, questioning, whatever, when he has finished his participation.

Mr Cousens: When you scratch someone like this, they start to squeal and squeak.

Just one other aspect: We're talking about the impact of the employer health tax, a tax that has hit others. Ontario universities -- and this is part of our research that we did back in 1989 -- could provide free tuition to full-time students with the money they lose in the payroll tax, some $23.6 million. "The University of Toronto said the payroll tax will lead to cuts in services, research and possibly staff." That was in the Sudbury Star on May 27, 1989. McMaster University said it would freeze hiring new faculty and turn away students, on June 2, 1989.

When you talk about the employer health tax, as it was brought in by the Liberals in 1989, there isn't any doubt they failed to test the whole issue correctly and well. It was all part of the mismanagement of that government. When the member for Oriole gets upset when I call it "gross mismanagement," I have to say, what else do you call it? They increased the deficit of the province, even with the huge increases in taxes, by a third of what it had been before. At the end of their term of office, they had a total accumulated deficit for the province of $40 billion.

Now, with the New Democrats in power for four years, it's going to be $80 billion. We've got to get control of it. We have to start watching it. All this deficit, all this debt, all it is is deferred taxes, taxes we're going to have to levy some day in the future on other generations, along with the interest costs, along with the administration of it all. We are not doing anyone a favour to be living beyond our means today. Future generations that are going to have to pay for it will not enjoy the luxury we have in spending beyond our means. We have to find ways of bringing it under control and do something about it.

1650

What happened is that when the Liberals brought in their employer health tax they didn't cover everybody.

Could you bring some order in here, Mr Speaker? Are you allowing all this chatter to carry on?

The Acting Speaker: I wish all members to know that interjections are out of order, and I would like the honourable member for Markham to address the Chair.

Mr Cousens: I'd like to, but it's difficult with all this noise going on in private conversations. I would like them to be listening.

Bill 110 now extends the employer health tax to self-employed people, partners in partnership, professionals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, commission salespeople, farmers and fishermen. Doesn't that sound odd? We are coming forward now with an amendment to a bill that was brought in by the then Liberal government in 1989, which was bringing in a new form of taxation to collect money, some $2.6 billion a year to pay for our health costs. It wouldn't begin to pay for it because health care is close to $17 billion a year. But why is it that when Mr Nixon and the Liberals brought in this tax they didn't include self-employed people, partners in partnership, professional people, doctors, lawyers, engineers, commission salespeople, farmers? Why is it the government missed these people? Can you believe it?

If you're going to have a tax, is it not fair to have that tax paid by all who are income-generating people in the province? Why is it? I never got an answer to that question. I remember it being asked in the Legislature then, and we could go back to the Hansard of that day, in which we asked, why would Mr Nixon, the then Treasurer, or the Minister of Revenue, Mr Grandmaître, not include some of the highest-earning people in our society to be paying this tax?

There's one of them sitting across from me, a doctor from Scarborough. You wouldn't have had to pay an employer health tax whereas now, if you were still in practice, you would be paying it. And you're the kind of person who would want to pay that tax because you're --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Markham, please address the Chair.

Mr Cousens: I'm trying to get their attention.

Mr Mahoney: Bob, did you keep that practice open? I hope so.

Mr Cousens: You're going to need it.

The Acting Speaker: I remind all members that interjections are out of order. You will have the opportunity, when the member has completed his debate, to participate in questions and comments.

Mr Cousens: Did you say "if" I'm finished the debate or "when," Mr Speaker? I have a feeling that some people would like to see it sooner than later.

Mr Mahoney: Probably only those watching.

Mr Cousens: Well, I have one of my greatest fans watching.

Mr Wiseman: Your mother.

Mr Cousens: That's right, my mother.

There is no answer to this question. If we ask why the Liberals, when they brought in the employer health tax, could omit such large groups of people -- professionals, partnerships, commission salespeople, farmers, fishermen -- why they weren't included in the tax at the time, the tragedy is that there's no answer to it.

Is it any wonder that people say government isn't fair. Well, it isn't, and taxes aren't fair, and when you have a tax that comes in like this that is wrongly based, it adds a further grief to the whole process. There's a sense of relief when you know everybody is having to pay to the same piper.

When you have large single groups omitted, for whatever reason -- I don't want to attribute any kind of political motivation to Mr Nixon for not including doctors and lawyers and engineers in that tax, because there are Conservative doctors and Conservative lawyers and Conservative engineers. There might even be a few NDP who are in the professional classes.

Mr Bradley: You may want to announce this.

Mr Cousens: There is always this shock that comes in if in fact it's the case -- it'll get me off the Liberals; that's what's going to happen -- that the government has filed another closure motion with the Clerk's office, so that the government will force through the legislation on basement apartments as quickly as possible. This Legislature will once again lose the opportunity of debating something and having a proper and full and complete debate on it.

The fact is that when Mr Rae took power -- he and his people, when they were in opposition, enjoyed the opportunity of speaking out on issues -- they now, with all their power, are removing that opportunity from the opposition today. The opposition have fought vigorously and vehemently and powerfully to fight the legislation that is causing -- it's not causing death, but because of the poor controls around basement apartments there have been a number of deaths that are very difficult to explain. Now the government almost legitimizes it and will force through this Legislature in another special debate the whole legislation around basement apartments.

