Journal des débats 1994-avril-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): In 1993 the NDP government announced that road subsidy funds for municipalities would be significantly restrained, meaning that many local governments have had to make do with less money than is required for Ontario's aging roads.

The united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry received notification in February 1993 that their allocation would be $5.598 million for that fiscal year. Now past the end of that fiscal year, the Ministry of Transportation has failed to meet its obligations. The government still owes the counties in excess of $810,000. Today I heard that the counties have still not received any word on when that money will be coming.

As a result of the government's mismanagement, the county has had to borrow money at the total expense of the taxpayers, in order to continue its necessary road work.

Furthermore, the clerk of the counties just advised me this morning that the 1994 allocations won't even be announced until the end of April or early May, making budget planning extremely difficult at the local level.

The government is always talking about partnerships and the importance of partnership with municipalities. What kind of partner promises you money and then fails to deliver? The approval was given last year. Where is the counties' money?

GEORGE PEDERSEN

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): This evening the 1994 Order of Ontario ceremony will take place in the front lobby of Queen's Park. Twenty distinguished individuals will receive the Order of Ontario, established in 1986 to pay tribute to those Ontarians who exemplify the highest qualities of achievement and excellence and whose contributions enrich the lives of their fellow men and women in our province, in Canada and in the world.

Dr George Pedersen is one of those special people whose contributions to his many communities is outstanding. He began his career as an elementary school teacher in British Columbia and is now president and vice-chancellor of the University of Western Ontario. He has been a teacher, vice-principal and principal in both elementary and secondary schools. Dr Pedersen has been the dean of education at the University of Victoria, later serving as vice-president, academic. He went on to the presidency of Simon Fraser in 1979 and UBC in 1983.

He came to Western as president in 1985 and was appointed to a second four-year term in 1990. Under Dr Pedersen's presidency, Western has expanded its applied health sciences in new facilities at Althouse College and established the Siebens-Drake Research Institute. The institute will do pioneering research in microbiology, biochemistry and AIDS.

Dr Fraser Mustard, president of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research, has saluted Dr Pedersen's support for remarkable developments in the health sciences and in the arts and humanities.

As the MPP for London North and on behalf of the citizens of London, the university community, and especially the students whom he loved to work with, I extend sincere congratulations to Dr Pedersen for his many achievements at Western.

VOLUNTEERS

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): This week all across Canada communities are recognizing thousands, in fact millions, of people who give of their own time to volunteer in different agencies, programs and groups, and we are honouring all of those people this week.

In Ontario over one quarter of our population volunteer their time to different organizations and different things in which they feel they can help. But I, with great pride, am able to say that in Sudbury 45% of our population volunteer at different groups and organizations; that's almost half. So I'm very pleased.

On Saturday we had the kickoff. All the groups were there. I was very pleased to see all of the people who were there. On Saturday evening I had the pleasure of dining with the Salvation Army Cedar Youth residents and George Romas, who had done an excellent job organizing.

Certificates were presented for one year to Scott Baker and Ann Boisvenue, Darlene Dardick, Mary Donato, Jerry Lance, Norm Neveau, Dan Pelletier, Stephen Runnalls, Phil Smith and Remi Rainville. And pins to honour the fact that they are spending even more than just a simple night here, but actual years. Those years are acknowledged for Al English, Kevin Briscoe, Moira Ferguson, Celeste Gatien, Gaetanne Guerin, Tony Hall, Mike Horsefall and others.

I wanted to say that without the volunteers who give of their time freely and without cost, we would not have the great services that this province does have.

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to today, I'm sure on behalf of all members of the Legislature, congratulate the Ontario Hydro employees out at Pickering, particularly those people at unit 7 of Ontario Hydro's nuclear generating station at Pickering, which last week set a world record for the continuous on-line operation of a nuclear reactor, beating an old record set by a British reactor some time ago. Unit 7 at Pickering had been continuously on line, in operation, at the time of the record-breaking day last week for some 714 days.

1340

I simply want to make this point: Much criticism has been levelled over the years at Hydro, and certainly much of it levelled at the nuclear generating capacity, but as member of the Legislature for north Renfrew, where thousands of my constituents work in the nuclear industry, and as Energy critic for the Liberal Party, I want to wholeheartedly and publicly congratulate those wonderful men and women at Ontario Hydro who have in this particular instance set a world record and who have during the recent winter months reminded all of us how very important is the nuclear power commitment to the economic health and social wellbeing of the province. To those people at unit 7, congratulations for a very, very fine job.

ALTERNATIVE FUELS

Mr Noble Villeneuve (S-D-G & East Grenville): Ontario's ethanol industry is ready to make its first major step towards a large-scale production facility right here in Ontario. Fuel ethanol mixed with gas can immediately lower harmful emissions from automobiles and is the most accessible green fuel available today.

As in the past, the ethanol industry faces one major obstacle, the Liberal Party. We know that a provincial Liberal government issued regulations which effectively prohibited the use of fuel ethanol in Ontario. Now that the Liberals have taken power in Ottawa, we face the prospect that Liberal lobbyists will suppress the industry in Ontario again.

The federal Liberal Party declared strong support for fuel ethanol in the last election. That was then. While the previous federal government lifted the excise tax on fuel ethanol, Liberals have taken no long-term commitment to keep the tax off.

If we are to have a $170-million ethanol plant in Chatham and another production facility plant in eastern Ontario, we need a 12-year commitment from the government to not reimpose the tax on the ethanol portion of that litre of gas.

To its credit, the current provincial government has given a similar assurance, but the federal Liberals have not acted. Yesterday's report in the Financial Post confirms that the Liberals are being lobbied and are lobbying against an Ontario ethanol industry. By contrast, tougher United States standards may soon require fuel ethanol use in polluted urban areas.

Let the Liberals take note: We need an ethanol industry in Ontario.

GEORGE PEDERSEN

Mr David Winninger (London South): I also rise in the House today to recognize the achievements of George Pedersen, the outgoing president of the University of Western Ontario. As the member for London North stated earlier, he will be receiving tonight the Order of Ontario in addition to the Order of Canada which he already holds.

He was first appointed as president at Western in 1985, and throughout the years he has been at the helm Western has continued to prosper, increasing its enrolment and the variety of programs for its students. Under Dr Pedersen's stewardship, the university has made considerable progress in the areas of employment equity, race relations and curbing violence against women. The university recently has had to deal with a series of fiscal constraints, and Dr Pedersen has taken a very constructive approach to provide a high standard of education in a cost-efficient manner.

As president of Western, Dr Pedersen is unusual, as he has taught formally both at the elementary and secondary school levels. He has also served capably in a variety of university appointments both in Canada and the United States.

Since the election of this government, Dr Pedersen has encouraged meetings between the local MPPs, the faculty, the staff and the administration several times a year.

I wish to thank Dr Pedersen for his years of dedication and hard work and the spirit of partnership and collegiality with which he approaches his work. I wish Dr Pedersen and his spouse many happy years of retirement as he returns to his roots in western Canada.

CONSERVATION

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): Recognizing it is Earth Day coming up later this week, I thought it interesting to show the members of the House this collection of stuff. I received this in my community office. I thought maybe we had specially wrapped versions of the Magna Carta or something important like that, but no, these are individually wrapped versions of --

Interjection: What have you got there?

Mr Murphy: You might be surprised by this, Mr Speaker -- the Ontario Environmental Bill of Rights, believe it or not.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): Who signed it?

Mr Murphy: Personally signed by the Premier and of course the Minister of Environment and Energy.

I would have thought one of the first ideas the Environmental Bill of Rights might have included was reducing excessive packaging, but I guess the minister didn't think that was a good idea.

But I also see the Treasurer in the House, and I remember back when he was an opposition critic in olden days and I think in fact he was the chair of an NDP task force on greening Ontario related to his Natural Resources critic portfolio. One of his ideas was that he thought it was important for us to have a greener province and preserve, for example, unnecessary paper, and I thought it interesting to note the copy of his statement to the Legislature from yesterday.

We have fewer than 30 words contained in this statement and he managed to use two pieces of paper to do that. Here it is, a nice little cover page. We open it up inside: 30 words. I hope the government will take the lesson and reduce some of the excess packaging.

COMMUNITY COLLEGE GOVERNANCE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Yesterday Monica Himmelman, president of the Alumni Association of Conestoga College, announced that the association was launching an unprecedented multimedia campaign to raise public awareness of the actions of the Council of Regents with regard to the manner in which members of college boards are appointed.

The association is concerned about the council's proposed policy for appointing people to college boards, which will be based on political correctness rather than on the merits of expertise, interest in the community and dedication to the college. Despite the fact that the Council of Regents has asked for input on this proposed policy until May 1, 1994, recent actions by the council make it obvious it has already started to implement this policy.

The fact that all four nominees put forward by the Conestoga board of directors for two vacancies were rejected and that five other board members were only granted unprecedented one-year extensions to their three-year terms is clear evidence that the council has already started to make decisions based on its new dictatorial policy. This is totally unacceptable.

I support the association and its strong stand against the government's ideologically driven agenda for colleges. I believe that the boards of community colleges should continue to reflect their own communities and that merit and a demonstrated interest and commitment to the college and the community are and should remain the first considerations when choosing college board members.

MOTORCYCLES

Mr Ron Hansen (Lincoln): Ontario motorcyclists are not getting the respect they desire. In fact they are being abused by insurance companies.

I've heard that many insurance companies have decided not to insure riders this year and I've heard that insurance companies that do specialize in motorcycle insurance will only insure riders who have four or more years of riding experience. I've heard that they are now denying coverage to riders who drive so-called supersport bikes. This is an injustice.

Over the next month it is estimated that 20,000 riders will not be able to find the coverage that they need. A crisis is developing: Riders may choose to ride without proper insurance; others will park their bikes and use more expensive forms of transportation; and hundreds of jobs could be lost at dealerships and in the motorcycle industry.

Riders are being unjustly penalized by their own insurance companies and for no good reason. I've been assured that the government is now working with the insurance industry to sort this mess out, but I've always been bothered by the fact that insurance companies were allowed to do this in the first place.

That's why Mike Cooper, the MPP for Kitchener-Wilmot, and I are calling on the government to investigate the feasibility of public motorcycle insurance and public snowmobile insurance, because we've heard that snowmobile rates have increased also.

Motorcycle riders and snowmobile operators should not be held hostage by the insurance industry. Mr Cooper and I intend to circulate a petition calling on the government to establish public motorcycle and snowmobile insurance. This injustice must be corrected now.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Statements by the ministry. Premier.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

1350

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL JURISDICTION / COMPÉTENCES FÉDÉRALES-PROVINCIALES

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Mr Speaker, I appreciate the warmth of my reception from members of the opposite side.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): We are here to help you out.

Hon Mr Rae: I know that.

I rise today to set out Ontario's objectives in the many and diverse discussions the federal government has started on changes to the Canada assistance plan, education and training, unemployment insurance and immigration.

The issue areas I have just mentioned, as all members will appreciate, are either exclusive provincial jurisdictions or under shared federal-provincial control, yet in recent weeks we have seen federal ministers taking or threatening unilateral action in these areas without serious discussion or negotiations. Some federal ministers claim they want to change these programs, while the federal Minister of Finance has stated categorically that he wants to offload federal spending in these areas.

Ontario and its citizens recognize the need for reform in many of these areas, and we all understand -- we all understand -- that there is no pot of gold that will miraculously appear to solve either government's revenue problems. Because we all understand that changes must be made to many of these programs, I believe there has to be a serious public debate about how we proceed to recast Canada's social safety net and our education system, for that is what we are facing.

It is for this reason that I want to invite all members of this Legislature to join the debate on these matters, and at the same time I want to set out five principles that will guide my government in representing Ontario's interests in what must be open negotiations.

When the first ministers met in Ottawa before Christmas, we were able to agree on an infrastructure program whose costs would be fairly shared between and among Canadian governments. I took this as a good sign. In the spring of 1992, I had signalled that Ontario would match capital investment by the federal government dollar for dollar. The federal program which emerged after the recent federal election was more modest than what we had proposed, but it was a step in the right direction.

This step has not been matched by fair treatment in other areas of federal policy. Because of the decision of the Liberal government to maintain a systematic discrimination against Ontario in transfers subject to the Canada assistance plan, the federal government contributes far less for Ontarians who are in need than it does for those living in other provinces.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Rae: The opposition might not like to hear it, but it happens to be the truth.

The federal approach to training has also ensured that citizens of Canada living in Ontario get less, while Ontario workers contribute far more every year to the unemployment insurance fund than they get in return.

The Canada-Quebec immigration agreement guarantees Quebec a certain amount of money. Quebec now gets about 35% of federal funding for immigration, yet Quebec only receives 18% of the immigrants. For each new immigrant in Quebec, the federal government spends $1,900; for each new immigrant in Ontario it spends only $764.

Quand les ministres des Finances se sont réunis à Québec en janvier, le gouvernement fédéral a communiqué son intention de renouveler les ententes de paiement de péréquation pour faire en sorte que les provinces qui en reçoivent verraient leurs paiements augmenter. À ce moment-là, mon collègue le ministre des Finances a indiqué que l'appui de la province de l'Ontario pour le programme de paiement de péréquation, qui est après tout enchâssé dans la Constitution, demeurait intacte, mais que les autres programmes ne pouvaient pas continuer à discriminer de façon systématique contre l'Ontario.

The status quo cannot continue. Canadians living in Ontario have the responsibility of sharing our wealth with other Canadians. We also have the right to a fair share of federal expenditure and understanding. We have not had that, and this must change.

Let me set out some clear principles which we believe will be supported by most citizens of the province and, I would believe, by most members of this Legislative Assembly.

The first is that Ontario accepts and indeed welcomes the need for change and improvement in our social programs and in the fiscal and practical arrangements between the two levels of government. Duplication and overlap is a problem. Our programs need to do more for work and training and our programs together need to do more for children. Whatever we do must be financially sustainable.

The second is that this cannot be an exercise in offloading to the provinces. The fiscal projections in the federal budget are very troubling in this regard, as are the recent decisions by the federal Minister of Immigration.

The third is that there must be no discriminatory treatment against Canadians who live in Ontario. Ontario supports the equalization program, but beyond this, Ontario must receive its fair share and Ontarians must not be treated differently from people in other provinces. The systematic discrimination against this province has to stop.

The fourth is that any reform must reinforce, and not undermine, Canada's record as a compassionate society. In particular, we should be doing more about child poverty and more to make it possible for people to get back into the workforce.

The fifth is that any reform must be the product of genuine federal-provincial negotiation and joint decision-making. It is not a matter of the federal government simply "consulting" the provinces. Many of these programs lie in areas of exclusive provincial jurisdiction, and the federal government must therefore change its process so that we can begin a genuine negotiation.

These are five principles which Ontario will be taking into all our discussions with the federal government. We want to be partners in this process.

Ontario will continue to invest in child care, we will maintain spending on social assistance, we will maintain spending on training and back-to-work programs and we shall continue to discuss with the federal government immediate programs that will address these issues.

But everyone must know that we can only do more in terms of deep-seated reform if we have real knowledge and certainty that the federal government accepts the principles we have put forward and the political will to bring them forward. The federal government's long-term fiscal plan seems to assume a major offload to the provinces. That's what Mr Martin confirmed on Monday. The fiscal discussion and the social policy discussion have to be brought together.

The announcement on Friday by the federal government that it is cutting off payments to certain groups of refugees is a good example of what is wrong. It is a direct offload to us, the province with the largest number of refugees and immigrants. It adds to Ontario's financial burden. It was done with no discussion, no negotiation and no joint decision-making. It adds to the discrimination, since under the Canada-Quebec agreement these appear to be costs Quebec will not have to pick up.

Negotiations are starting now on a potential agreement between Ottawa and Ontario on an immigration agreement. I regard Friday's announcement as a sign of bad faith and bad judgement, but it only has the effect of firming our resolve in these negotiations.

Next week it is my intention to place before the House a resolution on this subject.

Ontario is confident about the future of Canada and confident about our ability to resolve our difficulties. But this requires transparency and trust in the negotiations necessary to keep Canada a great place to live. Ontario and this government are eager to play a positive role in achieving this goal.

1400

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

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): I want to first assure the Premier that he'll have our full support for ensuring that Ontario does get fair treatment.

The people of Ontario will look for probably four things: a level of cooperation between levels of government, fair treatment for Ontario, fiscal responsibility, and a lack of politics in this matter.

I would say as directly to the Premier as I can that in the first three instances we've seen of you dealing with this, I think you're playing politics.

It was two weeks ago that our caucus sent the government a letter saying:

"One of the key areas for financial consideration over the next year will be the issue of transfer payments from the federal government. The Liberal caucus is very concerned that Ontario receive fair treatment from the federal government.

"We believe a helpful step would be for an all-party finance and economic affairs committee to study this matter in detail and recommend a solution to the Legislature. Because all three parties are anxious to ensure fair treatment from the federal government and because an all-party legislative committee would strengthen Ontario's hand in dealing with the federal government, I am asking for your support to have the matter referred to the finance and economics committee as soon as possible."

That was sent to the government two weeks ago. We've heard nothing from the government. The Premier gets up today and makes a statement demanding cooperation from the opposition, when we volunteered it two weeks ago and have heard nothing from the government.

The second thing I'd say to the Premier is this: When the federal budget came out, the Premier's comment was, "We have been knee-capped." That was your expression. I therefore assumed that something in the federal budget dramatically cut your transfer payments. What I now find, when I phone the ministry officials, is that you received from the federal budget exactly what you had planned in your transfer payments from the federal government -- exactly. There was no change.

The Finance officials who came before our committee on February 7 outlined dollar for dollar what they expected to get from the federal government. The budget came out. They got exactly what they had been expecting from the federal government. What we said at the time was, "We're not saying that's fair treatment or not fair treatment, but we are saying you got exactly what you had planned from the federal government." But what does the Premier say? He says, "We were knee-capped."

Second, if you were attempting to get political support from the people of this province, they are going to look for statesmanship activity from you, not what I would regard as cheap politics. I believe your expression "knee-capped," when you got exactly what you have been expecting from the federal government, is cheap politics.