I announce that for all who want to know. That will be coming in in the next few days and I thank the honourable member for St Catharines for sharing that with me.

As we look at the new employer health tax, what it's doing in part is addressing the holes in the legislation originally prepared by the Liberals back in 1989. It is estimated that this new tax will generate some $35 million for the provincial coffers, that it will affect some 45,000 people. When I was speaking with members of the Ministry of Finance last week in our briefing, they indicated that today approximately 35,000 people have registered for the employer health tax. They do not know in the end how many more will be coming in.

The fact of the matter is that this again tells you just how poor our system is here in the province of Ontario, that in spite of all the computers and in spite of all the staff and in spite of all the organization that makes up Queen's Park, we're still not sure of too much around here. All we know is that we can lay out a tax and they'll be able to collect it.

They've collected $35 million, and by the time it's finished there will probably be another -- well, who knows for sure, if they don't know how many more have to register, how many extra millions of dollars will be brought into the economy?

It makes me ask the question, what about all the people anyone is supporting by buying either tobacco, booze, chickens, food products or other things in the underground market? No one's certain how large the underground market, which is thriving in Ontario, is, but every person who's involved in the underground economy isn't paying taxes, and the moment they're not paying taxes every one of the rest of us in the province of Ontario has to pay more taxes to pay their share.

If anyone is supporting the underground economy by buying products from people who are not paying their taxes, all it does is increase the load on honest people, and honest people are buying from the underground economy. What we all have to do is begin to understand that every one of us loses when the underground economy thrives.

When the province increased the price of cigarettes to such an extent that it became really economical for people to live dangerously and import illegal product and sell it in Ontario, finally the government wakes up and says, "Well, we'd better lower the tax." Fine, but truly it's not just on tobacco products; it's on booze, it's on food products, it's on home repairs. Having sat on the finance and economics committee, I have some small understanding of how large the underground economy is. It's huge.

Everyone who participates in that underground economy by buying product without paying these taxes is contributing to the erosion of the health of the economy of the province of Ontario. Everyone who buys an illegal product from someone who is not registered and paying their sales tax is contributing to the downfall and erosion of Ontario's health. What we have ended up doing is making it very attractive for people to set up a business that's illegal and underground rather than aboveground and part of the total economic picture.

What we really have to do is begin to understand that we all have an important role to play to make Ontario the place it should be. Every one of us should do what we can to fight illegal activity. If someone is providing a service without paying all their taxes, then they too are participating in something that's very serious to Ontario's economy.

1700

I look at this whole bill and I realize that one of the things the government is going to do, and it does make some sense, is that -- it's Big Brother, isn't it? Yet I'm willing to accept it because it does make sense.

The reason the bill says "An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act" is that it means the books in the workers' compensation section will be matched with the Ministry of Finance's books so that they'll be able to confirm whether or not there are people who are on those lists who are not on this list. They can do a match. Then those who have not been picked up by the Ministry of Finance will be isolated and singled out and they will receive a bill for their employer health tax. If we're going to have a province that's going to work, everyone has to participate in it.

I wondered how much it costs the government and so I asked this question the other day, and I thank staff for getting back to me on it. We know the costs the employer has to spend in just preparing the data and submitting it, but then there's the cost to the Ministry of Finance. They spend $1.5 million on staffing, and there are 25 to 30 people employed by the government to administer the employer health tax. Direct operating expenses are about $0.5 million, making the total cost around $2 million a year. I just see that as one of those burdens we have.

We came along and we looked at the Fair Tax Commission. This is one of the boondoggles that the government established so that it could look at the taxation policy of the province of Ontario. There is a section in this book -- it's over 1,000 pages; it's 1,087 pages -- and they talk about payroll taxation. What they've really faced up to is that payroll taxation is really with us.

They comment on the employer health tax as being controversial in many ways. The name of the tax is controversial. But one of the things they suggested is -- to give the whole sentence:

"Although the employer health tax was introduced at the same time that the provincial government eliminated premiums in the Ontario health insurance plan and the name suggests some form of earmarking of revenue, the tax in fact has nothing to do with health care spending. In our discussion of earmarking in chapter 11, we recommended that taxes whose revenues are not earmarked for a specific purpose be given names that identify the base of the tax."

What they're saying here is that Ontario has never really taken a tax and assigned it to a particular fund or purpose. I referred to this in my speech last week where I was concerned that if we're going to have different kinds of taxes, I'd be glad to see some of them set aside for an environmental purpose, or when I buy my fishing licence, I'd like to see the cost of my fishing licence go into stocking more fish in the rivers and streams.

What they've really done in the new fair taxation report is an assessment of how this employer health tax has a lot of problems to it. It's like I said earlier: A government comes in; it doesn't get rid of a tax. The Liberals brought the tax in in 1989 and all the government is doing today is refining that tax.

This Fair Tax Commission comments that the employer health tax has an unusual graduated rate structure, with a bottom rate of 0.98% that applies to employers with total payrolls of up to $200,000, and a regular rate of 1.95% applicable to employers with payrolls over $400,000, and a graduated rate structure applicable to total payrolls between these two amounts. Is it any wonder that it's complicated for people to understand what it is they have to do to please this government?

They go on with a number of comments and criticisms of employer taxes. I notice this note: "The rate structure adopted in 1990" by the Liberals -- I added "by the Liberals" -- "was based on the desire to provide a preference for small business in the payroll tax, replacing existing OHIP premiums. The preference was instituted by setting the rate for the smallest businesses, those with payrolls under $200,000, at half the rate for larger businesses."

What they're really saying is, "Okay, we're going to try to do a small favour for the small people." Somehow we've lost sight of the fact that everybody has to pay for the kind of health care system we've got.

But the one recommendation that came out of the Fair Tax Commission is number 46: "Ontario should eliminate the graduated rate structure for its existing payroll tax and replace it with a uniform rate of tax based on all remuneration."

At that point, there becomes some equity to it, but that's not good for the small business because they're going to pay more. Again, how does one win in this game of taxation?

Why is it, Madam Speaker -- I don't expect you to answer, and if you did, I'd be pleased to hear the answer -- that the federal government does not consider the paying of employer health tax as something that can be deducted for income tax purposes? We have to provide health care. It's mandated under legislation, but there is no relief for businesses in any way, except for some of the ways in which the tax is structured, that the federal government gives recognition through making the employer health tax deductible as another cost of doing business. Because it is a cost of doing business. You're not going to survive in business today unless you're fulfilling all the obligations government has laid upon you. So you do it -- you have to do it -- but there isn't even any bonus that comes back to you.

One other recommendation in this is, "Ontario should establish a new method of calculating remuneration for payroll tax purposes for owner-managers of corporations and self-employed individuals." They're saying, "Let's look at it," but this government has not begun to look at that.

The final recommendation of the Fair Tax Commission is, "Ontario should seek the agreement of the federal government to make payroll taxes fully deductible for corporate income tax purposes."

I'd like to know from the parliamentary assistant whether or not any efforts have been made with the federal government on particularly that item. Have there been any discussions at all between the Premier and the Prime Minister or our Minister of Health and the federal Minister of Health to see if there's any dialogue in progress that can again give some relief to businesses?

What we're talking about as well is the impact this employer health tax is going to have on small business. To that extent, I would like to refer to some of the research that's been done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

What they've tried to do as an association is assess the impact of taxes as they're brought in and do their best to try to understand just what the total impact is going to be. I have some of the reports that have been put together by the CFIB, and Ted Mallett, who is their senior economist, in February 1994 did quite an extraordinary study on the growth of the payroll tax burden from 1988 to 1994. He developed an example based on a 25-employee manufacturer in Ontario. He has said, first of all:

"Payroll taxes have become a common method of source of government revenues during the past number of years. Governments wishing to avoid public anger when searching for revenues have relied on payroll taxes to put more of the burden on business operators.... The burden of payroll taxes tends to fall most heavily on labour-intensive businesses, or those operating at low or negative profit margins. Considering that small and developing companies tend to fit these descriptions, payroll taxes are acting as a brake on business development and job creation."

I think that's the point I made earlier when the Liberals brought in Bill 89 back in 19 -- oh, it was brought in in 1989. I forget the number, but it was a bill that, again, eroded what businesses are all about.

1710

I have here a graph on which the CFIB has shown the percentage of increase in these taxes from 1988 to 1994. You start seeing how significant the employer health tax is as a percentage increase. It's gone from zero to an increase of some 85%. Canada pension plan premiums have gone up since 1988, unemployment insurance premiums have gone up by over 60% since then, Workers' Compensation Board premiums are up by some 40% and wages have stayed at the level of maybe a 22% increase.

When you start looking at what this is, what Mr Mallett has said is that for a typical 25-employee manufacturing firm operating in Ontario these taxes will account for more than 12% of the total payroll in 1994, up from 9% in 1988. In 1988 of your total payroll you'd be paying 9% for these benefit costs that would be subtracted from your cost of doing business; now it's up to 12%.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe there should be a quorum in the House to listen to this debate.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): There should be. Will the clerk please determine if a quorum is present.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

Acting Clerk Assistant: A quorum is present, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham may resume the floor.

Mr Cousens: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.

I'm referring in part to the research that's been done by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, a preparation by the senior economist. The point that has been raised in their presentation is that for a typical 25-employee manufacturing firm operating in Ontario these taxes now account for 12% of the total payroll in 1994, up from 9% in 1988. In a 25-member company that amounts to three employees. The cost of three employees is what it now takes to pay for the employer health tax.

That confirms one of the points that I made very much earlier when I was talking about the impact of the employer health tax on job creation, how I pointed out that businesses would be laying off employees because they could no longer afford to pay them, and therefore because of the employer health tax there would be a decrease in the number of people working in Ontario.

In the example that CFIB has brought in, it means that at this level total payroll taxes paid to the federal and provincial governments are equivalent to the wages of three full-time employees. That's the combination of all the different taxes that are in it. I'm concentrating primarily on the employer health tax. I will be touching briefly on some of the other taxes that are all part and parcel of what it is to do business in Ontario.

"Firms with payrolls above $400,000, like the example used in this discussion, pay the maximum rate. The employer health tax replaced the premiums paid to the Ontario health insurance plan," and that then became the responsibility of the business.

The overall impact of this tax -- and I want to just read this into the record as it's been prepared by CFIB:

"Overall, payroll taxes for our hypothetical Ontario small business jumped about 60% since 1988, about two and a half times the rate of increase in total wages paid. During this time period, taxes went from just over 9% of payroll to more than 12%. For a 25-employee business, the $39,000 increase in annual payroll taxes was sufficient to pay the wages for an additional employee at well above the average wage."