The third thing I wanted to say is that we are in difficult financial times, there is no question about that, but you can't have a double standard. You can't on the one hand say that from the federal government we expect to get what we might have gotten five years ago and then on the other hand, for your own transfer payment partners, change your mind. You promised one thing; you delivered another thing, Premier. You cannot, as we say, talk out of both sides of your mouth.

Hon Mr Rae: That's not true.

Mr Phillips: The Premier is shaking his head and saying that's not so. That is so. You yourself said, "We have to change our transfer payments."

I want to make those three points. One is that you can be assured of our caucus's support for fair treatment for the people of Ontario. We will speak out for the people of Ontario in dealing with the federal government, there is no question about that. But I will tell the Premier, the people of Ontario will not sit still for cheap politics.

I believe in these three points: one is in refusing to respond to our letter to you asking to deal with this matter; second is to say you were knee-capped when you got from the federal government exactly what you'd been planning; and third is when you deal with your transfer payment partners in a completely different way than you want the federal government dealing with the Ontario government.

We need to begin to talk out of only one side of our mouth on these matters.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to add very quickly that the leader of Liberal Party of Ontario, Lyn McLeod, is in Ottawa today making representations to the government of Canada on behalf of the people of Ontario, who rightly expect their fair share.

I want also to say quite seriously that when a democratic, socialist Premier of Ontario feels the need to make this kind of statement in this Legislature, then we need not ask for whom the bell tolls. The bells tolls for the Canada in which I have grown up. This is a significant but an ominous statement, and I worry for my country.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): This statement by a Premier of the province of Ontario is pathetic. This wasn't a statement, this was public whining. In Ontario we have always been the leaders in Confederation. We've now become the whiners in Confederation.

Here we have a Premier who's now setting up a strategy for the next election. What you did to municipalities, universities, school boards and hospitals was not only bad, Premier, it was worse over the last few years.

The public doesn't want partisanship or gamesmanship, they want results, and if you don't want to deliver, I suggest that the resolution we put before the people of this province next week is an election. The person they want out isn't the Prime Minister; the person they want out of office is this Premier.

Typical of the socialists, when they were in opposition, they sat on this side of the House and whined. Now, when they're in power and can control things, all they do is whine again. Don't you take responsibility for anything you do? People want cooperation, not confrontation.

On page 1 he says, "I believe there needs to be serious public debate." What have you done for the three and a half years you have been Premier? Where was the debate? This Premier has done more to dismantle social programs than any other Premier in the history of this province.

We know very clearly that if we give this Premier any more money, all he'll do is go out and blow it anyway. In the early 1980s, the percentage of the revenue we received in this province, with a federal Liberal government and a Progressive Conservative provincial government, was about 18% of the revenues. That's exactly what we have today, the same percentage of revenues. The taxpayers I hear from don't want to give you any more money, because they've seen how you blow it.

This statement is absolutely pathetic, that a Premier of this province is going to continue to whine about other levels of government. The time for partisanship is over. People want results. You're asking now for the input of the members of this House. For three and a half years, on the economy, on education, on health care, we've attempted to give you ideas. At every turn this Premier has proceeded in his own direction, not listening to the people of this province.

Mr Speaker, I say to you very clearly, the public does not believe that this Premier has the answers. The best thing this Premier can do, instead of debating the resolution, is call an election. That's the best thing he can do for the province of Ontario over the next year and a bit.

The Deputy Speaker: Before we start oral questions, I would ask the cooperation of the members to make sure you keep your questions short and to the point and your responses brief.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TAXATION

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): My question is to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday I believe that the Minister of Finance was being cute with the people of the province when he said there would be no tax increases. I want the Minister of Finance to tell us today if he will be increasing fees or other charges in his budget.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I did try and say as well yesterday that not only would there be no new taxes in the budget but that I wasn't prepared to write the budget on the floor of the assembly either.

Mr Elston: I understand why the member for Nickel Belt was being so cute with us, because he is obviously preparing to follow the same old game plan, introducing, as he did, the $50 corporate filing fee, which gives no new service to the corporations of this province. He introduced a $20 increase on elevating devices. He increased the welding test fee to $110. A welding test fee being increased to 110 bucks for a person who's in training and who has no job is a real penalty.

I want the minister to tell the province today that he is prepared to say to the people that he will freeze the fees in this budget.

Hon Mr Laughren: I've lost track of how many positions the Liberals now have on controlling the deficit, on expenditures, on taxes. It is beyond comprehension. Not only are they saying that they will cut taxes -- I guess they're feeling guilty because they didn't do it when they were in office and now want us to do it. I would simply reiterate, all of this will become known when the budget is presented on May 5.

1410

Mr Elston: We already know what this guy's going to do. He is going to introduce new fee increases. He is going to increase the fees like those on the Glenora ferry, where he plans to raise a few hundred thousand dollars but in the ultimate end, overall, lose $48,000. He is going to raise probably more money on court fees, from which he has already extracted another $76 million. He is going to probably increase the fees for roadside signs, which he's increased already by some 33%. The list goes on and on: a 30% increase in the cost of receiving a death certificate, which is of course an obligatory acquisition if you're going to be doing anything in processing estates or administration of estates. Why won't the minister announce that he is going to freeze the fees?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'll say it again and again and again: This isn't the place to write the 1994 Ontario budget. I know what the Liberal position is. They want taxes reduced, they want fees frozen, they want expenditures increased on all of their favourite programs and they want the deficit reduced. At some point the Liberal Party of this province has to come clean and tell the people of the province what it really stands for, because at the present time nobody knows.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): In the absence of Mr Hampton, who I think was supposed to be here but we don't know where these people are any more, to the Premier: This is Earth Week, and in light of that, there's been a very important document released. The environmental assessment on forest management in the province came out this morning and has been released. I wonder if the Premier and his colleagues can tell us if they are well pleased with the $20 million that has been expended and the recommendations, indeed not just recommendations, the requirements that are being put forward today by the EA panel.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I would refer this question, in the absence of the Minister of Natural Resources, to the Minister of Environment and Energy.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): As the member indicated, this is a very important document, and it's quite extensive, as you can see. It has significant recommendations for sustainable forest development. It's over 500 pages. It was tabled this morning. We are currently reviewing the document and the recommendations, and we would be pleased to carry through with the process, as the member may be aware. He may have further questions on the process, but obviously at this point we are currently reviewing the document and we can't fully respond until we've had more time.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): What's clear from this report is that the government's policies for regenerating Ontario's forests have been woefully inadequate. In 1993, the former Minister of Natural Resources, whom you might know fairly well, announced a new program for forest renewal that said he would increase forest regeneration to 100%. That strategy was based on a greater reliance on natural regeneration. You were going to plant fewer trees but regenerate more forest. Today we have learned the consequences of this policy. The EA board says in its report:

"We have concerns about the province's decreasing financial commitment to artificial regeneration. The adverse effects of cutting timber without investing in artificial regeneration are unacceptable." "Unacceptable" is the word they use. "We are ordering regeneration objectives and financial commitments to be set in timber production policy."

It is clear from that report that the policies of your government are threatening the viability of our forests and of our jobs. In the face of the board's conclusions, will you admit that your policies have failed and that you need to reverse the trend that you put in place?

Hon Mr Wildman: Members will know that this process has been long, arduous and quite expensive, and we have now a very extensive report which deals not just with the immediate concerns, which are significant, with regard to the sustainability of our forests, but with the history of the development of the current situation that we now face and makes significant recommendations.

The member will know that the point we have reached now was not just something that developed over the last couple of years and that this report was not just developed over the last couple of years. As the previous member indicated, this has been a long, very expensive process. We will determine how we will respond as a government, and I, as Minister of Environment, will ensure that the Ministry of Natural Resources and the government comply with the recommendations of the EA board, as decided by the process.

Mr Brown: This government has reduced the planting and regenerating in Ontario's forests of trees, of seedlings, by 25% since it took power. That is the record of this government. They have been frittering away one of Ontario's most important renewable natural resources. You have tried to justify your declining support for tree planting by saying that natural generation would be enough. But the facts are now in, the jury has reported: We've spent $20 million and we have 650 pages. You're wrong. We want to see the rubber hit the road. We want you to get the egg off your face.

Minister, are you going to get forestry in Ontario going again? Are you going to make some decisions and get this province to have truly world-class forests for all Ontarians?

Hon Mr Wildman: The fact is that until this government came to power, there was no such thing as a forestry policy in this province. We have had for years many, many timber management policies. We have managed the forest or mismanaged the forest historically in this province because we've managed only for timber values.

The value of this report and the work that the Ministry of Natural Resources has been doing is that it looks at all the forest values. It makes recommendations regarding proper management for all values of our forests, and that is the value of this report and the commitment of this government.

ONTARIO HYDRO EMPLOYEE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. The Toronto Sun reported that "negligence charges were laid against Toronto Hydro...after interference from Labour Minister Bob Mackenzie or his staff...." This was told in court yesterday.

Mr Minister, have you ever spoken to your political staff member Mr Don Eady about laying charges against Toronto Hydro in the death of Thomas Vanderstarren?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I'm aware of the issue that the member raises, and they are, I am sure, aware that the matter is now before the courts and it would be inappropriate for me to make any comments on this while it's before the courts.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, when were you made aware that Mr Eady put pressure on the ministry lawyer to lay charges against Toronto Hydro?

Interjections.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sorry, maybe the member would repeat the question; I didn't hear it.

Mrs Witmer: When were you made aware that Mr Eady put pressure on the ministry lawyer to lay charges against Toronto Hydro?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I hadn't been made aware of that at all, and as I said before, the issue is before the courts and it would be inappropriate for me to respond.

Mrs Witmer: Did the Canadian Union of Public Employees or any other body or person --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. I can't hear the questions here either. Order, please. The member for Waterloo North.

Mrs Witmer: Mr Minister, since you were not able to answer the first two questions, I ask you this: Did the Canadian Union of Public Employees or any other body or person contact you personally with concerns that Toronto Hydro had not been charged in the death of Thomas Vanderstarren?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Once again, I just want to make it clear that I am aware of the issue, but I also know that it's before the courts and I'm not prepared to talk about it while it's before the courts.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Can I ask the House to please refrain from shouting. It makes it extremely difficult for the Speaker to hear. Please. The member for Simcoe West.

1420

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Minister of Health. It's a question regarding a story which appeared in today's Toronto Star. In November 1990 an audit was completed by your ministry which revealed a catalogue of unauthorized spending, questionable accounting and excessive salaries at a Toronto social housing agency funded by the provincial government. This shocking abuse of government funds occurred between 1988 and 1990 at Houselink Community Homes Inc. I have a copy of that report, Minister, no thanks to your ministry.

With so much taxpayers' money at stake, why have you deliberately covered up this report done by the auditor?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): As the member has identified, the report that was reported upon today covered a period from April 1, 1988, to March 31, 1990. When the audit was received by our government in October 1991, I think it was a good example of the kind of open-ended, just paying the bills without asking any questions or doing any evaluation or looking at the outcomes of a lot of programs which our government has significantly changed.

I'm glad to be able to tell the member that since that audit was received, all audit-related recoveries have been completed and all management and accountability issues identified in the audit report have been addressed with Houselink and have been resolved to the satisfaction of the ministry.

Mr Jim Wilson: Houselink provides housing for former psychiatric patients. It receives money from the ministries of Health and Housing. In fact, I have a press release from your government in 1992 that announces with great fanfare that your government was attending a ceremony to open two new Houselink projects.

Minister, I just want to make sure of a few facts here, and one is, did you share this report with the Minister of Housing? I want to know specifically what action either of you took, either the action you took or the Minister of Housing, to correct the abuse that's outlined in this report.

Hon Mrs Grier: I thought my first response had indicated that we took the audit of the operation of this home under the previous government very seriously and that all of the issues addressed in the audit had been addressed. Yes, the Ministry of Housing was of course aware of that.

Mr Jim Wilson: Clearly, the audit report is a catalogue of mismanagement and waste, if not outright graft, under the former Liberal government, and the report was buried by your government. I ask you again, why did it take a reporter from the Toronto Star, who couldn't get this report through access to information but had to get it through other means, why did it take a reporter in our press gallery to uncover this report?

Minister, I want to know, and I want to know if you'll table with this House, specifically what your ministry has done and what the Ministry of Housing has done to correct the abuse and to make sure it never happens again, that the dollars of the taxpayers of this province are protected when it comes to social housing projects and agencies.

Hon Mrs Grier: As I indicated in my response to the first question, I agree completely with the member and with the auditor that it was in fact a misuse of public funds. I also am confident that the misuse has been corrected and has not occurred again.

In response to the article today, which indicates that a freedom of information request had been made, let me say to the member that our ministry has no record of any such request, and had such a request been received, of course the final audit report would have been released. There's no reason not to. I'd be happy to release it to the member if he hasn't got a copy.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a question for the Premier. I'm going to try to ask this -- maybe you'll think it's uncharacteristic -- in as non-partisan a way as possible because I feel, as I think he does, very strongly about this issue.

I realize that governments are very attracted -- all governments; not just his, but all governments -- to various sources of gambling proceeds, right across the country, right across North America. There's the offtrack betting, there's casino gambling, there's those break-open lotteries, there's the video terminals that we're talking about.

We're beginning to see some reports coming in from right across the world on the effect on our general society of this trend to gambling by all governments. Is the Premier not concerned that this widespread and rapid movement into all fields of gambling by his own government and by so many governments in North America, while it will raise in the short run a lot of money for government and is very attractive, is bound to have a profound and terrible effect on the most vulnerable people in our society, the poor and the disadvantaged and the desperate?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I think I'll refer that to the minister.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Minister.

Mr Bradley: Don't answer the question. I was the asking the Premier. I don't want an answer.

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Well, fine, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. The next question, please.

VISITORS

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Table, could you stop the clock for a minute, please?

I would like to inform the members of the assembly that we have in the Speaker's gallery today a visiting delegation headed by Mr Wanmuhamadnoor Matha, First Deputy House Speaker from the House of Representatives in Thailand. Please join me in welcoming our guests.

ONTARIO HYDRO EMPLOYEE

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): My question is for the Minister of Labour. Mr Minister, I've listened to your responses and I want you to know that you are wrong. Don't tell me that you can't talk about this because it's before the courts. I want to know why a charge was laid when, according to the newspaper, your own Labour ministry lawyer said there was not enough evidence and you laid the charge.

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Standing order 23(g)(i) specifically excludes matters that are sub judice from discussion in this House. You know that, Mr Speaker. We should be disallowing these types of questions in this place.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order, please. The member for St George-St David, you're not in your seat.

On your request, Minister, I'd like to read the following:

"The freedom of speech accorded to members of Parliament is a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. The Speaker should interfere with that freedom of speech only in exceptional cases where it is clear that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals."

I would ask, therefore, if the minister doesn't want to reply, it is his freedom of choice to do so.

Hon Mr Charlton: Mr Speaker, on the point that I raised, our standing orders are very clear. They say clearly, "A member shall be called to order by the Speaker if he or she...refers to any matter that is the subject of a proceeding that is pending in a court or before a judge for judicial determination."

The matters that have been raised here are the subject of a case that's before the courts presently and the member should be called to order.

Interjections.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to make an observation. I have listened carefully to the member for Waterloo North's several questions on this subject. It seems to me that the traditions in this place are that members, within certain general limits, are allowed to put questions and ministers are, as you just observed, given every opportunity to answer in any way they choose, including, for reasons they might choose to cite, declining to answer the question. I think we would all be better off if we continued to operate within that established practice.

1430

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): On the same point of order, Mr Speaker: I am a little concerned about the fact that the government House leader was allowed to virtually stand up and challenge a ruling you had already made on his previous point of order. If that's going to be the standard around here, then you can expect me to stand up two, three, four and five times every time a Speaker gives a ruling that the government House leader or I don't like.

I would like to make the point that the member for Waterloo North was asking a very specific question about the minister's involvement. As far as I know, the minister hasn't been charged. If he is, perhaps we should know about that, and there's nothing in the standing orders or anywhere else that prevents him answering questions for matters for which he, as the minister, is responsible. It's as simple as that.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have made my ruling. It is a final ruling, so we will continue now to our question period. Could you please start the clock again? The member for Waterloo North had the floor.

Mrs Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Labour. I want to know why a charge was laid when, according to the article in the Toronto Sun, your own ministry lawyer indicated that there was not enough evidence to lay a charge. Why did you lay a charge?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): The situation is before the courts. It is the prosecution of a company and three individuals under the Occupational Health and Safety Act, and I feel it would be inappropriate for me to respond at this point in time.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Bye, bye, Bob.

Mr Eves: I think you are in trouble, Bob. The question is to you: Why did you politically interfere?

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mrs Witmer: Unfortunately, this entire issue smacks of political interference. The most important issue for us today is to determine whether the Labour ministry has been meddling, not only in this case but in other cases involving workplace accidents. I would ask you, would you support a full inquiry, without delay, in order that we can determine that serious charges have not been brought against other innocent parties?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: Once again, the matter is before the courts and it would be inappropriate, as far as I am concerned, to respond, and that's the answer that will continue to be given.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): The court isn't inquiring into why you interfered. They should be. They should be inquiring into that.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Willowdale.

HEALTH INSURANCE

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is for the Minister of Health. Minister, last month you announced changes to the rules about who is eligible for coverage under the Ontario health insurance plan. One group of people in my riding who are affected by these changes are foreign students. There are approximately 900 students from countries outside Canada enrolled in secondary and post-secondary schools in the Kingston area. This figure doesn't include the almost 140 families of these students, also living in my riding.

Could you explain why foreign students and their family members will no longer be eligible for OHIP after June 30 and how these people are being notified of this change?

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): In order to safeguard OHIP and our health care system for the permanent residents of Ontario, we've had to make some very difficult decisions, and the decision to no longer cover foreign students was certainly not an easy one to make. I would point out to the member that before foreign students are admitted into Canada, Immigration Canada requires that they demonstrate that they are prepared to meet all of their own costs while here in Canada as well as the costs of their own family members.

I would also point out to him that Ontario students who study abroad are not covered by health insurance in the countries in which they are studying. They are covered by OHIP for up to four years of study abroad.

Finally, let me say to him that of course in the case of an emergency, anybody will be treated by a hospital or by a community health care centre here in Ontario.

With respect to notification, anybody who is here and who is known to the Health ministry as having been a foreign student has been notified that as of the end of June they need to obtain their own health insurance.

Mr Gary Wilson: I'm sure you will agree that having foreign students study in Ontario is enormously valuable. First, the students themselves get a first-rate education, which will be of lasting benefit to them and their communities. Secondly, their native country will benefit from a better-educated citizenry. Finally, in this age of globalization, Ontario stands to profit economically and culturally.

Wherever these students settle in the world, they will recall the generosity of our province and its citizens in providing part of their education. This of course will make future business and cultural exchanges between Ontario and foreign countries easier. This couldn't be more important in today's world, where it's crucial that we do all we can to bring people together.

Minister, what is being done by your ministry to ensure that the cost of OHIP will not prevent foreign students from studying in Ontario?

Hon Mrs Grier: I am very well aware of the value to our institutions and to our province of people from all over the world who come here for a variety of reasons. But I'm also very conscious of the fact that the kind of double-digit increases in our spending on health care that we've had until recent years are something that the taxpayers and the residents of this province can no longer afford to sustain. Therefore, as I said in my first answer, we have had to make some difficult decisions in order to define what a "resident of Ontario" really means, and a resident of Ontario for whom our insurance plan is designed is somebody who is a permanent resident of the province.

Let me to say to the member that the change that we contemplated was announced in April 1993, so that it does not take effect until July of this year. The institutions and the people affected have had a great deal of time to prepare for it. It is perfectly likely, and in fact a number of colleges and universities are looking at the prospect, that they can provide an insurance policy for international students through the institution that would considerably lower the premiums that students would have to pay.

CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Minister of Environment and Energy and I'm having the page take over a letter which has been provided to me. This is a very serious matter and certainly this week, as we're celebrating Earth Week, I want to talk to the minister about his permission to allow contaminated earth to be used in the Essex county landfill site.

In a letter dated February 28 an official from your ministry indicated to the county of Essex that material it was using for cover at the Maidstone township landfill site on a daily basis contained contaminated soils, including soils from industrial recommissioning projects, gas station remediation projects, oil-well drilling tailings and construction projects.

The letter states: "Please be advised that your use of the contaminated soils as daily cover does not comply with the certificate of approval. These soils are not clean earthfill, as is required."

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): That's right; it doesn't comply.

Mr Offer: The minister is yelling at me right now, "What is the matter?"

Hon Mr Wildman: No, I'm saying that's right.

Mr Offer: On page 2 of that same letter, your ministry proceeded to approve the use of this contaminated material for landfill cover at the site and indeed approve the use of other materials including foundry sand, dewatered sludges and industrial waste-water treatment plant material.

Can the minister please confirm that materials that were once banned for use as daily cover at the Maidstone township landfill are now being permitted for use in this regard?

1440

Hon Mr Wildman: The member raises an important matter, and as he says in regard to this letter, the official in the ministry wrote to say that the contaminated soils did not comply with the condition. Then on the second page it goes on to say, "They may continue to use these materials" under a list of conditions, and one of those conditions is, "Chemical characteristics and methods of handling the alternative daily cover materials must meet the criteria."

Mr Offer: On the first page of the letter it says that the township is using contaminated soils. On the second page the ministry is saying okay, that's now permitted.

By way of supplementary, Mr Minister, your ministry's certificate of approval for this landfill site specifies that before any change to the materials being used can be used, there must be consultation with the technical review committee. It is our information that this did not occur. The technical review committee did not become aware of this request in January to use these contaminated materials as daily cover and the subsequent approval granted in February, and they were not aware of this request until after it had been ordered. March 21, 1994, was the first time they were aware, a full two months after the application was made.

Minister, your own ministry is now a party to the breach of your certificate of approval. You have permitted a pilot project to proceed without any public consultation. You have breached your certificate of approval in two areas.

Why did you secretly negotiate to break the conditions of the certificate of approval issued for the Maidstone landfill and permit contaminated material to be used as part of this experimental project? Why is your ministry a party to the breach of your own approval?

Hon Mr Wildman: I thought this was one of the most concise questions, Mr Speaker.

I'm happy to say that the local member, for Essex-Kent, has been very much involved in this matter and has raised it with my ministry staff and there have been discussions. As the member indicated, they were not secret, they were negotiations and discussions going on, and as I understand it, the ministry has decided to suspend any approvals that might not comply with the conditions.

JOB SECURITY

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question involves 2,000 jobs in Simcoe county and perhaps more job losses throughout the province. The Premier was aware that this question was directed to him prior to his leaving, so I'm wondering, Mr Speaker, if you could ask the government House leader to go fetch the Premier and get him in here to answer this very important question.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): The House doesn't work that way.

Mr Jim Wilson: Maybe the Premier should start taking this House seriously, and maybe the House should start working for the people of Ontario.

The Deputy Speaker: Please ask your question.

Mr Jim Wilson: In the absence of the Premier, who doesn't seem to care any more, I ask the Minister of Economic Development and Trade: As representatives from the town of Collingwood and I made you and the Premier aware at a meeting in his office on March 21, the successor rights provisions contained in your government's labour laws are preventing private investors from purchasing short-line rail operations in Ontario. Without this sale to private investors, CN will abandon the rail line between Collingwood and Barrie and 2,000 jobs will be lost in Simcoe county. The National Transportation Agency of Canada has said that it will render its decision on abandonment of the Collingwood-to-Barrie rail line by June 17.

Minister, if you don't move soon, many of my constituents face the bleak prospect of joining the unemployment lines in this province. Can residents of Collingwood and Simcoe county expect a resolution to the problem created by your labour laws before the National Transportation Agency renders its decision on June 17? Yes or no, Minister.

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): From my experience with the member when he was Health critic and I was Minister of Health, he knows I'm incapable of giving just a yes or no answer, but I'll try and keep it to the point.

I share the concern the member raises with respect to the jobs and the impact on the local economy. The member will know that the Premier has asked me to work with the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Transportation to find a resolution to this issue, not just for that Collingwood area -- that's the most important community because it is the first stop -- but a provincial solution.

We have been involved in meetings recently, have recently met with Mr Tellier from CN. I'm pleased to be able to inform the member that Mr Tellier has agreed that CN will take no immediate action post the National Transportation Agency decision in the middle of June and there will be at least a two-month extension after that which gives us a bit of breathing space, but it does not alleviate the urgency of responding to the local community concerns.

We are working on it and I'm trying to get a response as soon as possible.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): A supplementary to the minister: We have the answer and that's to amend Bill 40. If the Collingwood and Barrie rail line is abandoned, the Bradford and Washago rail line will be next in line. This will be a profound impact upon the jobs and industries in my riding of Simcoe East. Officials in Simcoe county made you aware last fall, Minister, that private investors would not purchase short rail-line operations because your labour laws made it uneconomical to do so. Seven months later, the clock is ticking and the CN and the NTA have run out of patience.

Minister, rather than rolling the dice with the economic future of Simcoe county, will you agree today to immediately table and support the private member's bill introduced by my colleague from Simcoe West which amends the successor rights provisions of your job-killing labour legislation? Will you support this bill and save jobs? Sixty days pass pretty quickly.

Hon Ms Lankin: As I've indicated to the member on a previous occasion, I have been taking action with respect to this issue. Over the past period of time I have met with Mr Tellier on two occasions. I have spoken to him on other occasions with respect to securing a commitment from CN that there would be no immediate action upon release of the National Transportation Agency decision in mid-June.

The member puts forward that they have a solution and the only solution, and I disagree with him on that. I do believe that there are other solutions which we can put in place which will help us secure the economic activity in those communities and retain those jobs.

I share the commitment of the members to that end goal, and pledge to find a solution to reach that end goal. Where I differ with him is that I think there may be more than one solution available to us, and we are in fact exploring that.

With respect to the private member's bill being put forward at this point in time which suggests there's only one solution, I disagree with that and I will not be supporting that.

SMALL BUSINESS

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): My question is to the Minister of Economic Development and Trade. I am greatly concerned about what appears to be a disturbing trend. It seems there are a growing number of small businesses that are being forced out of business, not because of the recession and not because of any provincial government policy, not because they're uncompetitive, but because the banks are clawing back their lines of credit and then eventually calling them in.

Some of these businesses have never missed a payment, only to be put into bankruptcy by the banks, which have more concern for their portfolio balance than they have for the dreams, aspirations and hard work of the small business owners. These actions by banks that were immensely profitable last year are causing a continued increase in job loss and are hampering the economic recovery.

I know that the minister is not responsible for the banking industry, but I do know that she has been meeting with her federal counterpart. After all, the Liberals made such great fanfare about this in the last election. Why has this activity increased? Can the minister tell us what, if anything, we as a province can do to pick up the pieces of these dreams now being shattered by the Liberal economic policies or the lack thereof?

Hon Frances Lankin (Minister of Economic Development and Trade): There certainly is a lot of indication from the small business sector and in fact from medium-sized business and from a number of the companies that we've been dealing with in our sectoral strategies that there's a significant problem with access to capital and in terms of their experience with banks over the last period of time.

I would say part of it is due to the recession. Banks have pulled back on their lines of credit because they've looked at their portfolios. But I share the concern that the member raises. In fact, recent statistics from the Bank of Canada indicate that lending by banks is down in all categories across the board, and that's very troublesome for the viability of businesses out there.

There are a number of areas that are under provincial jurisdiction in fact where we have taken action. We have worked to set up the Ontario lead investment fund to bring more venture capital to Ontario, labour-sponsored venture capital funds. We have put in place the running start pilot project, which is now a full-fledged program to ensure that new businesses can access the new ventures loan program that had been established by the previous government.

There are a number of initiatives that we've put in place to try and help fill those gaps in terms of access to capital. But I share the member's concern. It is a significant one and we have been undertaking a major access to capital review.

1450

Mr Wiseman: While I am encouraged to hear that we are doing a lot in this area, despite the fact that the federal Liberal government is doing nothing but continuing the federal Tory policies, I would like to address the specific sectoral problem that is a major issue in our economy, and that is the retail sector. Could the minister please tell --

Interjections.

Mr Wiseman: I'm trying to do this over the defence of the provincial Liberals for the federal Liberals at the expense of Ontario, but it is difficult.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Question.

Mr Wiseman: Could the minister please tell us what we can do in the province, within the confines of our limited jurisdiction, to help this sector, as many of the small businesses who have been to see me recently are retail. I might add that while the Liberals and the Tories don't care about small businesses in this province, I do.

Hon Ms Lankin: If I can indicate one of the things that is a problem when you are talking about the issue of access to capital in any of the sectors --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon Ms Lankin: I was indicating that one of the problems you have in examining the problems of access to capital on a sectoral basis is the fact that there is not a database or a collection of data from financial institutions, either federally or provincially regulated, which breaks down that information to show where in fact financial institutions are investing.

With respect to business assistance or investment programs on the part of the provincial government, the retail sector is not a sector that the government has invested in in the past. Usually as restaurants or clothing stores open up in a community they are competing with other existing businesses, as opposed to adding new net employment in a community.

However, the retail sector overall is a sector that is under great threat at this point in time, as we see discount stores, Wal-Mart and others, coming in. We have, as in other sectors, a sectoral strategy under way dealing with the retail sector, bringing diverse people to the table for the first time. I am hopeful to be able to report to the House within the next short while on the outcomes of those discussions.

LABOUR DISPUTE

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): To the Minister of Labour: There is currently a strike by foodservices workers against the Marriott Management Services company, which has the food contract to service Queen's University. It should be clear that this is not a strike against Queen's but rather against the company that has the contract. These strikers have decided to picket public areas on the university site, including the student study areas. In an effort to help the students study in peace, the university has obtained an injunction against the union picketing in these areas.

Your Bill 40, Minister, allows this picketing, and the union has appealed the injunction to the OLRB. In any event, the injunction runs out this Friday. Are you prepared to sit by and allow the strikers to disrupt the study efforts of these students at this critical time leading up their final exams?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): This is a matter of a collective agreement and of collective bargaining going on. I certainly don't intend to interfere in a collective bargaining process.

Mr Mahoney: This is not about the collective bargaining process. The university is not interfering in the collective bargaining process. The mandate of the university is to provide an opportunity for these students to graduate, to pass their exams. How can they possibly study when they've got picketers coming into their study areas to disrupt the peace and quiet that is required to study for a university exam?

Minister, I'm not asking you to interfere in any way in the collective bargaining process. I am asking you, are you prepared to sit by and allow these picketers -- not striking the university; very important -- to put at risk the results of the final exams of these university students or are you prepared to do something to instruct the picketers not to bother these students and let them study and get on with their year?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I'm sure the university could bring charges if it decided that the law was being broken. In the interim, I'm not prepared to interfere in a collective bargaining situation.

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): My question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns his tax on you-brews. Members know that in last year's budget the minister announced that he was going to start collecting a 26-cent-a-litre tax on beer and wine made at brew-your-own establishments.

Last November I raised in this House the example of Karen and George Pudsey of Erin in Wellington county. They opened the doors of their you-brew business the day before the minister announced the you-brew tax in the last budget. Their business grew until August, when the you-brew tax kicked in, and drastically declined until January this year when, sadly, they were forced to close their doors. They estimate they've lost about $100,000.

On Monday the minister announced that he was cutting in half the you-brew tax because of its negative impact on the industry. George and Karen Pudsey have asked me to direct a question to the minister, and I've sent the minister a copy of their letter. Their question is this: How does the government propose to compensate those people whose businesses went under because of this tax?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I appreciate the courtesy of the member for Wellington sending me over a copy of the letter to which he refers.

When we decided to reduce the tax by 50% and cancel two future scheduled tax increases this year and next, it was because of the difficulties in the you-brew industry to which the member for Wellington refers. There was at the time when we imposed the tax no tax whatsoever on this aspect of their business, the alcohol content, and I think in terms of public policy, that's wrong in the province. I think there should be a tax on all alcohol that's sold in this province. I think in terms of public policy, that's the right policy.

However, I do believe, given what the economists call the infant industry nature of the you-brew industry, that there were particular difficulties associated with this tax. I don't deny that or I would not have announced that we were going to reduce the tax and cancel two future increases. But having said that, I do not for a moment believe that all of the problems in this new industry can be tagged with the tax that was imposed last August.

Mr Arnott: The minister's announcement on Monday that he was cutting the you-brew tax was a direct admission that this tax was punitive; in other words, it had a direct negative impact on the you-brew businesses.

When George and Karen Pudsey opened their doors to do business, I dropped in to wish them success. They are a young, hardworking couple who had a dream for a better life for themselves and their family, which died with the introduction of that tax. George and Karen also said in their letter, "Don't start a business, whatever you do, as you'll surely be taxed out of existence and pay for it for the rest of your life."

Minister, we told you repeatedly that this tax would kill jobs and kill business. My question is, why didn't you listen?

Hon Mr Laughren: The fact is that we did listen. It's unusual for a government, at a time when revenues are very, very difficult to obtain, to reduce a tax by 50%. So I do believe that we listened and I would remind the member opposite --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I don't need any smart comments from the Liberals opposite, who raised taxes at a record level when they were in office and never reduced the tax.

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): Now you're taking the tax off, now that they're all dead.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. Minister.

Hon Mr Laughren: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I believe the member for Wellington is trying to deal with a problem in a serious and compassionate way, and I respect that, which is more than I can say for the Liberals who are barracking opposite.

I understand the case the member for Wellington is making, but I do not believe that, given the fact that in any new sector and for small-business startups, there is traditionally something like a 25% or 26% failure rate in these sectors --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Laughren: Well, it's a fact of life. You may not like to admit it, but that's a fact of life. There's a high rate of failure or bankruptcy in new sectors anyway. That's simply a fact of life. I know you don't like to hear that, but it's a fact of life. Therefore, I think that to simply blame everything on a tax is simply unfair and makes no sense whatsoever.

Mr Arnott: Why don't you cut the tax then?

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): Bring a sledgehammer along to fulfil your own policy.

Hon Mr Laughren: I know that you're yacking over there. Why is it that the member for Wellington understands this problem so well and the colleague beside him is just flapping his gums and simply trying to make a political issue out of what I think is a serious problem? At least I give the member for Wellington credit for trying to deal with this in a serious way.

1500

ONTARIO STOCK YARDS

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): My question is to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs. As I mentioned earlier this week in a previous question, I recently attended the Oxford Federation of Agriculture's annual lobby day with elected officials. One of the issues that was raised that day was some concerns over the Ontario Stock Yards.

As you know, the stockyards have been closed, but a livestock trust fund was set up as a result of that closure. Concerns were expressed as to what is going to happen to the funds, who is going to control them and how they're going to be allocated. Minister, could you please inform the House and my constituents what is happening with this trust fund?

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): I'd like to thank the member for the question. At this time it probably is appropriate to thank the members on this side and on the other side of the House who have written me a letter on this issue because the Ontario cattlemen in many of the areas have raised their voices to individual members, hoping that the government, through the Ontario Stock Yards Board, would make sure that all the money that might accrue from leases of this property would go back to the livestock industry.

I want to assure the member, in fact all members of the House, that we have ongoing negotiations with my senior officials and the various commodity groups. They have made a recommendation to me about a breakdown between all the different commodity groups that have used the stockyards over the years. It starts off with 63.3% of the funds going to the beef industry, 8.3% going to dairy, 12% going to the veal industry etc on down to hogs, goats and sheep.

We have made a commitment to certainly give as much money as we can that we'll receive to the livestock industry, but we have no final breakdown. We have told the livestock industry -- and been very honest and up front with all of the groups -- that we expect, and my friend the Minister of Finance expects, to get some money in return for the investment that we've made over the years.

Some $1.3 million is required just to wind up and clean up the stockyards, and the government expects to be able to get some of those costs back. We are willing to negotiate openly with the groups to make sure that this fund is there for the benefit of the livestock industry in the future.

FISH AND WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Initially my question was to the Premier, but I must agree with the member for Simcoe West that I really believe he just doesn't care about the issues of this province any more.