Just that alone -- we've had a lot of other increases, and I think I made a mistake earlier when I said that was the net impact of all the increases. But for the employer health tax, because of the increase it brought since 1988, for this 25-employee company it amounts to a $39,000 increase in payroll a year.

"Combined with other profit-insensitive taxes such as municipal commercial property taxes, business fees and licence costs, revenue measures that governments are placing increasing reliance upon, Canadian businesses have lost a great deal of their ability to ride out hard economic times.

"As a direct implication, Canadian ventures face added business risk from the Canadian governments' own domestic policies."

I have to say that Mr Mallett makes excellent points in his paper.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Who is he, your broker?

Mr Cousens: No, he isn't my broker. It's the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. They've been doing a study on this ever since the Liberals brought in the tax in 1989 and I'm referring to their studies. They have a number of studies on taxation matters. The one I'm now looking at is January 31, 1994.

They're hitting business hard in so many ways. I have so many data on impact of employee taxes. I could go into it. I have to believe the Legislature has no desire to hear all these points, but what it amounts to, the issue I'm trying to make, is that there are so many different taxes. If you're in business today, it's hard enough to survive, with the competitive world we're in.

Free trade has opened up to make it far tougher. It opens up opportunity for people if they want to go outside our borders. Hopefully, the Canadian spirit will prevail and we will become world marketers, taking the intelligence and brains we've got to do business elsewhere. Who knows? Many businesses may decide to move to places other than Ontario where they don't have the high level of taxation we have here. I hope many will stay. I hope that when this government goes, we can begin to create the climate again for business to prosper and do well.

But all you have to look at is the number of different payroll taxes that small businesses have to pay. We have young people and others in the visitors' gallery today. Understand it. When you go to work, your employer has a large additional cost that you don't even see, that goes into the cost of every employee they have in their business.

Unemployment insurance costs $4.30 per $100 of payroll, maximum of $1,743.56 per employee. That's a federal tax. Another tax on payroll is the Canada pension plan. This works out to be $2.60 per every $100 of payroll, with a ceiling of $806 per employee. For those two federal taxes alone, the cost they're going to have is close to $2,500 a year per employee just for federal employee taxes.

Then you have the employer health tax in the province of Ontario, and it ranges from 0.08% up to 1.95%, with no ceiling. Regardless of how large you are, how many employees you've got, there's always going to be a heavy, heavy cost there for employee health costs.

1720

Workers' Compensation Board costs: Any company in business also has to pay workers' compensation. It's an insurance plan that helps the unemployed. What does that cost? Some 0.22% as a minimal levy you have to pay, but up to over 20%, depending on the kind of business you've got, with a maximum per employee of $53,900.

All companies are paying unemployment insurance, Canada pension plan, employer health tax, workers' compensation tax, plus they all have to pay provincial sales tax on benefits, on their insurance programs. That's an additional 1%, and that's compliments of Bob Rae and his government. That was one of the onerous taxes they laid on business last year.

It was a $2-billion increase in the budget that the government brought in last year, $2 billion, double the worst thing the Liberals did. These people brought in a $2-billion increase in taxes.

It ends up now that cumulatively the payroll taxes add on average 11% to 12% to the cost of each Ontario employer's payroll. Then on top of that, just pity the employers for all the other taxes they've got. It must be terrible to be putting a payroll together. First of all, you've got to have an accountant to handle all the accounting processes we were just talking about, and then you've got to collect the provincial sales tax, report it through to Oshawa for the province, and then you've got to collect the GST for the federal government.

At least one of the recommendations from the Fair Tax Commission is that you try to amalgamate or bring together all the different levels of taxation so there's some kind of rationalization of the way you gather the taxes in. As it is now, anyone who's running a business has all kinds of little boxes: bank accounts or funds or their poor general ledger -- it's primarily geared to deal with government accounting. It doesn't do a thing to build business or add employees or make a stronger company. All it's doing is feeding the trough of the politicians at Queen's Park. What we're seeing is this heavy load of taxation on running a business.

People came to this country years ago as pioneers to open it up, to get away from government, to have the freedom to plant their crops, to fish the land, to trap and hunt and to make this country grow. And what happened? Suddenly government came. You need government for law and order and you need government for education and you need government for health, but we don't need government for all the other trashy things we have around here. If we could begin to cut it back, hold it under control, live within our means, make it so it's not necessary to lay such heavy taxes on people.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Name the trashy things. You will have all the lobbyists in your office tomorrow.

Mr Cousens: In response to the honourable member, my dear, good friend the Minister of Transportation, I bet there isn't a company in Ontario that is complying fully with all the stupid laws we've got. I venture to say you could do a lottery and go and pick the company. Will it be in compliance with all the regulations, rules, licences it has to have: employment equity, pay equity, health and safety legislation? The labour legislation brought in by the Liberals and the socialists is enough to cramp anyone's style.

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister of Citizenship and Minister Responsible for Human Rights, Disability Issues, Seniors' Issues and Race Relations): And the Tories.

Mr Cousens: Well, we brought in ours too, but we didn't bring in as many as you guys have in the last 10 years.

I'm saying a business person is handcuffed. You've got is all the different licences they have to have. I got the KWIC Index, and I was wondering, how many licences are there? That is one of the government monopolies, all the different licences you have. The list just goes on.