I'll redirect my question to the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, some two weeks ago, you met with the Minnesota Natural Resources Department to advise them of Ontario's new fishing regulations and that they were in place to protect the resource. You were quoted as saying, "The regulations we put into place are meant to deal with the conservation plan and we have no intention of relaxing those regulations."

I cannot tell you how surprised I was when your Premier indicated that he was willing to take another look at what you said was non-negotiable. As the deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Natural Resources Department indicated, "The tone from the Premier seems to be different." Who are the people of the province to believe, you or your Premier?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): First of all, let me take the member on. The Premier comes to this House more than I ever remember the former Premier, Mr Peterson, being in this House.

Secondly, let me say to the member that if he wants to be helpful on this issue, he should perhaps stop repeating the rhetoric of people from Minnesota. He could be helpful to the people of Ontario if he would do that.

We have been very, very clear with the state of Minnesota that Ontario intends to manage its resources, that Minnesota must reduce its harvest of Ontario's fish. We have been clear on that. The Premier has been clear on that. Minnesota would prefer to see it otherwise.

I can say to the member, he is not being helpful by taking Minnesota's line on this. Frankly, let me ask the member this: Where was he and where was his government when this activity was going on between 1985 and 1990?

Mr Miclash: I don't think the minister heard what I said. The deputy commissioner of the Minnesota Natural Resources Department indicated, and I quote, "The tone from the Premier seems to be different."

Mr Minister, I don't disagree with what you're doing. You know that the tourist operators agree with you, the anglers agree with you, most of my constituents agree with you, most of your constituents agree with you as well. But why is it that your Premier does not agree with you when it comes to the fish stocks of this province? He has indicated that he will take another look at this matter.

Hon Mr Hampton: Again I would say to the member that if he really wants to be helpful on this issue, he should stop taking the interest of Minnesota. MNR staff have worked on this issue for the last three years. I have worked on it for the last year. The Premier has met with the governor of Minnesota to state to him again and again what Ontario's position is.

If the member wants to repeat the rhetoric from Minnesota, that's for him to do, but he's not being very helpful to his constituents and the people across northwestern Ontario in taking that position.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Solicitor General. Thousands of experienced hunters in Ontario are outraged that this government is compelling them to take the Canadian firearms safety test. Minister, can you tell me why you have chosen to force experienced hunters to waste their time and money on something they do not need?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Let me say first of all, let's be very clear that the legislation the member refers to is Tory legislation. I would say there's a feeling among the provinces, as there is among hunters and anglers and others, that the job was not well done and it wasn't completed.

Whichever side of the argument you might be on, it was a piece of work that did not achieve anything near what anybody felt should be done in the area of gun control, and I offer that up from all sides of the issue. It was a very poor piece of legislation on behalf of this province. I conveyed that to the federal ministers and was supported by the other provinces.

Let me say with regard to the issue that the member raises, the matter is one of public safety and it's a question of whether or not we were going to allow exemptions that could indeed allow individuals who maybe should be taking the course and should be taking the test to perhaps not take it. So the only way to deal with it properly was to ensure that everybody had to take the test, as the federal government has outlined.

I would say, in conclusion, the honourable member should know that every province in this entire nation has taken exactly the same position that Ontario has.

Mr Jordan: Are you, Minister, telling me then that you in this province do not have the right to have a regulation that would exempt these experienced hunters from taking this course? Can you not regulate that people in this category can be grandfathered and not be required to take this test?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let's be very clear. The federal legislation did not deal with this question. They left it up to the provinces to make a determination. The provinces collectively had to take a position, the right position, I believe, in the interests of Canadians, because we had to do the job that the federal government didn't do, and that is why you see every single province -- Tory governments, Liberal governments and NDP governments -- all taking exactly the same position. If the former Tory government of Brian Mulroney and Kim Campbell et al had done the job they should have done, we wouldn't be in here doing cleanup afterwards.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I'd like to ask him, now that the timber management Environmental Assessment Board has reported, what process are you contemplating to see that some of this is implemented?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The process is quite clear. Under the act there is a 28-day period following the decision of the board for the minister to make recommendations to cabinet or for appeals to be made. At the end of that period, as Minister of Environment and Energy, I will issue an order for the implementation of the recommendations and it will be the responsibility of my ministry to monitor the compliance of the Ministry of Natural Resources to those recommendations to ensure that we do in fact have the proper management of our forest resources in a way that this province has never seen before.

1510

Mr Martin: That's all fine and good, and certainly during the report itself there was a lot of consultation done out there and a lot of people had a chance to give input. What are you going to do to make sure that as this thing unfolds now, people continue to have some say in how it's actually implemented?

Hon Mr Wildman: As I indicated, there is a 28-day period in which there can be comment and appeal before the final decision is made. But we all recognize that this has been a long, ongoing process. It has been very thorough. A significant number of intervenors have participated in that process, not just from the industry but from the tourist industry, from the anglers and hunters, environmental groups, the naturalists and recreationists.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Shoot.

Hon Mr Wildman: I guess this member doesn't believe this is an important question, but this has been a tremendous investment. It cost my ministry approximately $1.8 million for this process and other ministries and intervenors much more than that, for a total of somewhere in the neighbourhood of $20 million. It has been an enormous investment to develop a forest management policy in this province, which we've never seen before, and it is important that we respond to it in a serious and thorough manner.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION BOARD

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): My question is to the Minister of Labour. Minister, you're aware of the horrible deficit position, of course, of the Workers' Compensation Board, and I'm sure you're also aware of the two ministers in your government who are drawing, on top of their minister's salary, a fully indexed pension from workers' compensation. Are you prepared to approach these ministers to give up their WC pension to assist in decreasing the WCB deficit?

Hon Bob Mackenzie (Minister of Labour): I want to say that in terms of the WCB and the problems that exist there, we are working on it and have come forward with plans, which is something I haven't seen from the previous governments, and I think we will deal with the problems at the WCB.

PETITIONS

FIREARMS SAFETY

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

"Whereas we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the minister the Solicitor General's decision on the firearms acquisition certificate course and examination; and

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

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

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

It's signed and I have affixed my signature.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the town of New Tecumseth are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments in Orillia or Toronto; and

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment; and

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in New Tecumseth and one patient is forced to pay for her own nurse; and

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem, even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in New Tecumseth and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of New Tecumseth."

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I've got a petition here, intended for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by Helen and Andrew Kovacs of rural route 2, Welland; by Andrew Szabo of 10 Princess Street; Gord Little of rural route 4, Welland; Steve Apai of 95 Lyons Avenue, along with many others in the Welland and Niagara region area. It's a petition addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and it reads:

"As concerned citizens of Ontario, we, the undersigned, wish to register our objection to Bill 45, An Act to amend the Human Rights Code with respect to Sexual Orientation. Same-sex couples should not be acknowledged in Ontario law."

I table this petition on behalf of those signatories today, Speaker.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member for St Catharines.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Thank you, Madam Speaker. As I do this I would like to, and I know you would like to, compliment the previous Speaker who sat in the chair and allowed for a record number of questions to be asked this session.

VIOLENCE

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): This is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature to this petition from the people of Welland and the people of St Catharines, as I'm in agreement with it.

HAEMODIALYSIS

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

"Whereas several patients from the Collingwood area are forced to travel great distances under treacherous road conditions to receive necessary haemodialysis treatments; and

"Whereas the government has done nothing to discourage a patchwork dialysis treatment system whereby some patients receive haemodialysis in-home and others travel long distances for treatment; and

"Whereas there are currently two dialysis machines serving only two people in the Collingwood area; and

"Whereas the government continues to insist they are studying the problem even though they have known about it for two years; and

"Whereas the Legislature passed Simcoe West MPP Jim Wilson's private member's resolution which called for the establishment of dialysis satellites in Alliston and Collingwood;

"We demand the government establish a dialysis satellite immediately in the town of Collingwood."

I have of course signed that petition.

ONTARIO HYDRO CLOSURES

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I have petitions with signatures numbering 37,650, and these petitions were delivered to the Minister of Environment and Energy, Bud Wildman, by the Power Workers' Union just today. The petitions read:

"Premier Rae, the undersigned citizens are concerned with and disturbed by the recent announcement by Ontario Hydro to close a number of generating units.

"We petition you and your government to appeal to Ontario Hydro's CEO, Maurice Strong, to defer any decisions on any closures until a complete and impartial review can be conducted.

"In light of Ontario Hydro's own admission of not conducting a complete review of all the impacts these shutdowns will have on local and provincial economies, welfare rolls and unemployment numbers, we strongly urge that your government make this request to Ontario Hydro."

If I might, Speaker, because there are 37,650 signatures here, I will carry this box of petitions down to the Clerk's table so that there will be no injuries to any of the pages.

1520

ST COLUMBAN'S CEMETERY

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): I have a petition signed by more than 350 residents of Cornwall and eastern Ontario which reads as follows:

"To the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas all cemeteries in the province of Ontario must conform to the Cemeteries Act which regulates the operation of all cemeteries, crematoria, mausolea, columbaria and burial grounds; and

"Whereas St Columban's Cemetery in Cornwall, Ontario, is not ensuring that the cemetery contain such sewers and drains as are necessary to drain it and keep it dry; and

"Whereas the cemetery backfilled existing ditches with eight-inch plastic pipe with the exception of where flooding presently occurs; and

"Whereas some residents have spent more than $2,000 in an attempt to raise the level of their backyards to reduce flooding; and

"Whereas the Registrar of Cemeteries regulation of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has been unsuccessful in solving the flooding issue;

"We, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario to enforce section 19, regulation 130 of the Cemeteries Act ensuring that St Columban's Cemetery keep its cemetery drained and dry and request that the registrar and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations participate in an onsite investigation to rectify the current situation."

The problem has not been solved, and it will not go away. I've already signed this petition.

VIDEO GAMES

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): This petition is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the Theatres Act was amended in 1981 with the intention of keeping certain viewing materials away from children and advances in technology have occurred to such an extent that the concern for children covered by this legislation is negated as it does not cover electronically produced images that are part of video and computer games; and

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

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

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

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

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

This comes from Irene and Archie Hummel in the city of Kitchener. It has been signed by approximately 100 people, and I assign my signature.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I've got a petition here to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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 landlords;

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

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

They're appalled that the opposition has delayed this process, wouldn't allow a good process to take place through the committee process and delayed it. I affix my signature to this.

VIOLENCE

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have 22 petitions here signed by the good residents of Pembroke. This, added to the other petitions I've read within the last couple of weeks, comes to 3,224 signatures we've collected in support of my private member's Bill 76.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I support this petition, have affixed my signature and would like to commend the Catholic Women's League of Canada for its assistance.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

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

"The Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury, Ontario, provides 24-hour emergency services to an area that covers the four neighbouring corners of Middlesex, Elgin, Kent and Lambton counties. Approximately 16,000 people live in small towns, villages and rural sections of this area.

"Due to a shortage of doctors in the area, the hospital has had difficulty in providing medical coverage for its emergency room on a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week basis. If the hospital cannot get enough doctors to cover, it will have to close its emergency department for part of the 24-hour period. The nearest emergency departments are 40 to 60 minutes' driving distance away.

"We, the residents of the hospital's service area, need 24-hour emergency coverage and want the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the critical issue of medical coverage of rural emergency departments immediately."

I've signed that petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): I have a petition here from the residents of the Subway Mobile Home Trailer Park in my riding at Dundas Street East in Whitby. It is to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"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 this bill has the strong support of our local member of provincial Parliament and is being opposed only by a small number of Progressive Conservatives; and

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

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

"To proceed as expeditiously as possible to third and final reading of Bill 21."

MINISTRY STRUCTURE

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a petition to the Parliament of Ontario.

"Whereas the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Native Affairs are two separate and incomparable ministries; and

"Whereas the abovementioned ministries are at times in conflict with one another;

"For complete and unquestionable representation for each specific ministry,

"I, the undersigned, petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"The immediate separation of these two ministries and the immediate resignation of the Honourable Bud Wildman as the Minister of the Environment."

I have several hundred of these petitions.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

I affix my signature.

1530

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment:

Bill Pr24, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton

Bill Pr104, An Act to revive North Toronto Business and Professional Women's Club.

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr103, An Act respecting the County of Essex

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

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Shall the report be received and adopted? Agreed.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Witmer from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 19th report.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Would the member wish to make a statement with regard to that?

Mrs Witmer: No.

The Acting Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 106(g)(11), the report is deemed to be adopted by the House.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LOAN BROKERS ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 SUR LES COURTIERS EN PRÊTS

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

Bill 152, An Act to prohibit certain types of payments to Loan Brokers / Projet de loi 152, Loi interdisant aux courtiers en prêts d'exiger certains types de paiements.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): This bill prohibits loan brokers from requiring non-refundable payments, advance payments or deposits from clients.

PROVINCIAL OFFENCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR LES INFRACTIONS PROVINCIALES

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

Bill 153, An Act to amend the Provincial Offences Act / Projet de loi 153, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les infractions provinciales.

Mr Tim Murphy (St George-St David): This bill amends the Provincial Offences Act to provide for absolute unconditional charges following up a recent case that interpreted that act as not allowing for that. It's meant to address the concern that because of the absence of those, some provincial offences aren't being prosecuted. I hope that the House will give support to this.

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

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

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): We are now resuming the adjourned debate. The member for Mississauga West has the floor.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Thank you to the members for agreeing the other day to adjourn the debate so that I could begin afresh, shall we say, in sharing my remarks and concerns about this particular bill.

You will notice that it's called An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act, substantially two separate issues. I want to address them as two separate issues because one of the tricks this government has resorted to, in an attempt to get some of its distasteful legislation passed, is to piggyback issues or to put forward omnibus bills.

The Workers' Compensation Act amendments that I have seen in relationship to Bill 110 make a lot of sense; in fact, they're overdue. It's an issue that many people have talked about. It's the issue of trying to get at the approximately 20,000 companies in the province of Ontario that currently are not registered to pay workers' compensation premiums.

One might ask how that could happen. Well, they simply never came in from the cold, so to speak. Someone would set up a business. They're probably not paying other things. Those companies may not even be paying their share in income taxes, in property taxes and other corporate taxes. We don't know, but there are estimates. It's difficult to know how you find these people, how you sort them out, but there are estimates that there are as many as 20,000 corporations in the province of Ontario that are avoiding, through one way or another, their workers' compensation premiums.

I recently spent some time talking to folks about reform to workers' comp and one of the things injured workers say is: "Before you decrease our benefit levels, why don't you go after the companies that are neglecting to pay their premiums? Before you concentrate on trying to say that all injured workers are fraudulent, go after these companies that indeed are fraudulent."

There was a suggestion made on a recent tour I was on on workers' compensation that we grant an amnesty. That had some appeal to it in the beginning, that we simply announce there will be a 90-day amnesty for all companies registered in the province of Ontario that wish to come in. The reason an amnesty would be needed is that the current law calls for penalties of up to seven years. Imagine: If you're a company out there and you're not registered and you're not paying workers' comp fees, are you going to declare that and then get hit with a seven-year potential back-payment of your premiums? It will put you out of business.

The idea of an amnesty to avoid these charges and to avoid the complications of being put out of business was put forward as an alternative. I thought that made sense. Many people on the tour I was on thought it made sense as well. Our research staff looked at it and we thought, if there is a way to get these 20,000 companies currently not sharing the load in workers' compensation to come forward through an amnesty, then maybe we should do that.

I thought about that a little more and realized, what incentive would there be? If you did declare an amnesty, why would they come forward? If they're currently not registered and they're not paying other taxes and they're not supporting society the way most corporations and most people in this province do, why would they come forward just because they get an amnesty on penalty payments on WCB? I don't think they would.

We had to say: "Let's look at some other ideas. How do we get to these people?" One of the things we came up with is that there are currently government systems in place that we simply need to tap into to allow for better communication.

What Bill 110 allows for is the interchange of information between the Ministry of Finance and the Workers' Compensation Board. Until now, the ministry could not give information to the board because of privacy concerns. This is exactly the type of thing we should be doing.

I would suggest there's another step that could be taken, and without totally letting the cat out of the bag, so to speak, my report on Workers' Compensation Board reforms will be released on Friday morning, and one of the 36 recommendations we deal with in that report deals with the requirement for every corporation to file an annual return, for which this government has added a $50 fee or $50 tax grab for every single corporation in the province, whether you've changed, whether you've moved, whether you've got a new phone number, it doesn't matter.

You could be in exactly the same position you were in 12 months ago. Every year in Bob Rae's Ontario, you have to file a new declaration to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and you've got to pay them $50. It doesn't matter if the company is inactive, it doesn't matter if you're doing business and it doesn't matter if you've made any changes: You have to fill out the new form, and when you send it in without the money, you get a nasty letter back from the ministry saying, "We want your $50."

1540

We've objected to that. We find that's just another way that this Treasurer, if you can think of the companies -- the member shakes her head no; it's absolute nonsense -- it's another way for this government to increase revenue by simply penalizing small business, and we've objected to that. But maybe you can make some good out of this.

Why not do what you're doing in Bill 110 and use that $50 tax grab to find those 20,000 companies that are currently avoiding paying workers' compensation premiums? All that would be required, it seems to me, in this day of the modern technical highway, the digital highway that's available, would be to establish a computer link between the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations and the Workers' Compensation Board. If it needs to be done by legislation, then so be it. If there are concerns about the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, then do it by legislation as is being done in Bill 110.

Somebody in the government had a light go on and said, "Maybe we can get at those 20,000 people." I'm surprised it took the government this long because this has clearly been a very strong position of organized labour.

The sexy issues politically in workers' compensation surround the fraud charges, the fact that there are people who claim to be injured when they're not, the fact that indeed there are people in this Legislature who currently enjoy lifetime pensions in workers' compensation while they also enjoy the luxury of collecting a cabinet minister's salary. These are the kinds of things that upset people about workers' compensation.

Labour comes along and with some legitimacy says that before you just beat up on the worker here -- the facts are that the vast majority of injured workers are truly injured and need the help of the Workers' Compensation Board. That's what Justice Meredith set it up for in 1914. That was the whole principle behind workers' compensation. So their message is, before you just take it out and think that you can solve the unfunded liability by slashing benefits to injured workers or by turning down more and more claims, why don't you get everybody at the table, get the 20,000 people who are avoiding paying workers' compensation premiums and make them pay into the system?

Bill 110, which will allow for the interchange of information, at least puts in place partially a system that should allow the Workers' Compensation Board to identify these companies. I'm not convinced it will, because it may well be that many of these companies are also avoiding the employer health tax. The reality is -- think about it -- they probably are. If they're avoiding WCB, I suspect they're avoiding EHT and anything else they can avoid. I think somebody over there at least got the message, and the message is that we should use the information that is available within the government computer network system, within other ministries, to share this information, to make sure that we're treating all Ontarians the same.

Hopefully, with the recommendation that will be coming out in my report on Friday and will be tabled with the Minister of Labour, the Premier, the Treasurer or anybody else who needs a little late-night reading, the government will see the sense of at least that recommendation and use that Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations' filing system, that $50 gouge that the government has implemented, to turn it into some revenue for the Workers' Compensation Board. Revenue, of course, is a big part of the problem in the Workers' Compensation Board as well as expenditures, and this would simply be one way of expanding that revenue base. I have some hope that at least someone has heard the message.

Bill 110 replaces Bill 27, and once again the purpose for doing that is similar to other bills that have been introduced, most of which, by the way, have gone through here in some form or other of closure by this government, because it's unable to manage its own political agenda in the Legislature, to put its ideas forward and get them debated in a proper way. The only solution they have, ultimately, is to bring in time allocation and closure.

The purpose of this bill is to extend the employer health tax to self-employed people, such as doctors and lawyers. Once again, we have a situation where -- and this was dealt with because, let's face it, we in our party were the ones who introduced the employer health tax. People seem to want to talk a lot about that. What they fail to say when they talk about the employer health tax is the fact that it also replaced and abolished all OHIP premiums throughout the province.

That was a promise. That wasn't something that we, as the government of the day, sprung on anybody. That was a pledge during an election campaign by David Peterson, the former Premier of the province, that he would eliminate OHIP premiums. Obviously, when you do that, you have to have some way of replacing that revenue. You can't just simply say, "We're going to run a $33-billion or $40-billion health care system without any particular mechanism to fund it."

The arguments can be put forward that perhaps it was unfair to transfer it, and that could be a debate of some significance, but one of the problems that was recognized at the time of the implementation of the EHT was the impact on independent business people. Under the terms of Bill 110, the first $40,000 of net self-employment income for these self-employed doctors, lawyers etc, for these individuals, is exempted from the EHT.

If I'm a self-employed lawyer, I just found a way to get out of this. It's easy. I will simply draw a salary of $39,999 and the rest of it I'll put out in some form of dividend or profit-sharing or other expenses through the business. Perhaps I'll set up a separate corporation and channel the money, quite legally. I'm not suggesting they would do anything illegal. I'm not suggesting even it's immoral. You've laid the rules down here. You're saying that anybody who earns under the $40,000 figure, if it's self-employment income, will be provided an exemption. I can tell you that this bill then becomes nothing more than mere paper.

That's part of the problem that was recognized by the former government in implementing it and how broad you can expand it.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): You didn't.

Mr Mahoney: Absolutely, that was looked at.

The difficulty with this bill is that you think it's a panacea at a time, by the way, when times are dramatically different, I would add, at a time when back in 1987, 1988, as we often hear shouted in our direction, we had all kinds of money.

One of the real differences was that we adopted a policy of pay as you go. It was very much a policy that said --

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): Try that again.

Mr Mahoney: No. Not only did we not deficit finance, I say to the members opposite, we provided in this government the first balanced budget in many, many years, and in fact actually paid almost $500 million off the total provincial debt.

Just to give you a comparison, Bob Rae's government, Floyd Laughren's government will have taken, by the time you're all laid to rest, by the time we are reading your eulogies -- and there won't be many but there will be some -- your government will have taken this province down the road from a $39-billion total debt in the province of Ontario to a debt somewhere, dare I say, exceeding $90 billion. You will almost triple the total debt.

People talk about the deficit. You're going to bring out this good-news budget next Thursday, whenever it is, May 5. You come out with this budget. "No new taxes," Floyd says. "Read my lips." As I said earlier, I think he's dancing and what he really meant was, "Read my hips," because I don't think he's being straight.

1550

What he's going to do is, he's going to take the debt and he's going to transfer it into the crown corporations. You're going to have a crown corporation with a pile of debt to build schools, and yet they'll be lucky if they get the money. We don't quite know. In fact, the separate school board in my own community, Dufferin-Peel, is at last count 29 schools behind in its requirements, based on the enrolment of that school board. Can they ever catch up?

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Where were they in 1989?

Mr Mahoney: Well, let me tell you where they were, my friend. We were the first government ever to give a long-term commitment of capital financing to the school boards. We announced five years so that they could plan their budgeting, so that they knew what they were going to get. We put the money there and we said, "We know it's not enough," and I say to the government opposite, no matter how much money you put into it, it won't be enough. If the Dufferin-Peel separate school board is behind 29 schools and then you add in the problems in other communities, you can imagine, how in the world are we going to build 100 or 200 schools throughout the province of Ontario? I am not suggesting for a minute that this government should be even trying to approach those figures.

But the fact of the matter is that what the Treasurer is doing is fudging the books, setting up crown corporations, moving the debt off the government's books into a crown corporation and then saying, "Aren't we good money managers?" There is a small problem with that. You can fool some of the people some of the time, there's no question; but you will never fool the bond raters. You will never fool the financial institutions. More importantly, you will never fool the investors, who are the people, who lack complete and total confidence in this government and in this Premier and in this Treasurer.

What is your solution? Your solution is to bring in more taxes. I hear stuff about all the taxes the Tories brought in and the Liberals brought in over the years. I hear about, "This government abolished the tire tax." Great round of applause in the budget debate that day, members will recall. You were all trained and ready to applaud on cue. And you abolished the commercial concentration -- oh, I'm sorry -- the "hated" commercial concentration tax. Whenever you say that, you have to say "the hated tax."

What that did was, that took out of the consolidated revenue fund total revenues of about $110 million. Some $110 million taken out of those two taxes, the hated commercial concentration tax and the tire tax.

Then a couple of paragraphs down in that same budget document, there was a great announcement that didn't quite get the same kind of applause from the back bench, and it was to impose a tax on insurance premiums. Interesting.

Do any members here know how much revenue was generated from the tax on insurance premiums? Does the member for Downsview know the answer to that?

Mr Perruzza: No, you tell us.

Mr Mahoney: Let me just help you out. It was about $700 million. We're talking about a revenue shift of $590 million in more tax revenue for this government. "Hurray, we got rid of the tire tax. Hurray, we got rid of the commercial concentration tax. And oh, by the way, we put in another tax -- but we don't want to tell you about that -- on insurance premiums."

Do you know the problem? There is no choice on insurance premiums; none whatsoever. You haven't told us what you're going to do with the money. You let it sink into the black hole of the consolidated revenue fund to try to make this Treasurer look like he's even got a clue about how to manage the finances of this province. An absolute charade, a sham, close to dishonest.

You brought in a tax -- who can live in this province without insuring their automobile? It's against the law. You don't need collision, but if you've got a bank loan you're going to need collision or you won't get the bank loan. If it's a car you paid cash for and you decide you want to run the risk, you don't need collision but you've got to have liability. It's the law in Ontario. Do they have a choice? Do they have a choice on insuring a house, an apartment building, a small business for liability? Do they have a choice? They have no choice.

So I just ask the government to be a little more forthcoming, a little more honest, a little more open when you talk about your taxation policy. I am quite sure there was another reason for bringing that in: People's policies expire at different times throughout the year. It's an issue of divide and conquer. You won't get everybody mad at the same time. Some of the policies come up in April, some of them come up in September, some of them come up in January and people don't really get angry, they don't pay attention until it hits them right in the backyard or right in the back pocket.

Every once in a while constituency telephones will ring and people will say, "I just got my insurance premium." I got a call yesterday from a senior citizen in Mississauga who said: "I just got my policy renewal. What is this tax?" I felt like saying, "Sir, where have you been?" But I said I understood the fact that not everybody, contrary to what we believe, pays attention to Ontario politics every day.

The fact is, only 2% of the population of our entire country belongs to a political party of one description or another, so a very small minority of the population is actively involved in politics. Also, a lot of the issues get buried on the editorial page. We have to understand that people don't get hit with this stuff until they get their bills.

This government's solution is to pretend they're being heroes by eliminating certain taxation that a former government might have put in place and by announcing another grab that is by far -- well, it's five times the tax grab of those other two taxes combined.

The past -- what is it now? -- 10 days, maybe not quite 10 days; about five or six days --

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): How big was the --

Mr Mahoney: You'll have your chance -- about five or six days of legislative days. For five or six days --

Mr Turnbull: Believe me, I will take it.

Mr Mahoney: I was interested to hear the critic for -- I'm not sure what his role is but I guess he's the Finance critic or Intergovernmental Affairs critic -- earlier today going on at the Premier and his statement, saying he should cut down the partisanship. An interesting comment coming from one of the Conservatives, who seem to spend their lives just pointing all over the place trying to blame everybody else.

I remember the days really well under Bill Davis when I was on municipal council in Mississauga. I remember the days really well and, believe you me, sir, you were not around at that particular time. You may have been practising law or doing something else but, believe you me, the Bill Davis pink Tories were no angels when it came to taxation. I can recall many a transfer payment being cut out from underneath the legs. You talk about the Premier saying, "knee-capped"; let me tell you, Bill Davis, Dennis Timbrell and all of your glorious former Tory cabinet ministers I think invented the art of knee-capping municipalities and school boards.

Mind you, I think it's been taken to a new level by the NDP. It's interesting to me to see how often the NDP and the Conservatives in this province get into bed with one another. It must be awfully uncomfortable. It's a little bit like that stuff you hear in Ottawa about, imagine, the Reform Party and the NDP forming an alliance in the federal Parliament. Somehow I find it difficult to understand, but maybe we've seen a forerunner of that.

I know on second reading of the social contract the Conservatives in this Legislature voted in favour of that bill; of course, they changed their vote when they came under tremendous pressure, I'm sure, from their constituents, and voted against it on third reading. It was awfully strange to see Mike Harris and the Conservatives climbing into bed and saying: "Excuse me, Mr Rae, Mr Laughren, would you mind moving over? We want in. We agree with what you're doing." But they did.

1600

I was about to say that for the past six or so legislative days in this place we've done nothing but talk about tax increases by this government, we've done nothing but address how they can increase that black hole, how they can increase their revenue without talking about creating any kind of confidence or any sense in the private sector that they've got a chance to survive.

We recently put out a document that I'd like to share with you. It is called The Report of the Lyn McLeod Task Force on Jobs. I commend this to all of you; it's excellent reading. The vice-chair, the member for York Centre, the honourable Greg Sorbara, former Minister of Labour et al, is joining us. This document puts out what we refer to as a five-part plan for success rather than just continuing to bash small business and anybody who tries to get up.

Just when the economy's getting up, just when the small business persons are starting to get to their feet, along comes Rae and, boom, smacks them down again with more taxes. Six days of debate in this Legislature on tax increases, on revenue increases from this government. Why don't you wake up and try to say something positive that just might give an investor some hope for the future of this province? They're frightened to death, and you don't understand: They're leaving. There are moving vans going down the QEW and crossing the border because of Bob Rae and the NDP.

What you have done to this province is sad. You will be held accountable. There will be a legacy that you will not be able to defend, and the people will show you what they think about that when you finally have the courage to call an election.

Our five-part plan under the Lyn McLeod plan, under her leadership, is as follows:

"(1) Charting a Bold New Course...to get the commitment of all of Ontario to the benefits of embarking on this vision...one that embraces the future and gears the economy to that future."

You've got to think in terms of starting the engine. You've got to think in terms of allowing the private sector to have an opportunity to move ahead to create jobs. You won't create them. The jobs you will create will be short-term. Build some subways; we need them. Fine. But when they're built the job's over, and you don't understand that.

You've got to let the economy breathe. That's our second point. The stifling -- we've seen nothing, no attempt to reduce or eliminate the red tape, and what do we do? We're in here talking about expanding a tax bill that is so full of loopholes the private sector is laughing at it.

In fact, what you're doing with this bill is, I would tell you, creating more work for the chartered accountants, and I'm sure they're appreciative. At this time of the year, of course, they're awfully busy. We're two weeks away from filing our income tax and they're busy, but once that's over they're going to get a copy of this bill and they're going to say: "Aha. All of my clients can avoid this by only declaring $39,000 worth of income" -- that's job number one -- "and why don't we just set up some trust funds and some methods of moving the money out?" You just don't get it. I don't know where you think you're going to get any revenue out of this thing.

The fact of the matter is that what you should be doing is concentrating on helping certain specific industries. How about the hospitality industry? I was recently in Sault Ste Marie at the Water Tower Inn with my good friend Mike Quinn -- Mike's probably watching; Mike's a crazy guy -- and we were talking about the impact on small business in Sault Ste Marie.

Why not put in place some ideas that will encourage the entrepreneur? Instead, what do we do? We get a member here talking up. They want to blame the banks. If they can't blame the banks, they want to blame the feds. I just wish for once you would accept your responsibility and look in the mirror and say, "I have found the problem." There it is; every morning Bob Rae and Floyd Laughren can identify the biggest problem that this province has got. It is not reforming taxes, it is not increasing taxes; it is reducing taxes. If you reduce the percentage you will increase your revenue. When are you finally going to get to understand that?

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

Mr Mahoney: I thank you for the opportunity of speaking to this legislation.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments.

Mr Larry O'Connor (Durham-York): I listened intently, and a lot of government bashing usually seems to take place when we discuss money bills.

I had an opportunity earlier on this week, as parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Health, to go to Mississauga, to Medtronic. They've introduced a new pacemaker and they've got an international approval rating. They're investing here. All the Latin American parts of the corporation are run out of Canada. It's high-tech.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): What's their health tax?

Mr O'Connor: I guess people would say, "How much money are you putting into it?" I think that's what I heard from the member from Dufferin here. The fact of the matter is, these corporations are developing here and it's not government money. The fact of the matter is, the global market for health products today is around $300 billion and people are investing here.

I was also in the Mississauga area a week ago touring a health-related facility, EFOS, Engineering Fibre Optic Systems, and again they're investing, when they could be investing anywhere else in the world, here. The fact of the matter is that yes, it's because of programs like Jobs Ontario which recognize that for business people -- we didn't just reduce taxes for business people. We did that, yes, but that's not all we did. We put together a program, we had some interaction, said let's recognize the cost of training employees. You know, EFOS has actually used some of those dollars. They got people trained through Jobs Ontario; a lot of rhetoric in this.

I was up to Aurora this morning, just outside of my riding, to take a look at Torcan. It's a pharmaceutical research laboratory, and it's all good news. Their employees are growing all the time.

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

Mr O'Connor: Let's take a look at some good news once in a while.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments?

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): I only had an opportunity to hear a brief part of the speech of my friend from Mississauga West, and I see that obviously not many members of the government party were listening very carefully.

We spend a lot of time, particularly on tax bills, discussing the overall performance of the government. When you cut away all of the rhetoric and all of the shouting and screaming, the reality in Ontario over the past four years is the most dismal economic performance of all of the provinces in Canada and one of the most dismal economic performances of any similar jurisdiction in the western world and certainly in North America.

I personally do not lay all of the blame for that at the feet of the Bob Rae government. It would be foolish to suggest that every single economic problem that Ontario confronts right now is the fault of Bob Rae and the policies and principles and taxes and legislation that he's brought forward.

The thing that really troubles me, and this troubled me particularly as we went through the two and a half months of hearings of the jobs task force that, as my friend said, I and Gerry Phillips chaired, is that the government fails to acknowledge, I guess much like any government in Ontario, any kernel of responsibility. It's always somebody else's fault. It's the fault of the worldwide depression, according to Bob Rae, it's the fault of -- today we heard it in ministers' statements -- the federal government, and now, a new twist to Bob Rae's lecture on whose fault it is, it's the fault of the province of Quebec, which is getting more than its share.

This business of seeking to blame others is the thing that is destroying us in Ontario, and we really have to stop it.

Ms Haeck: I wanted just to take a couple of moments to respond to some points that the member from Mississauga brought forward today.

I have the privilege of sitting as Chair for the standing committee on regulations and private bills. During that time, the last year or so that I've held that position, I have had many opportunities to have private bills come before me for revival of corporations that have been in default of keeping their information before the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

What always amazes me is to hear the comments made by members like the member from Mississauga, where he casts aspersions on the $50 filing fee yet he doesn't put into place the fact that in order to be revived as a corporation under the procedures of this House and this Legislature, the corporations would have to spend well in excess of $1,000 to achieve their proper standing as a corporation.

I ask those viewers out there to listen with a rather large grain of salt to these comments, because the $50 filing fee, weighed against the more than $1,000 that it could cost a company for not maintaining its records properly, is I think actually a minor expense.

The member from Mississauga should actually take a look at the current Ontario Gazette and see the list of corporations which are currently under default for not keeping their information up to date with the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations. I'd say that's a pretty large expense for those corporations to encounter.

1610

Mr David Winninger (London South): I too listened very carefully to the remarks of the member for Mississauga West, and quite frankly, I was astounded by some of the allegations he's made in the House today.

If we go back and look just four years ago at the situation in Ontario, where the Liberals had just come through some of the most prosperous years this province has ever seen, all of us were a little mystified when they called an early election in 1990. But you don't need a crystal ball to know why. They knew that tough times were right around the corner. They knew we might be entering the worst recession since the 1930s, not only a cyclical but a structural recession where the recovery would be extremely long and protracted. And instead of inheriting a balanced budget, which the Liberals trumpeted during their 1990 election campaign, we opened the cupboard and found that the deficit we came into government with had already climbed to at least $250 million.

Since that time, instead of pointing the finger of blame, as the Liberals like to do and the member for Mississauga West has attempted to do today, we've taken a very constructive approach where we've offered to go in and help industry recover during these very difficult times, and we don't have to look far to see the results and the success of that endeavour.