Mr Perruzza: Why shouldn't people snowmobile without a licence? Why shouldn't people ride a motorcycle without a licence?

The Acting Speaker: The member for Downsview, come to order.

Mr Cousens: I won't read them in, because you wouldn't understand, but there are just loads and loads.

Mr Perruzza: It's one of his colleagues that wants bicycle helmets legislated in this province.

The Acting Speaker: I ask the member for Downsview to come to order.

Mr Cousens: Well, I will read it. There's a licence for ambulance services; apple packers; apple processors; application for companies to cut timber; archaeological licences; boxers, kickboxers, boxing officials; bus-for-hire services; cartage, goods transport; application -- I haven't read 10 of the different licences and there are pages of headings of what the licences are in the province of Ontario. Every licence is just another word for a tax. It's a way of gathering money.

As a province we have just gone to the rule of the absurd, and what we have is that the lunatics are now running the asylum. We have failed to understand what it is that can make government work effectively to serve people.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'm listening closely to what the member was saying. It's my understanding that he's called every Ontarian a lunatic. I think that's absolutely unconscionable and he should stand up and apologize to every man, woman and child in the province of Ontario --

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr Perruzza: -- for calling them a lunatic because that's what he said, Madam Speaker. He should withdraw and apologize to everyone.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That is not a point of order. The member can continue his remarks.

Mr Cousens: If I said that everyone in Ontario was a lunatic -- I would never, ever want to imply or state that. What I did say was that the lunatics are --

Mr Perruzza: You did say that. Apologize.

Mr Cousens: I would never say that. I didn't say that. You wanted to hear me say something stupid like that, but I am not that way inclined. What I'm saying is that the lunatics are running the asylum. You guys are the lunatics, and I'm saying the Ontario government has become the asylum. If the people have elected you, they elected lunatics. Make a point of order on that one, or can you prove that you're not?

My issue is that this place has gone crazy: crazy with taxes, crazy with government control, crazy with red tape, crazy with the government trying to run everything. Get government out of business and bring business into government. Have you ever heard of that? A very simple philosophy. Try to run government like a business rather than run business into the ground. That's what it's all about.

Mr Perruzza: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I'm so glad that he gave a clarification. Is he now saying that all 950,000 government employees across the province of Ontario are lunatics?

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member has the right to express his opinion.

Mr Perruzza: Is that what he's saying? Because if that's what he's saying, then he should apologize to every man, woman and child involved in the public sector --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member for Markham may continue his remarks.

Mr Cousens: If people were listening carefully, they'll realize the member for Downsview is just trying to get on the record for Hansard today --

The Acting Speaker: Would the member address his remarks --

Mr Cousens: -- to prove that he is here in the House, and I am glad you're here.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham, please address your remarks to the Chair.

Mr Cousens: Madam Speaker, I shall.

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: He's been really good lately.

Mr Cousens: Who? He has been better. He's fine even at the worst of times.

If we were dealing with an issue where there was a sense that the money was being well spent, I think we'd have a better feeling about what the government is doing. Has anyone stopped to consider how happy people are with the health care system in Ontario? I'm satisfied and I have a number of situations in which I've been involved with the health care system. I have to say that to a large extent I've been impressed by the care and the efforts made by the people who are on the front line: the surgeons, the nurses, the people who are delivering the service on behalf of the people of Ontario to those of our families, our relatives and ourselves who are sick. I think we know that health care is something that we really take for granted until something happens that we need professional assistance.

I'm intensely proud of the fact that in my own community I have two hospitals serving the people of Markham: York Central Hospital in Richmond Hill serves that segment in Thornhill, and Markham-Stouffville Hospital, which is a new hospital recently opened. I had the great pleasure when I was in cabinet back in 1985 in helping with the motion that Bette Stephenson helped me sponsor that got the Markham-Stouffville Hospital approved, and the Liberal government brought it through in spite of my earlier criticisms.

1730

Mr Perruzza: Listen, don't brag. You supported a lot of things --

Mr Cousens: And I will continue to support good things. What I want to do is fight for the right things and have a sense of balance and a sense of fairness in all these things.

Is the health care system in jeopardy? Do people have a sense of concern that the health care system is failing them? I feel that if the money we're collecting from this tax were being well spent, then I wouldn't receive the kind of letter I received from the Canadian Association of Medical Radiation Technologists.

This is a letter from one of my constituents:

"As I come from Britain where this course" -- what they're talking about is that there was a course that was given to radiation therapists, and the government has decided that this course is now no longer going to be given the degree status that it was until now.

"In March 1992 the Ontario Ministry of Health announced its decision to discontinue the current radiation therapy education programs and replace them with a single centralized program under the direct control of the Ministry of Health. Some of these operate in collaboration with the University of Waterloo....

"The ministry's decision was made without prior consultation with either the professional bodies governing professional certification and practice...or the provincial cancer care agencies.... The decision also disregards recommendations contained in the reports of the cancer manpower committee and the radiation therapy technologists' education committee, both of which were established by the government to make recommendations on issues regarding the future of radiation therapy education programs in Ontario.

"On June 20, 1993, the chairmen of the boards of the OCTRF" -- the Ontario Cancer Treatment and Research Foundation" -- and the OCI" -- the Ontario Cancer Institute -- "jointly wrote to the Ministry of Health indicating that in the opinion of both organizations education at the university level is required to prepare radiation therapists to care for patients who require radiation therapy. A fully documented proposal for a joint school of radiation therapy was forwarded to the ministry" in October 1993.