We look at Provincial Papers in Thunder Bay. We look at Algoma and Sault Ste Marie, Kapuskasing, Hamilton, Windsor. Across the province, the government has entered into partnership with business to bring back some of those jobs that were lost during the recession. We know that in the last four years we've been in government, over 300,000 jobs have been created in this province, and we remain undeterred in turning around the deficit situation and renewing our economy in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Now we have reply from the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: The analysis is really quite something. I'm not sure I heard this, but I think I did: We called the early election because we wanted to lose and thought, "Well, let's let them try it." We wanted out; we'd had enough of government. That's the logic.

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): That's pretty clear.

Mr Mahoney: If that's what you guys believe, fine, that's good.

Then the member for St Catharines says, "We put a $50 fee on every business in the province to save them money." That's what I heard her say. "We're going to save them money, because if the poor souls happen to go into default of whatever the requirements are under the Corporations Act, it's going to cost them $1,000 to get back in business."

That logic is clearly an example of what is wrong with the New Democratic Party and this socialist government.

They don't want to pay it. If their business goes out of business, let them go out of business. Let them die in peace, for God's sake. Don't be harassing them every year to put 50 bucks in your pocket and to file a new document when nothing has changed. That is absolute, incredible nonsense to use as justification.

Let me talk to the member for Durham-York. I'm delighted to know you were in Mississauga. It's too bad you didn't spend some time and go to city hall and meet the mayor or talk to the business development people in Mississauga, because maybe you'd get an idea of why those businesses are expanding in the city of Mississauga.

Let me tell you something. They're not doing it because of you, they're doing it in spite of you. They're doing it because our city has got a balanced budget with reduced taxes, because it's debt-free, because it's got an atmosphere and a community that is second to none in this province, a place for people to work and live and raise their families in peace and harmony and affordability. You don't even know what that means.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Tilson: I'm pleased to make a few comments with respect to Bill 110, which deals with the extension of the employer health tax.

This is a bill, of course, that came out of the 1993 budget, the budget where one of the Toronto papers said, "They're even taxing dirt."

Dealing specifically with the issue of health, this of course has been a problem for all governments, the issue of, how do we pay for the health service? Should it be free? The attitude of, do we have any idea what it's costing us when we go to see a doctor or anyone in the health service?

There's the issue of fraud, which hasn't been well handled by this government. The Liberal red card, which was developed by the Liberals and brought forward by the NDP government, hasn't worked. It's been shown to be full of fraudulent activity, people who had cards who shouldn't have had cards, and the tremendous expense that is going on.

Finally, the third issue, which is what this bill is all about: Who is going to pay for our health services? That's a topic that many of us continually have in our minds when we look at the size of the health budget and the cost to the taxpayer.

This bill of course is an extension of the bill that was introduced in the past by the Liberals to replace OHIP payments. I think the Liberal bill was entitled Bill 47. This bill now extends the employer health tax to self-employed people: partnerships, professionals, doctors, lawyers, engineers, commissioned sales people, farmers, people involved in the fishing industry, all kinds of people who are self-employed -- who, I might add, if they are already employing people do pay a health tax for their employees. I don't think anyone's ever referred to this, but it's almost a form of double taxation. I hope the government takes a look at this.

The government talks about its Jobs Ontario, which I'm not sure is working, with the unemployment that continues in this province, the fear people have for their jobs. A lot of these jobs that occur in the province come from small business, and yet we're adding on to it, more and more, what the small business person has to pay to keep going, and they can't afford to pay. Jobs are moving away from this province.

I know members will stand up and they'll give quotes of visits to various ridings where new businesses are occurring, but that isn't what the statistics say. I'll be referring to those statistics as we progress in my comments this afternoon, that people are moving away, that small businesses are closing. Small businesses are closing.

It's estimated that this tax will put $35 million in the provincial coffers and will affect up to 45,000 people in the province of Ontario. To date, only 35,000 people have registered for the employer health tax. The difficulty is that these small business people are going to be taxed. Whether they're making a profit or whether they're not, they're going to be taxed. Whether you're making a large profit or whether you're making a small profit, these small people -- the farmer, the engineer, the professional individual, any individual who is operating their own business -- are now going to be taxed whether they're making a profit or not, notwithstanding the fact that they're already paying for employees. That's a principle we can't forget.

1620

Normally, many of our taxes are based on what you're making; it's not a tax on the poor. Many of these people aren't exactly well off as a result of the recession and the political philosophies of our governments of today, whether it be provincial or federal. They're dying out there, and this tax is going to be levied on the self-employed individual whether or not he or she is making a profit.

People who earn less than $40,000 are exempt from the tax, as are corporations, limited partners, trusts, non-residents who do business in Ontario, and status Indians who are self-employed and operating an unincorporated business on a reserve do not pay the employer health tax.

It gets back to the question, how are we going to pay for our health services? Yes, there were problems with the OHIP system, there's no question. The Liberals tried to fix that, but it was a miserable failure. There's fraud all over the place. I made a statement in the House last week and produced two health cards that I was able to obtain. My card was falling apart. I made an application. I now have two health cards, a rather remarkable situation. People are getting cards all over the place, and they are being used in fraudulent fashion. There's no way to stop the fraud.

Perhaps the government is just trying to raise money in this province for the general consolidated revenue, perhaps they're trying to pay for health services, I don't know. My guess is that it has nothing to do with that, particularly when we look at the slowness of the government with respect to solving our health expenses, the fraudulent activity.

This bill will in fact, I believe, be inequitable in that it will narrow down the number of people to a smaller group that are paying for our health services, as opposed to all of us. Many of us in this province have no idea, if you go to see a doctor or anyone else that's covered under our health plans, what that service costs. We could go any number of times. It's free. I believe we all abuse it. I believe doctors abuse it. I believe that everyone in the system abuses it. We all abuse it because it's free. Well, it has to be paid for. That's the problem. The cost of health is mushrooming. I don't know what it is now. It was a third of our budget. It's at least a third, if not more. There doesn't seem to be any control on it.

I know the Minister of Health has promised that she's going to bring forward a new system. I sat on a committee prior to Christmas and listened to Mr Decter promise a new health card system, although we have yet to see it. We've got a real problem with health, and I don't think the answer is in this bill, to be passing it on to the farmer and the self-employed individual and the professional. I don't think that's the answer.

To date, the Ministry of Finance spends $1.5 million on staffing charges, and there are 25 to 30 people employed by the government to administer the employer health tax. Direct operating expenses are $0.5 million, making the total $2 million. That's another issue. When you get into this business of filling out forms, if you look at the bill, we're going to have more forms; it's just another form that's got to be filled out. We're going nuts with bureaucracy. We're going to hire more bureaucrats to administer this legislation. I can say that I'm not in favour of that, not in favour of simply expanding the bureaucratic system.

This bill was introduced, as I indicated, in 1989 by the Liberals as part of their election campaign to eliminate OHIP premiums. It was known as Bill 47. It went into effect in January 1990. It imposed a new payroll tax on employers who had a permanent business in Ontario. Again, the philosophy of that bill is to restrict as to who's making the payment.

Health services should be paid for by all of us. Those who cannot afford the health payments should be compensated. This bill narrows down the payments to a fewer number.

Progressive Conservatives were opposed to this tax because it was a payroll tax, which is in effect a tax on job creation. It's going to be a burden on small and marginal firms. That's exactly what this tax is. It is going to be a tax on job creation. The government stands up on a daily basis and boasts about its Jobs Ontario program, which is rather restrictive. Jobs Ontario, to my knowledge, isn't really helping the small business person. Yet you're putting a health tax on a small business person to pay for a mushrooming health system that is completely out of control.

We tried to amend the bill to provide employers with a $400,000 deductible, to exempt payrolls of small and medium-sized firms, to exempt transfer payment recipients and to freeze the tax rates. None of these amendments passed.

If you're in a small business, any of the individuals we've spoken to and to whom this particular bill will apply, let's run down the types of payroll taxes that the small business person pays. It's tough out there.

People have to pay for unemployment insurance. Yes, that's a federal tax, but they have to pay for that, the types of individuals who are being affected by this legislation. That's $4.30 per $100 of payroll, with a maximum of $1,743.56 per employee.

Then we have Canada pension. That's another deduction, another piece of paper that the small business person has to deal with in trying to stay alive in this province of Ontario. Yes, that's a federal law, a federal tax, but it does affect the small business person we're all trying to keep alive. Yet we're having a great deal of difficulty keeping the small business person alive. That is $2.60 per $100 of payroll, with a maximum of $806 per employee.

Now you've got the employer health tax, which is a provincial tax brought in by the Liberals. That is 1.95%, with no ceiling whatsoever. Then, of course, we've got the workers' compensation deduction, which is 0.2% to 20.15%, depending on the business, and that's to a maximum of $53,900. That is another subject, which the government has a commission on that is probably doomed to failure, but I wish them well. Certainly that's a concern to the small business person, these various deductions. Then there's a tax on insurance of 1%.

I don't know how many of you people know small business people. Many of you may be small business people. But you have to have a bookkeeper to handle all this stuff. It's impossible, unless you spend hours at night -- many of these people have to, because they run their business during the day; they can't afford any other staff -- to fill out all the paperwork.

The paperwork, the accounting that goes on for all of these funny forms that have to be prepared, not only for the federal government but for the provincial government, is driving people crazy. Yet here's another series of paperwork and another series of bureaucracy that's being added to these people. There's the cost of accounting that is being added to the small self-employed individuals as a result of this bill.

Payroll taxes cumulatively, all of those taxes I've listed, add an average of 11% to 12% to the cost of each Ontario employer's payroll. Mandatory vacation, vacation pay, push the government-mandated costs to 18% to 19% of payroll. It's tough to do business in Ontario.

To challenge some of the speakers from the government who talked about all the new business that's coming to this province, I'll tell you that if you're coming to this province and you're from another province or if you're from out of North America or if you're from the United States, people are going to look at all these things. People are going to look at the bureaucracy and the tax system and what it has to be to operate, particularly a business such as this, and they're not going to be pleased, and they're not pleased. I submit that the response the member who responded to the member for Mississauga West gave isn't accurate, because that isn't what the statistics are revealing. There is a major problem.

1630

Then you've got to collect all this stuff. You've got to collect the GST and you've got to collect the PST, so there are all kinds of things that the small employer has to look at. There's licensing and there's health and safety and there's pay equity and employment equity. It's bureaucracy. We're sinking. This province, this country in many cases but particularly this province, is sinking in paper, just paper, let alone the tax that they have to put up with to operate.

I would like to refer to, and I believe this has been referred to in the past, submissions that have been put forward by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This is a report that was prepared on January 31, 1994. It was prepared in response to the Fair Tax Commission and in anticipation of the 1994 budget. There are a number of sections that if you haven't referred to it I'd get a copy of this, because it doesn't deal just with employer health tax; it deals with a number of taxes and the effect that has in operating this place of Ontario.

They spent some time with respect to health tax. I'm going to ask the Speaker's indulgence to read some of the submissions that the Canadian Federation of Independent Business made because I think they're noteworthy to put into the record.

"Payroll Taxes" -- this is on page 2 of the report -- "Ontario's excessively high workers' compensation payroll taxes are very much part of the overall tax load which is punishing small businesses and acting as a disincentive to employment."

The Fair Tax Commission's view, that there may be room to increase payroll taxes in Ontario: They simply don't accept that. "In this province, a very heavy load of profit-insensitive local taxes is heaped on payroll taxes" -- all of which I have tried to summarize -- "which together outweigh the combined burden in competing jurisdictions."

That's what we need to look at. What are we doing? Are we making Ontario a competitive place to do business? Does it pay us to do business in this province, if we look around us? It's tough. We're in an international scene, yet we now find that it's really more and more tough; it's another notch in the gun that's pointing to the head of the small business person.

The report goes on: "When income and capital taxes and commodity taxes are added, total tax burden in Ontario is considerably worse than in many nearby competing jurisdictions."

There's one paragraph which really caught my eye which I'd like to read to the House, on page 3:

"The FTC's recommendation of a new method of calculating remuneration for EHT purposes of owner-managers of private corporations and self-employed individuals is highly theoretical and would appear (without knowing its precise impact on the affected people) to be even worse than the existing approach."

I haven't heard any comments, from the members on the government side or from the Finance department in their press releases that they've put out with respect to this legislation, dealing with the impact on the very people they're trying to affect, the impact on small business.

Hopefully, when you put a tax forward -- we have learned the lesson with you-brew.

Mr Klopp: You-brew tax that has been cut in half.

Mr Tilson: The member says you-brew, the tax that has been now cut in half by the Treasurer which -- he's cutting his losses, because he knows there are a number of businesses that have gone out of business as a result of that tax which is being collected.

My assumption is that he didn't look at all that. He didn't look at the effect on a struggling new business that was coming forward: the you-brew industry. He didn't look at all that, he just plowed ahead and he said: "We've got to get some money from somewhere. Let's tax these people."

The same goes with respect to this. It's another way of getting money, but what is the impact? What is the real impact with respect to the small business person who's trying to stay alive?

Mr Klopp: It's part of the GST that is cut in -- GST does harm to small business.

Mr Tilson: I'm not denying that the various tax structures -- the member talks about GST and good for him. That's a good answer from the government; they use it all the time. You've got to look at what you've been doing in your province, in this province of Ontario, and the unbelievable amount of taxes that you've been putting on this province, combined with the Liberals; it's an astronomical amount in the last decade. The leader talks about the lost decade of NDP and Liberal policies and this is another example of the sinking of the small business person.

They go on in this report to say:

"If the government intends to pursue levies on individuals to help pay for health care, then in lieu of the payroll tax it should do so for all health care users, not just self-employed people and owner-managers of corporations."

Hopefully, in government, we will be fair; we will be fair to the people of Ontario. I can remember governments in the past, NDP governments in the past -- the former federal leader, David Lewis, talking about the corporate welfare bums and all the play he got on that and talking about people who are not paying their share. That was his alleged submission on a group in society that was not paying its share of the expenses of operating this province.

The difficulty with this legislation is we are now creating a new group of people who are not going to be paying for their share of a very expensive and a very nebulous type of operation: our health care system.

I hope the government members read this report. On page 13 there's a whole section on payroll taxes which goes on to about page 17. They have examined this whole topic and have studied, made surveys of their own, because the government certainly hasn't looked at it. The government certainly hasn't studied the effect of this tax on the small business person in this province.

The report says on page 13:

"Payroll taxes encompass all compulsory taxes imposed by payroll by different levels of government and their agencies. Voluntary benefits to employee groups such as life insurance and extended health insurance are properly excluded."

I don't think they've analysed this. You look at some taxes that are excluded, some taxes that are included. Surely we've got a system in this place as to how we're going to tax the people of Ontario and there doesn't seem to be any system. It's a willy-nilly tax grab. The example with respect to cigarettes shows how something got out of control, and there's the whole issue of the underground economy.

Who's going to be paying for the health services in the underground economy, that whole group of people? From the government's perspective, they don't even exist. They're not paying any taxes. They're not doing anything. They're operating out there. Who is going to be paying for their health services?

The people in this bill is one group of people who are going to be paying for those taxes and I don't imagine -- the Treasurer has at different times stood up and talked about what his estimates are of the underground economy, and I don't think the estimates he's given with respect to the cost of health services have truly been calculated with respect to the effect of the underground economy on our health services.

The report goes on to say: "There is some evidence that group benefits have been downgraded or dismantled owing to the imposition of a provincial sales tax in the 1993 budget. Where this hasn't happened, the provincial sales tax impacts similarly to payroll tax, being another fixed charge related to profitability."

1640

I know this goes on to another bill, Madam Speaker, Bill 138 I think it is, but they're all related.

The provincial sales tax on insurance is roughly equivalent to a payroll tax of 1%.

That's where these figures came as to the overall effect on a small business person that cumulatively, payroll taxes add, on average, 11% to 12% to the cost of each employer's payroll. That's a heck of a bite for small business people who are trying to stay alive, trying to pay their mortgage payments, trying to send their young people to university, trying to do all kinds of things with a recession and all the difficulties that we're all involved in. Yet the answer of this government is to tax the small business person. That's their answer.

I indicated that, cumulatively, the payroll taxes add, on average, 11% to 12% to the cost of each Ontario employer's payroll. Mandatory vacation and statutory holiday pay push the government-mandated costs to a very significant 18% to 19% of payroll, and the provincial sales tax on group insurance plans pushed the cost to nearly 20%.

Now, I know, Madam Speaker, that I'm not talking directly about the employer health tax, but you have to look at all these other taxes. It's part of the puzzle that's been created by this government, the puzzle that's having such a dastardly effect on the workings of this government.

I'd like to read all of the report verbatim, but that's probably not allowed so I'm not going to. I'm going to recommend to you that you do read this if you haven't.

They continue at page 14:

"It is a bald fact that payroll taxes are not neutral in their impact on firms in various circumstances. These taxes bear more heavily on businesses which have a larger employment component in their activities, that is, greater labour intensity. Worse, payroll taxes bear no relationship to a firm's profitability."

If I try to leave any message as a result of the one half-hour that I'm allowed to speak on this, it's that point, and I will repeat it again: Payroll taxes bear no relationship to a firm's profitability. You could be on the verge of bankruptcy and you have to pay this stuff. You're trying to stay alive. Is that fair? We're trying to encourage businesses who employ people to stay alive, and yet we're taxing them the same as if they're making a large profit, the same as another company that's making a large profit.

This is what the report goes on to say: "Two corporations with identical salary payments pay exactly the same payroll levies, although one may have lost money while the other made profits."

They go on to a table which talks about salaries and wages to total expenses, and I think if you studied this, Madam Speaker and members of the House, you wouldn't want to put this bill forward. You wouldn't want to pass this bill. It's unfair.

The data put forward in this study by this group of business people prove that payroll taxes are highly regressive. The ratio of payroll taxes to taxable income decreases as the size of firm increases. "In the services sector the small firm ratio of 0.61% shrinks to 0.25% for large firms." It's not a fair bill. It's not fair to the people of this province. It's not fair to the small business person.

Think back to David Lewis making his talk about the corporate welfare bum. His theory was that there's a certain group of people who aren't paying taxes and they are living off the rest of us. I'm not suggesting that there are certain people that are living off the rest of us; what I am saying is that this tax is unfair and that certain people are taxed more than others. Some people aren't even paying anything, some people who can well afford it. Is that how we should be paying for the health services in this province? Is that the answer? I think not.

"The manufacturing sector presents similar results, with mid-size firms even worse off. These data show that small and medium-size businesses, because they are more labour-intensive and generally less profitable, are heavily penalized by payroll taxes. Without question, payroll taxes are a deterrent both to new job creation and to firms maintaining jobs through recessionary periods."

This report was made after the bill was introduced, which I think was in December 1993. I could stand to be corrected, but it was made after. The government had an opportunity and they've taken all this time to proceed with it. It's ironic that this bill is being debated literally a couple of weeks before the new budget is coming in. I think May 5 is the date of the new budget, and it's ironic that you haven't got a very good mood in this province when you start hearing about this legislation.

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

Mr Tilson: Madam Speaker, my time has expired, and I thank you very much.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for your contribution. Now we have time for questions or comments to the member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr O'Connor: I appreciate having an opportunity to speak to my colleague from Dufferin-Peel's comments. He spoke to the bill quite reasonably, though I think maybe didn't talk about some of the wonderful things about our health care program.

I know that it's easy to complain about it, that it isn't the best and you're not spending enough money, but this week is Organ Donor Awareness Week, and later on today I'm actually going to have an opportunity of touring the Eye Bank of Canada.

What the member has said about how bad our system is, he hasn't recognized some of the good in our system. For example, in some of the notes that I've received to prepare me to head over there for this visit today, I found out that in Ontario, over the period of a month, over 200 donations arrive at the Eye Bank, and the cost of the transplant is around $300. It's covered by OHIP.

I think that's a good investment, an investment in people. People are going to be able to see again as a result of this. If we were in the United States, the same thing would cost about $1,300, so while the member complains about what it costs for our health care system, he doesn't recognize that we do have an awful lot of wonderful things that are part of that entire system.

I guess if you just look at the overall picture, you say it's all bad without recognizing a lot of successes, a lot of positive things, and a lot of cost advantages as to why people invest in Ontario.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I enjoyed very much the remarks of the previous speaker. I know that he didn't have time to mention the people at Linhaven Nursing Home, and the Speaker herself visited Dorchester Manor last weekend.

How I relate this to the bill and the member's remarks is that if people were assured that the funding from this tax were going to provide the kinds of services that you and I would like to see, everyone in this House would like to see, in nursing homes such as Linhaven in St Catharines, then they would be more inclined to be agreeable to legislation of this kind. But of course we can't be assured of that.

If it were the case, however, I think we know that homes such as Linhaven where there are Alzheimer's patients and other patients who have some rather severe problems which require some constant and very extensive care, those people need these funds, and we're all getting letters from them. We've been asked to visit the various nursing homes that have encountered this particular problem, and I would like to see the appropriate funding going to places such as Linhaven so that the very dedicated staff that is there could, once again, provide the kind of service that they did in the past to people who require that service. It's extremely difficult for family members particularly to see their loved ones go through some rather difficult stages in life and not have the kind of service they used to have in years gone by.

1650

The appropriate funding is needed. This bill is probably not the particular vehicle to use to derive that funding. They would hope that the government would establish priorities, take it from less essential areas of endeavour and place that funding in nursing homes, such as Linhaven, to serve the very vulnerable people who are residents there, in many cases.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I am delighted to rise to compliment the member for Dufferin-Peel. The member for Dufferin-Peel has a great deal of common sense when he talks about taxes, when he talks about jobs, employment, when he talks about our economy. He knows what it takes to get this economy going, the types of measures that it takes to get the economy going.

What is required is more taxpayers, not more taxes. The people of the province of Ontario have suffered through $7.6 billion in new or increased taxes since 1985 through Liberal governments and through NDP government. The people of the province of Ontario have seen the average per-capita tax burden increased by 73% during that period of time, from 1985, whereas their per capita personal income has only risen by 53%. If you wonder why you feel poorer now than you did a few years ago, there are the statistics that prove the point. Taxes have risen too quickly.

Interjection.

Mr David Johnson: Yes. The member has pointed out that health is costly: $17 billion, I believe, in terms of cost for health on an annual basis. The employer health tax brings in about $3 billion. But this is not the point in time to increase taxes on the business community and on the self-employed business people. It will not create jobs; it will be a disincentive. We have seen that in the you-brew industry. It's interesting that the government, on the very same day when it recognizes the impact on small business people in the you-brew industry, as the member for Dufferin-Peel has pointed out, imposes taxes on self-employed people. The impact will be the same: Jobs will be lost. It will not help our economy in the province of Ontario.

Mr Robert Frankford (Scarborough East): I always enjoy listening to the well-thought-out contributions of the member for Dufferin-Peel. I would however, on this question of the economy and incentives and disincentives to business, just remind him of the significant benefit we have in this province of a single-payer, tax-funded system. We pay 9.5% of GDP for health. The US pays 14% and provides inadequate coverage. A figure that is commonly quoted means that $800 of an average car is for health costs. It's a significant benefit we have and I wish that the parties across the floor -- they may be doing their job to criticize in opposition, but we really have something to be proud of.

This is something which I believe has to come from a tax-based system. I listened with interest to his critique of the type of tax and I think he makes some very reasonable points, but I think the logic would be to move to an income-tax-based system or a progressive-tax-based system. I'd just like to point out to him that Americans are coming here to learn about what we have to offer. There are very respected advocates of a single-payer system.

In the middle of May we are going to have a meeting of the Physicians for a National Health Program, including Dr Himmelstein and Dr Woolhandler, who are, I think, the most respected advocates of a Canadian plan, very well-meaning people, and I would invite the member to come and hear them, along with Dr Julian Tudor Hart, whom I regard as the most influential proponent of a real, effective tax-based system which can easily be less of an expense on the public purse than the 9.5% that we are dealing with in this province right now.

The Acting Speaker: Now the member for Dufferin-Peel has two minutes to respond.

Mr Tilson: I thank the members for responding. The member for Scarborough East made some interesting comments which I'd like to specifically speak of. One is the issue of incentive, I suppose, and he is a doctor.

I look at some of the background material our party had available when the Liberal bill came into existence, and much of those same facts apply still today.

But look at the issue of fairness, and we'll take a doctor, who, with a self-employed income of $400,000, would pay $3,500 in health tax. A corporate executive with $400,000 in income would pay no health tax. An investor living off $400,000 -- which doesn't take much, when senior citizens particularly sell the home they've lived in since the 1920s -- of invested income would pay no health tax. An owner of an incorporated company who paid himself a salary in dividends would pay perhaps as much as half the $3,500, because it's deductible to his corporation.

My point, to the member for Scarborough East, is that this bill is not fair. It gets back to that old principle that we're not all equal. Some people are more equal than others, to use that Orwellian expression, and this bill is an example of that.

There's the other issue which has been mentioned in this House, and that's the incentive. All these companies that have health programs, fitness programs, and spend a lot of money on that, why would they do that now when they're just being added to another tax? Why would they do that? We're trying to keep our people fit so we don't have this terrible burden of health, and this is how we treat them.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you for your contribution to the debate. Further debate?

Mr Frankford: I'd just like to have the opportunity to elaborate a little further. I'm slightly confused by that last contribution of the member for Dufferin-Peel, who I thought said that doctors would be taxed and executives wouldn't. I think he has it upside down, because when I was a self-employed practitioner I was exempt from the tax because of being self-employed, because they said this is in fact a payroll tax.

This is an example of what we're trying to address here. As a strong advocate of a tax-based health care system, I feel that that tax must be fair. As I say, we probably should be moving to a more progressive approach.

But let's look at the alternatives. The non-tax-based system is an insurance system in which you are paying premiums and the premiums are fixed per head, so it's in a way a sort of poll tax, except then you get into the terrible situations of ratings, of variations by age, sex and pre-existing conditions, which is what we have in the United States, with dreadful consequences and serious effects on business. This is restricting labour mobility there: People are unwilling to change from one place to another because they've got, for the time being, a particular plan.

Mr Turnbull: There are lots better models than that.

Mr Frankford: But ours is the best model, I would say, except for the possibilities of a more --

Mr Turnbull: Try Switzerland. The Swiss have a better model than we have.

Mr Frankford: No, we have the best. In many ways we have the best, I would respond to the member.

Mr Turnbull: That's not what the Economist said two years ago.

Mr Frankford: The member refers to the Economist, a journal which has absolutely no credibility as far as health insurance goes. And I don't imagine that the member has listened to the alternatives of a fully socialized system where one can get primary care reform, none of which is at all possible in an insurance-based model in terms of this competitive advantage. We are seeing the pathetic efforts of Mr Clinton, who has introduced a sort of insurance-based scheme with the payroll tax which the opposition is attacking, and it's not going to work. I believe a tax-based system is inevitable, and I think it gives the security of funding that is needed.

1700

As I say, I think the critiques of a payroll tax are well taken. I would point out, for those who think that Ontario is the worst place, that our payroll tax rate is less than Quebec, but we don't hear them going on about how that is supposedly to our competitive advantage. We just see this shotgun approach to criticism, that somehow we are the worst.

I accept a lot of suggestions for reform. I think we should have a much better system, with a system of primary care, which is quite impossible under the insurance model which is favoured by the people who don't understand what they're talking about, like the writers for the Economist. But there are people of goodwill and sound analysis, such as Himmelstein and Woolhandler, whose contributions you can see very frequently in the New York Times and whose suggestions are standing up. I believe that what they are offering for a universal tax-based plan is the only alternative which will come through.

I will not take any more time, but I think this is a useful debate for putting forward our ideas, for the opposition to try to critique a universal tax-based plan. The more extreme member for York Mills, who obviously will only favour an insurance model, is not here at the moment, and I imagine ideologues like him are never going to be convinced.

But I clearly believe that with a more socialized, tax-based system we will be able to reduce our level of expenditure by one percentage point of GDP, which, I would remind you, Madam Speaker, and all members, is something we very much need as a solution to our deficit problems.

The Acting Speaker: Are there questions or comments to the member?

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): A comment, yes. I appreciate the member's comments because we are dealing with how we fund -- frankly, not how we fund health care but how we fund the province's spending, because while it's called the employer health tax, the fact is it goes into the general revenue.

The emerging issue in health I think is going to be, how are we funding our health system? I'd always had the feeling that it was publicly funded to a huge extent and that that was something that sets us apart as unique from other jurisdictions, certainly unique from the US.

I now find that the amount of money funded publicly on health care is declining as a percentage of the spending and the amount of money that's funded privately on health care is increasing fairly substantially. We are indeed, it would appear, trending more and more towards a US system, and I think it's happening heavily because governments at all levels are under an enormous strain on spending. This government's no different from any other.

We see that now, I gather, roughly 30% of hospital funding is funded privately, and that's growing. We saw that our doctors are looking for an increasing part of their revenue from private funding, for charging companies for the annual medicals and that sort of thing.

The member's comments I think are useful. I'm looking forward, as we go through the health debate, to, where is this government heading on public versus private funding? Certainly right now the legacy is a substantial increase in private funding of health care in the province.

Mr Bradley: I want to discuss as well, because the member for Scarborough East did, the funding of health care and recall, as he would like me to recall, I'm sure, the regressive tax which was in place called the OHIP premium. It was quite regressive because a lot of people who couldn't afford it were forced to pay it; there were certain people in more privileged positions.

First of all, there were those who through their collective agreement that the union had signed on their behalf, perhaps had all of the premium paid. When I was a teacher, for instance, I think two thirds, and maybe by the time I left teaching all of it, was paid, so I was not affected by the premium directly. There were other people who simply had a lot of money and were able to afford a premium, so it wasn't particularly onerous on them.

Where it was onerous was on a number of people who didn't have a collective agreement that called for the paying of the premium by the employer, or people perhaps who found themselves in very difficult circumstances and were still forced to pay all or a portion of the OHIP premium.

I found that to be very regressive. I knew a number of people in that category. I knew a lot of people who were not aware of the OHIP assistance plan that was available or didn't want to be bothered because their circumstances would get better sometimes and worse sometimes economically, and it was difficult for them to deal with the red tape involved in that or the bureaucracy involved in that.

I think a system -- I'm not suggesting this bill -- which spreads that cost in a different way is superior to the OHIP premium. I recall vividly when Darcy McKeough of a Progressive Conservative government wanted to raise it 37.5% at one time. I'll be interested in the member's comments on that.

The Acting Speaker: Are there further questions or comments? If not, the member for Scarborough East has two minutes to respond.

Mr Frankford: I very much welcome the remarks of the member for St Catharines because this actually leads into another question where I believe there is an inequity or certainly an inefficiency. I compliment the Liberals for having changed to a tax-based system and I think maybe I even had a little bit of influence in that, because I recall, as a member of the Medical Reform Group of Ontario, visiting Mrs Caplan, the minister of the day, and we made that suggestion, which subsequently they put into effect.

One flaw, however: There are people who are not eligible as full citizens -- I'm thinking of temporary residents -- who would like to participate. At the time they were able to pay a premium and participate on the same basis as everyone else. We have made the decision to exclude them, which I believe is perfectly legitimate under the Canada Health Act, but we're certainly getting complaints about that. I have a letter in front of me from the York international students who I know have had a lot of questions about this. I have actually had a discussion today with them about an alternative.

I would like to see -- I'm not blaming the Liberals particularly; I think it's something which only time has shown was an oversight -- the option of still having the possibility of paying a premium. As I recall, it was something like $600 for an individual, which in my discussions with student organizations and faculty, they think would be a reasonable way of doing it. It would, of course, have the benefit of not excluding people with pre-existing conditions, which is the real downside of a private system approach.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Phillips: I'm pleased to continue the debate on this bill which is called Bill 110. I guess for all of us, we all appreciate what the bill is, but it's one of the tax bills that we're dealing with. For those people who may not be familiar with the process that goes on here, taxes are introduced in budgets, they are implemented, and then the law catches up with them eventually and we pass bills that ensure that the actions of the government are legitimized by a bill.

I think everyone should recognize that over the next little while here in the Legislature we'll be dealing with bills that fully implement tax measures that were introduced more than two years ago and we are now just catching up with that process, although the bill we're dealing with I think deals with tax measures in last year's budget. In the next few days we'll be dealing with more bills that implement the Rae government's taxes going back to 1992.

1710

I think the first thing we should reflect on a little bit is that something is happening out in Ontario around taxes. What we've seen from the Rae government is that in its first budget, the 1991 budget, if you flip to the tax changes, the tax increases on page 28, you see that taxes went up $1 billion. What in the world does $1 billion mean? What it means is that the tax level in the province in the first Rae budget went up about 3%; Bob Rae's first budget took taxes up 3%.

In the second budget, which was obviously the 1992 budget, we see again tax measures totalling another $1-billion tax increase. We had another 3% increase in the level of taxation in the province in the 1992 budget.

Then in the 1993 budget which was presented, obviously, essentially a year ago, we saw that the tax level went up not $1 billion, as we saw in the first two years, it actually went up $2 billion. We've now seen three budgets from the Rae government. The fourth, as we know, will be presented here actually two weeks tomorrow at around 4 o'clock.

After three budgets, taxes in the first year went up roughly 3%, in the second year 3% and in the third year an additional 6%. Everybody in the province has faced an increased level in taxation of approximately 12%. By the way, I would add that over that period of time, as I think we all know, income levels have essentially stayed flat. The gross domestic product of the province, the output of the economy -- actually, I found this extremely interesting.

This is from the Ministry of Finance, dated March 1994, and what it shows here is that this is the real gross domestic product. This is the measurement of the output of the economy in Ontario. It compares Ontario and the rest of Canada. They've pulled Ontario out and looked at the rest of Canada. You can see what's happened to Ontario: That's the solid line. In 1990 it was obviously running at 100% and then it dipped below 100%, way down in 1991 and has not even yet recovered back up to where it was in 1990. The rest of Canada, when you take Ontario out, has never gotten below the level it was in 1990 and is growing very nicely.

The reason for pointing that out is that something has happened in Ontario, something quite profound. We also saw it, I might say, on the employment front where Ontario has had virtually all the job losses. In the first three months of 1994 in the rest of Canada, outside of Ontario, we've seen about 150,000 more jobs created in the economy. Ontario actually, if you can believe it, has lost 4,000 jobs.

What we've seen are three budgets from Premier Rae. The first budget had a 3% increase in the level of taxation, the second year another 3% and the third year a 6% increase in the level of taxation. At the same time, we've seen the Ontario economy not only stagnate, it actually is lower than it was in 1990. Ontario's economy still is below where it was in 1990. The rest of Canada never declined, never fell below that level, and actually has seen some very good growth, on the job creation front far outstripping Ontario.

One of the things I think we have to analyse and determine the impact of on the economy has been three consecutive years of significant tax increases. I know when you're in opposition it sometimes can be seen as easy to criticize, and obviously you're against tax increases because you don't have to have the responsibility of raising the revenue to pay for the programs. But I hope all of us can appreciate that these three years of tax increases have coincided with virtually no growth in the economy.

I would add also, if you can believe this, and it's true and you can check it out, that we've seen, as I said before, tax levels increasing. The expectation was that it would result in tax revenue growth: $1 billion, $1 billion, $2 billion. What has actually happened? What has actually happened to the tax revenue over that period of time? Tax revenue has actually dropped.

If you go back to the revenue that the province received in taxation before these tax increases and you look at 1990-91, tax revenue in the province was $33.6 billion. We now have the latest estimate from the government on tax revenue for 1993-94, the year that just ended three weeks ago. What was tax revenue? It was $31.2 billion. I'll just repeat those numbers because it surely is for all of us a signal: 1990-91, tax revenue in the province, $33.6 billion. Three years of huge tax increases designed to generate more tax revenue, theoretically almost $4 billion more tax revenue, and what has actually happened is the tax revenue has declined by almost $2.5 billion.

One cannot blame all of that on tax increases. We understand the slow economy, low inflation. And the government did do some things. They moved from what used to be a property tax expenditure program, where seniors got a $500-a-year credit against their property tax. That used to be an expenditure program. It moved to what's called a tax credit program, where it comes off the tax payable. That was, I think, worth $500 million. But none the less, it does not change the fundamental: that we have increased tax levels dramatically in the province and tax revenues have actually declined, and I think they've declined dramatically.