They've gone on to point out that this government is undermining educational standards for this particular professional level in cancer care and reducing it to something less than it is in other jurisdictions, in Britain and other places.

She's gone on in this report that was prepared by the technologists:

"The Ministry of Health has disregarded the recommendations of the CAMRT" -- and that's the association, and the cancer research foundations -- "that a university level of education is necessary....

"If the Ministry of Health transfers programs into a college environment it will not keep pace with international trends in the developed world. Education programs for radiation therapists are already" at the university level "in Australia, Great Britain and South Africa. Education of therapists at a lower level than that consistent with the needs of the profession may lead to suboptimum standards of treatment for cancer patients in Ontario.

"The ongoing forecasts of critical shortages of radiation oncologists and medical physicists will place increasing demands and responsibilities on future radiation therapists.

"The decision of the Ministry of Health to take control of and change the education program for radiation therapists in Ontario was taken without prior consultation with the profession, and does not follow recommendations made by stakeholder committees....

"Organizations responsible for the delivery of radiation therapy have received no details of the proposed new program content, cost or standards.

"Delivery of radiation therapy within Ontario is limited to facilities directly funded by the Ministry of Health.... Surely it is a conflict of interest for all radiation therapy education programs to also be controlled through a Ministry of Health education institution.

"Implementation of this proposal could lead to the loss of Ontario's best-qualified radiation therapy educators to positions elsewhere in Canada and the United States and there will be difficulties in the recruitment of replacements."

It's one of many proposals that I have on one particular component of the health care system. What I have is a constituent who says, "Any change to downgrade the qualification" of radiation therapists "will result in the reduction of radiation therapists in the future and will probably lead to yet another cancer crisis due to insufficient properly trained staff."

She says as well, "I feel that this government does not look ahead. I know that successive governments have helped to cause the last two crises" in cancer care "but why deliberately go ahead with an action that will cause another crisis?"

When we look at what's happening within the medical field, we have seen a reduction in the number of students going into the universities for medicine. What this means is that the government is saying, "We'll reduce the number of people going in to become doctors because we have too many doctors in Ontario." What happens then to all the hospitals that rely so much on those interns who are trained by the large hospitals, who carry such a heavy load in caring for the sick in the province of Ontario? To make one decision, that you're reducing the number of people going into medicine to reduce the number of doctors, at the same time what you're also doing is affecting a whole other area of service within the delivery of health care through the province of Ontario.

What we have to look at is that for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. If the government feels, "We're going to change radiation therapists, then we're going to change the number of doctors, and then we're going to make another change," it's as if they don't have an understanding of the total, full picture of health care.

The other day in our caucus when we were discussing health care, I was impressed by the kinds of things said by the member for Simcoe West, Jim Wilson, our critic for Health. When we were talking about the costs of health care I was extremely impressed by what he had to say because I learned something.

The level of inflation for health care services, for medicine, for all the things that surround health care, is at one of the highest levels. Inflation for health care products and health care services is over 6%. You talk about inflation across the province at being now under 1% and a percentage of 1%. Health care continues to be a high-cost item that we in this province have taken for granted.

But we have to continue to protect and build so that we understand that if we're going to bring in the latest of technology, the latest in medicine, the latest in equipment, there's going to be a continuing investment to maintain that kind of quality. Therefore, what this government has to do is not treat health care in the same way it treats everything else. Make sure that we continue to have the highest quality of health care possible. I think there are many things that can come out of that. I'm not sure how we solve it all. There's no quick solution to it.

But we're dealing with a bill that is going to generate more cash for the government, at least $35 million, and it might be up to $60 million or $70 million because of the changes to the employer health tax, but what we're seeing is the government getting more money in and it's just going to go in to the general treasury. It raises yet other questions.

When I start talking about the delivery of a service to Ontario residents, I want to break out the logic of this. On the one hand we collect taxes from the employers that are honest and have employees and that are legitimate Ontario enterprises. They pay for health care. On the other hand, in Ontario you don't have to be part of any health plan, you don't have to be part of any organization, you don't have to have a job, you can qualify for health care because you're a resident of Ontario, you're a citizen in Ontario.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Isn't that great?

Mr Cousens: The only danger of that is that if someone's getting something totally for nothing -- the honourable Minister of Transportation asked the question, "Isn't it great?" I'm concerned about the people who are skipping all their taxes, who are working in the underground economy, who have no obligation beyond their survival to pay for employer health tax. They are not paying employer health tax. If a person's coming in and receiving health care, is there any check on whether or not they're working or in a position to be paying for the employer health tax?

Mr Perruzza: I say to you, the companies that make a whole lot of money that pay no tax, all right --

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order. The member for Markham has the floor.

Mr Perruzza: Go after the real cheaters.

Mr Cousens: That's your philosophy. I just don't want any cheaters. If there are cheaters, let's make sure we make sure they pay the cost of what it is to do business in Ontario. We have not begun to correct the anomalies in the health care system.

The member for Downsview has been part of a government. You've known for three or four years -- and the Liberals knew before that. You changed the health card to try to clean up the system and there are still one million more health cards in the province of Ontario than there are residents. Why is that? You explain that one to me.

The Provincial Auditor, when he looks at the cost of health care, is saying, "What can we do to prevent the number of people who are coming into Ontario collecting health care services free of charge and not paying anything for it?"

I question that whole process, and you as a government are to be found guilty of wasting the $750 million that has gone into the abuse of the health care system by people who are ineligible taking advantage of the system; they are ineligible for it and yet they are collecting those services. We know of people who are coming across the border, they come into Canada and while they're here they are able to take advantage of our health care system. I have to say that it's a concern.

1740

Mr Perruzza: What are their names? Give us one name.

Mr Cousens: There are examples, and we've had those examples.

Mr Perruzza: Give us one name. Give us one example.

Mr Cousens: The example of the person in Peterborough who had a hysterectomy and then a week later the same card was used for someone to have a baby in Richmond Hill. How does that happen? Cards are circulating. What we're saying is that there has to be a way where you prevent the circulation of cards; so if you had some kind of photo ID -- and this is another suggestion from our Health critic -- some standard way of identifying people in the province of Ontario. I'm not sure what the best system is going to be, but we already have the cameras at the licensing offices. Can't that whole thing be used to begin to develop a photo ID card for health care so that when someone goes in and they happen to have someone else's card, they can look at the card and identify them?

I want to continue to provide health care. I'd like to find ways of making it responsible. I'd like to find ways of getting rid of some of the abuses. I think that if you're saying you're only going after one level of abuse, I'm saying let's understand that if there is someone abusing something this wonderful in the province of Ontario, let's go after it, let's identify it, let's deal with it, let's correct it. Let's not just say, "Just get the rich people." Let's make sure everybody participates in making our system right. Anyone that is working within the underground economy, buying underground economy items from people, is contributing to the undermining of the province of Ontario. I believe that we all have a share to contribute and pay towards making Ontario strong.

Our taxes go into one big pot. The employer health tax is coming in with under $3 billion of a $17-billion bill for health care. A major cost of life in the province of Ontario, the biggest item, some 37% or 39% of the total cost of government, is health care. It's the single biggest item, and yet what we have is, all the funnel flows into one central coffer. What we have to do is from that consolidated revenue fund pay out this huge amount for health care. I want to see us get the best value we possibly can for our dollar.

As we look at again yet another tax, the government is finding a way of filling the holes that the Liberals left after 1989 when they brought in the employer health tax. This is another way in which the government is closing the loopholes. We've got to do it differently. I don't know when we'll come down to a better understanding of how to tax. We know we're going to tax. But if we could deal with more simple, straightforward ways to get the kind of money we need so that the people who run a business don't have to have full-time accountants, so that the people who are making money are paying for it, so that there is a sense in which there is some fair share, that everyone is participating in the cost of government, then we will have come a long way.

What the government has done with Bill 110 is purely filling a few cracks in the dike. They've made sure they've made some more revenue. It's part of the $2-billion tax grab of taxes that were levied by the government in its budget of last year. We know that Bob Rae has taken more money in taxes out of the province of Ontario than any other government. We know that they have run the province's deficit up by some $40 billion in the four years they've been in office. What we really have to do is make sure that there's full accountability for all dollars that are coming into the provincial coffers. We're satisfied that this is not happening.

So on behalf of the Ontario PC caucus, I want you to know, Madam Speaker, that we have major concerns over this bill. We have major concerns over the approach that it all started with, with the employer health tax itself. It was a wrong approach to pay for health care. The system has not been corrected by this bill. It is good to the extent that it is making professional people -- lawyers, doctors, engineers, salesmen, farmers, fishermen and others who were exempt previously from paying tax on health will now be paying it. I support that intent. However, to try to say you're paying for the health care system through an employer health tax which has had so many negative results in our province is something that was a concern to us back when it was introduced by Mr Nixon in 1989 and it is a concern to us even yet today.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for comments from all members of the House.

Mr Perruzza: To pick up very quickly on something the member said, he said something that was really interesting, that we have too much government. In fact, he raised two examples of where government really has no business.

He talked about pay equity and said government shouldn't involve itself in that kind of thing. If someone is out there working at a job and making less money for the same value of work as someone else -- traditionally, if you're a woman and you're out there doing the same work as a man and you're making less money, what the member suggests is: "Let the status quo prevail. If there is an inequity there, don't involve yourself as a government in correcting that inequity." I say to you, Madam Speaker, and I trust you will agree with me, that is wrong, absolutely, irrevocably wrong.

The other example he raised was around employment, that if you happen to be different and you're traditionally excluded from being able to gain a job, that status quo should prevail. That was the other example the honourable member used. I say to you, Madam Speaker, and I trust you will agree with me, that is wrong.

I'm not even going to get into the other half. I hope I have another opportunity in another two-minute response to talk about free trade and the connotation that implies, where they want our marketplace to go and the two classes of people they want to create. I'm going to do that in a subsequent response.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'm delighted to rise again to thank and congratulate the member for Markham. The member for Markham has, over the past week or so, spoken on a couple of financial bills. He has the message that's appropriate for the province of Ontario at this point in time.

He gets a little exercised at times because he realizes that members such as the member for Downsview don't understand the message. In Ontario today, we have too many people who are unemployed, we have too many businesses that are going bankrupt, and we have an economy that isn't working to its maximum efficiency. To address these problems, we certainly don't want to put taxes up. We need to cut taxes, we need to cut red tape. This is what's needed for Ontario at this point in time. The member for Markham has been pointing this out to the government in a number of debates over several bills.

This bill imposes an employer health tax on self-employed individuals. It's interesting that it also puts in measures to try to get more taxes from people by addressing tax avoidance. It also increases filing requirements for annual tax returns by self-employed individuals. More taxes, more red tape.

The member for Markham knows this will not work. This will not put people back to work, this will not create more jobs. I was just so pleased today to see a little glimmer of hope in that this government finally recognized, for example, that in the you-brew industry the taxes it imposed, which I spoke to last week and which the member for Markham spoke to last week -- we were correct. The government now recognizes that taxes killed that industry. Here's another tax on those who are self-employed. It will have the same impact. I hope the members in the House listen to the member for Markham.

1750

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I would, for a start, like to be clear that the third party acknowledges that the tax-based health system is actually a competitive advantage to this province. In Canada we spend 9.5% of our GDP on health, which is a significant benefit, and because it's universal and tax-based this is considerably less than the 14% it costs in the US, which in fact is the major cause of employer strife and strikes.

One other point I would like to comment on is the question of availability to residents. I have been getting calls about the fact that temporary residents are no longer covered. While I very much support the fact that we have a tax-based system, and I commend the previous Liberal government for at least moving to that, in the process we left out the possibility of paying a premium directly.

I have been getting calls and I've had conversations with people in the educational sector, in faculty associations -- and I'm thinking of the Canadian Union of Educational Workers, who are asking for the possibility of a direct premium. This, unfortunately, was the downside. I have not heard this point mentioned by the previous speaker, who doesn't realize that this is a possibility of raising significant non-tax revenue. I was told by Mikael Swayze of the CUEW, if I recall correctly, that something like $8 million could be raised in direct premiums, which would not be a tax. I think this is something we should be considering as well as a tax-based system. Any other non-tax revenue would benefit us all.

Mr Mahoney: I was actually on the docket to be the next speaker, but since we're running out of time this evening I'll just --

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: And there's no one here who cares other than the member for -- where are you from anyway?

The member for Markham made a number of comments somewhat derogatory about the former Liberal government and very derogatory about the current government. Of course I would agree with many of his comments about the current government.

I remember being on city council when the member's party was the government of the day. I remember many budgets coming down in which they would laud and tell everybody how wonderful they were at not giving a tax increase. Then, at the same time they would announce a 0% tax increase, they would also announce a 5%, 6%, 7%, 8% reduction in transfer payments -- the member will remember that, I'm sure -- to the municipalities.

This member is heading off, we understand, in the not-too-distant future, to take up a new post in life as the mayor of Markham. There is a rumour to that effect. When we all refer to him fondly as your worship, I can just hear the member, regardless of who the government is, complaining about the transfer payment cuts. In essence, when you cut transfer payments from this level of government to the municipalities and the school boards, they have very little option but to increase taxes.

We shouldn't create some kind of a façade that suggests that only one particular party or government has increased taxes. The fact is, the Tories were the mother of all taxing governments in this province for years and years and years, and that member knows it only too well.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Markham now has two minutes to respond.

Mr Cousens: It was so painful to listen to at least three of those speakers. I wish you'd given the member for Don Mills the time for all of them combined, because he spoke with such wisdom --

Mr Mahoney: A former mayor. He might get his job back after the next election.

Mr Cousens: -- something I'm not used to from the member for Mississauga West.

Anyway, I thank the member for Don Mills for his kind remarks and for reinforcing the key points that we need to do what we can to cut red tape and that indeed this employer health tax does not create jobs.

That's something the Liberals still don't understand. You didn't raise that at all in your points, creating new jobs, except maybe if someone changes jobs. You're trying to suggest that I change jobs myself, but that's a decision I have yet to make and will announce in due time should I decide to do that.

I always appreciate listening to the member for Scarborough East who brings his own professional background as a doctor to this subject, and where there is the Canadian system versus the US system, I don't want to go to the US system at all and I would very much worry about that. Somehow or other we've got to keep things in balance. I think it's the hardest, most delicate thing to do.

We saw some very good decisions by Frances Lankin when she was Minister of Health in trying to bring costs under control, but we've got to make sure that the service is also there, and to make sure that we remember that in everything we do as politicians, we're there to serve the people and we're there to provide the kind of health care and whatever service it is. The Minister of Transportation has his job; we all have a job to do.

My job as an MPP is to highlight major concerns about the different bills that we have before us. Indeed, I think the member for Downsview fails to understand that opposition has an important job, to compliment the government if it does something right, but also to chastise and criticize if it's wrong. The fact is that there are still serious problems with what you're doing and you have to get control of that. There may still be time.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you, and I thank all the members for their contribution to this debate. Further debate?

Mr Mahoney: I believe we have an understanding that since there are only approximately three minutes left until 6 of the clock, I will move adjournment of the debate and then the members opposite will get the benefit of hearing my entire 30-minute speech, unabridged and uninterrupted, when next we visit this issue. I would so move, Madam Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Agreed? Agreed. The acting government House leader.

Hon Mr Pouliot: I move adjournment of the House.

The Acting Speaker: Is it agreed? Agreed. This House therefore stands adjourned until tomorrow at 1:30.

The House adjourned at 1757.

18 avril 1994