You often hear people talk about, "Well, you're going to hit a tax wall." You finally reach the point where people just simply find a way to avoid paying it, for two reasons. One is that they are not working or their business isn't generating profit, or they find a way to avoid it or evade it. Avoid is quite legal, but people are spending, there's no doubt, a lot of time finding ways to avoid paying taxes, and there's no doubt people are evading taxes.

I go through all of this because it's quite fundamental to what we're trying to do around here. Have we collectively reached agreement that the province is taxed out? How could it be that you could raise tax levels to the tune of, as I say, almost $4 billion and have tax revenue drop $2.5 billion? What is happening?

The members will recall that one of our legislative committees looked at the underground economy. I personally, after having sat on that committee, am of the opinion and personally satisfied that the underground economy is large and growing.

It was just last week, I think, that Statistics Canada published a report that said it's not that big, that it's perhaps 3% of the economy. I believe it is closer to 8% or 9% or 10% of the economy, and in some sectors of our economy, like home renovations, it is huge.

1720

That is, in my opinion, one of the consequences of the tax increases we've seen, although I must say that in our study the most common tax that was talked about was the GST. There were many that felt that was the catalyst; that there always was an underground economy, it seemed to be growing fairly steadily, the GST came in and then it seemed to grow quite dramatically.

I think I've said before in the Legislature that I've now had an opportunity to be on two talk shows where people phone in and talk about the underground economy. I was shocked, but perhaps I shouldn't have been surprised. I think every call that came in was from someone who said: "I am participating in the underground economy, and I'm proud of it. I'm going to keep doing it. I'm teaching you people a lesson, you politicians that have done this to us."

I raise all of that because I do think we are dealing with a bill that is simply one of a series of bills that are designed to implement a policy where we have for three straight years seen dramatic increases in the tax level here in the province of Ontario. As the tax levels have increased, tax revenue has actually decreased.

Many of the members may be aware that our caucus, the Liberal caucus, spent January, February and March travelling around the province getting ideas about how jobs can be created in the province. I will say to the Legislature that the conclusion of that report was that the employment situation in this province is a state of emergency. I will make, I guess, a pitch to the Legislature to at least consider that it is a state of emergency. Our caucus has determined that it is.

I think one of the problems we're going to run into on seeing jobs created in the province is that there will be no one event that will force us into dramatic action around jobs. There won't be any single event. In my opinion, there won't be 50,000 people that march on the Legislature; maybe there should be. Maybe there should be 50,000 unemployed young people or unemployed people who march on the Legislature. But I don't think that's going to happen. There will not be any one single event.

Governments that are in power have a natural vested interest in saying, "Well, things are going to get better, so what are you worried about?" In fact, regarding the April unemployment numbers that came out, I heard the Premier saying: "Well, we're right on track. Things are just fine. We're heading in the right direction."

I say to the members that if you look at the numbers, I am shocked at the numbers, all the numbers. I will say to the members that the released numbers indicate approximately a 20% unemployment rate among our young people. If you look behind the numbers at the number of young people that have simply dropped out of the labour market, the real number is much closer to one out of three. I think if you really look at the numbers, one out of three of our young people, 15 to 24, can't find work right now.

Not finding work is not unique to our young people. As I say, we've got literally record numbers of people out of work. The more shocking number to me was the fact that we actually have 4,000 fewer jobs in the province in the first quarter of 1994 than we did in the first quarter of 1993.

But as I say, because governments always have a vested interest in saying, "Well, we've got our plans in order. Things are getting better. Don't you worry," there is not going to be that event that will galvanize the energy that we believe, in our caucus, is needed to solve the problem.

The reason I'm going through all of that is that as we travelled the province looking for how we are going to see significant numbers of jobs created in this province, the conclusion of the task force was that we're going to have to launch an all-out war on it. In our opinion, we're going to have to find a way that Ontario becomes clearly seen as the leading economy in North America.

A key goal of that -- because, in my opinion, there's no benefit in being the leading economy unless we benefit from that -- is to see the level of unemployment decline dramatically and reach approximately 6% in five years. Right now, what's predicted? The level of unemployment will stay well above 9% for as long as we can see.

What's going to be required to get there? We laid out a five-point plan. One of them is that we have to let the economy breathe. Part of doing that, part of helping our job creating sectors to do that, we concluded, is that we truly do need to look at reducing the level of taxation.

I spent a lot of time on this task force looking at that recommendation, because the public is probably pretty cynical about politicians who promise to actually reduce taxation. To be promising tax reductions when we are faced with a significant deficit and real spending challenges -- people are saying: "Wait a minute. Isn't our higher priority to reduce the debt and deficit?"

But we concluded in our study that if we don't find a way to let our economy breathe, let our job creating sectors get an opportunity to compete more effectively, we aren't going to see the jobs created that we need, we're not going to see the economic growth created that we need, and we are going to continue to wallow in high unemployment and wallow in very heavy costs of dealing with the symptoms of unemployment.

If we could find a way to get the economy moving faster and to see more jobs created, I guarantee you, first we would see more revenue come in, and second we would see opportunities for people to move off social assistance and back into the workplace. We concluded, and the recommendation is, that we reduce the level of taxation by 1% a year for five years. To do that, if you take taxes down 1%, it means, theoretically, tax revenue drops by $330 million, roughly. That's 1% of $33 billion of tax revenue.

The cynics will say, "Where in the world are you going to find $330 million?" Our assessment was that a signal that taxes are actually coming down, along with doing a lot of other things we talk about there, we felt could be helpful to getting the economy growing by at least 0.5% more of what they call GDP, gross domestic product. If we were to do that, our estimate is that the revenues as a result of that increased growth could be $200 million to $220 million.

The second thing we felt was that if we could see 30,000 more jobs a year created -- and this is our goal, this is the Liberal caucus's goal and hopefully it is the legislative goal -- we think many of those people would be people who, right now, require social assistance, who can't find a job and have obligations. If we could do that -- 30,000 more jobs a year -- we felt social assistance costs could be reduced by perhaps 2%. You probably all know the numbers on social assistance and what not, but as we looked at it, we felt perhaps 2%.

If we do those two things, we can see the economy growing better, we hope by 0.5%, and 30,000 jobs created, and we believe we could offset a 1% reduction in the level of taxation a year.

1730

We also believe that's an important, almost an essential, signal for us to send to restore public confidence and business confidence in Ontario. We've got a large number of other recommendations in our report around how we substantially make it easier to do business in the province by making it easier to deal with our paperwork and regulatory burden; how, as the report says, in many respects we are trying to deal in a 1990s economy with 1960s-type government apparatus.

We say in our report that workers' compensation and unemployment insurance, social assistance, were all born as good ideas, all were well intentioned, but they have not kept pace with a change where we now are seeing not 3% and 4% unemployment, as we did in the 1960s and in the 1950s, but are now seeing unemployment rates that are reported at 11%, but, as the government itself said in last year's budget when it outlined what it regarded as the real unemployment rate, and I thought that was a useful chart in the budget, "There's the reported unemployment rate. The real unemployment rate is running closer to 14%." All the members would recall that.

So we need to find ways in which we, to use the jargon of the day, reinvent or redesign or re-engineer those programs. We need to also, I might say, find a way that our job creating sectors have better access to capital.

The reason I'm spending the time on this is that there was no doubt, as we did our work around the province, that we have knocked the confidence out of our job creating sector. Individuals are very confident about their own abilities, very confident about their ability to compete globally.

In fact, I would say there's been an enormous feeling in Ontario that individuals know and feel they can take on the world -- our export business is booming, as we all know -- but they have very little confidence in the ability of the Ontario government to set the climate they're going to feel good and comfortable about building their business in.

That's what leads us to this tax bill today. This is one of a series of bills -- in the next few days we'll be dealing with several others -- all designed to increase the level of taxation and all designed to finalize the government's plans.

It's ironic, almost -- it is ironic, not almost -- that there's a bill that deals with what's called the you-brew industry, the industry that brews beer in small premises, that in the budget the tax went way up and put, I gather, at least 400 people out of work -- the member shakes his head, but I think that's the estimate we've received, 400 people out of work -- and drove the revenue down; the province got dramatically less revenue.

We put entrepreneurs, many who had invested their life savings, at risk, many of whom went bankrupt, many of whom lost their jobs, many of whom lost their life savings, and before we can even pass the bill -- for anyone's information, we still haven't even passed the bill that would incorporate that -- the government announced an amendment to the bill to reduce the taxes.

The point is that in one year, with one tax, we essentially put hundreds of people out of work, dozens of entrepreneurs out of business, and before the bill was even debated in the House we're back down to quite a different number.

But the damage has been done, and in a broader sense I think the damage is being done on the tax front with, as I said before, tax increases of roughly $4 billion.

We are suggesting that it is a time for reflecting on these tax increases and challenging ourselves why in the world we are continuing to increase taxes at a time when I think we've proven to ourselves that we've hit the wall, that increased taxes actually seem, based on the evidence, to be yielding less revenue.

In the specific one we're talking about here, we're not, in my opinion, talking about how we fund health care. It's called the employer health tax. It's not about how we fund health care. In fact, the employer health tax raises I think about $3 billion of about $25 billion of health spending in the province. We're talking about how we raise more taxes.

Actually, it was the Liberal government that brought the employer health tax in to replace the OHIP premium. I understand that, and I am one of those who says you must learn from the past.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Learn from your mistakes.

Mr Phillips: Learn from the past. I'm not one who defends the action of previous regimes, whatever stripe they are, if we can learn and do better from that.

Mr Fletcher: We learned from you.

Mr Phillips: The member across is heckling. The people of Ontario should appreciate that this is the government that, as it enters its fifth year of office, one out of three young people in this province are out of work. If there's anything you should be ashamed of, totally ashamed of, it's that.

Mr Fletcher: It's not us.

Mr Phillips: He says it's not true. It is true.

Mr Fletcher: I said it's not us.

Mr Phillips: He says, "It's not us." It is you, and if you don't understand that, you're making a big mistake.

I now am slightly energized by the member's comments, because your legacy will be five years of misery. The social assistance case load is still growing. You promised the unemployment rate would be dropping. It isn't dropping. You promised there would be more jobs. We are losing jobs. The rest of Canada sees 150,000 more jobs. We're losing jobs. You talk about construction jobs. There's never been as many people out of work as there are now in construction.

I remember clearly September 1991. Bob Rae came in here and said: "Jobs are my number one priority. I'm going to challenge the Legislature." He said it was his number one priority, and I actually believed him.

What's happened? Every single month he talks about jobs being his number one priority and that's where he's going to devote his energies and attention, and he's failing. We have a debate in the Legislature, and the members of the NDP, maybe because they're so embarrassed about the numbers, choose to heckle rather than attempt to find the solutions.

As I say, the Premier -- I keep his speeches. He knows people care about jobs, so he says it's his number one issue. I can remember to this day September 1991, the day the Legislature came back after the summer break, and him saying, "That's going to be our number one priority." What are the results?

I would say that one of the key contributing factors in that has been, now that we have seen three straight budgets from Bob Rae, dramatic tax increases, dramatic increases in people out of work, and in my opinion, no plan to solve it, no plan for our young people to have a future and a hope, no plan for all our older workers who are out of work, nothing but rhetoric about Bob Rae caring about jobs, and in my opinion, doing very little.

1740

The Acting Speaker: Now we have time for questions or comments.

Mr Turnbull: I must admit I always enjoy listening to my colleague from Scarborough, and I think what he has had to say today is, as usual, very good, solid debate speaking to the important issues.

I am a little concerned that the government of which he was a minister -- he seems to have amnesia about the damage it did to the economy. They indeed introduced the employer health tax. They seem to have forgotten about that. No doubt he will get back to me on that issue.

The fact is that the impact of the employer health tax on employment has been profound. We had it introduced by that government just at the time we were going into a recession which, in fairness to the previous government, I don't think anybody could have contemplated would have been as severe as it was. Nevertheless, they introduced this going into a recession, in full knowledge that the press and business groups had suggested that it would have an impact on jobs. But they plowed ahead. It was a wonderful election issue because they were able to go to the electorate and say, "Look, we've made your health costs zero."

It didn't work for them, but in the meantime the present government has taken over legislation which it believes it's enhancing. They believe they're making it fairer. They believe they're changing the legislation to make it a more reasonable bill. I think they're wrong, but nevertheless, the burden for this bill lies clearly with the Liberals. While it was an excellent debate by my colleague -- I always enjoy what he brings to a debate -- I really believe that he should reflect on the damage they did to the economy.

Mr Frankford: I note with interest the member for Scarborough-Agincourt saying that this is not really an employer health tax, that it is a payroll tax, that it's called an employer health tax but it doesn't pay for health costs and that no government has increased it in proportion to the amount of the health costs.

It's a payroll tax. Interestingly, and people keep on neglecting to say this, if there is something cosmetic about it, it is that it is lower than in other jurisdictions. It is lower than in Quebec. Why don't we advertise it as such? I believe it is substantially lower than what Mr Clinton has proposed for the US, although it's very hard to gather what they're saying there and clearly his proposal is going to fall apart.

They will have to move to take things seriously, to become a single-payer plan almost certainly, although they may have to go through a considerable amount of grief as they try to accommodate all the so-called experts, the people who write for the op-ed page of the New York Times, the insurance companies and all the other people who feel that they somehow create health care, which is actually made by health providers, and in many cases by consumers themselves if they are properly trained to do it.

All of which explains why our system is so much cheaper and efficient and, as Himmelstein and Woolhandler have pointed out several times, our administrative costs are astoundingly smaller. They could pay for their 30 million uninsured by the administrative costs.

We really have to look positively at what we have and look at our competitive advantages.

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): I too want to join my colleague in indicating that I have a great deal of respect for the contributions the member for Scarborough-Agincourt makes on a regular basis in respect to financial issues facing the Ontario government, but I think he has a problem, a cross to bear, if you will, in respect to the question of credibility related to the five years of the Peterson Liberal government in the province of Ontario: 33 tax increases.

I grant you, the member was a member of the cabinet, but a relatively new member, a junior member of cabinet, and I suppose somewhat reluctant to perhaps express his views. I'm not sure; he may want to comment on that. But we know that things happened and we know that a payroll tax certainly came into place in terms of the health care costs to the province.

We know there was significant contempt shown for the people of Ontario in the 1990 election by calling an early election and then a fudging of the figures, when we were told we were going to have a surplus. Indeed, when the NDP assumed power, they found out that it was a significant deficit situation, which I'm sure the Liberal government of the day was well aware of, and that certainly was a significant factor in them calling an early election.

They also raised WCB benefit levels, contributing to the ongoing growth of the unfunded liability. The biggest problem was the spending binge that the Liberals went on in their five years in office, increasing the spending in the province of Ontario I think from somewhere around $40 billion or $41 billion total expenditures when the Conservatives left office to in excess of $50 billion when the Liberals left office.

I think the biggest problem that we face now is the spending commitments made by the Liberal government which this government, the NDP government, has been tied into and can't come to grips with when it faces significant revenue shortfalls.

The Acting Speaker: We have time for one more question or comment to the member. If not, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes to reply.

Mr Phillips: I appreciate the member for Leeds-Grenville's comments. I want to get on the record some facts, and then I'd welcome any viewers to call my office and I'll send a copy of this. I'm always reluctant to get into who did what to who, but I would say this about the Conservatives, and he was a member of the cabinet then. Here's what the Provincial Auditor had to say about the Conservatives. "Ontario's had only one surplus in the last 20 years. That was the year ending March 31, 1990." What the auditor is saying, for all of the viewers, is the Conservatives for 15 straight years never, ever ran a surplus -- the famous Darcy McKeough and all the great financial managers, and the member was a member of the cabinet. That's not me speaking. That's the Provincial Auditor.

I know my Reform friends, when I tell them, say: "Say it ain't so. You mean Mike Harris and the Conservatives ran 15 straight years of deficits in good times and bad times?" As I say, my friends in the Reform say: "Mike Harris was part of a party that never balanced the budget for 15 straight years? It can't be true."

The second thing the member talks about is spending. Spending increases under the Conservatives for the last five years of their regime went up 11.3%, and the average deficit was $2.7 billion, well above the five years of the Liberals.

I never say the Liberals ran it perfectly, but I'd never put my chin out, as the member for Leeds-Grenville did, when the facts indicate, firstly, that the last five years they were around they ran a deficit well above anything the Liberals did. The Liberals balanced the budget.

The final thing I would say, anybody who wants the explanation on the $3-billion deficit, the auditor has it here, phone my office tomorrow. I'd love to hear from you.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate? The member for York Mills has the floor.

Mr Turnbull: I cannot imagine a better segue to what I'm about to say. Let us just deal with the facts, and I agree with my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt that there was only one balanced budget in the last 20 years. It's now I guess some 23 years. Let's be very clear. Every single politician who has been associated with that should hang their heads in shame, irrespective of which party they're in. But let me dissect --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Turnbull: Can you get this rabble under control, Madam Speaker?

The Acting Speaker: Order. Members come to order.

Mr Turnbull: I do hope that my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt will wait just to hear what I have to say because I don't want to miss his response to this.

Mr Phillips: I'll respond later.

1750

Mr Turnbull: The facts are that the only time the Liberals balanced their budget was 1989. Let's examine that. Their budget for that year called for a deficit, but instead they showed a surplus. They had indicated in their budget documents that they were going to have a $550-million deficit. There was an unusual transfer of funds from the federal government because the economy was booming so much that they got an unanticipated $888 million from the federal government.

You don't have to be quick with math on this. Simply take away from that $888-million unusual transfer, unanticipated transfer, the $550-million deficit that they had projected and you would come up with a number that they should have had: a surplus of $338 million, which they could have paid against the debt.

But guess what? They only had a $90-million surplus. So, in other words, the Liberal government that is so proud of having balanced the budget once in its five years did it by fluke. Had they not been bailed out by this unanticipated transfer, they would have in fact been further in the hole than their budgeted $550-million deficit.

Let's move to the next year, 1990. My friends across the floor on the NDP benches will remember 1990; I certainly do. As we went on to the hustings, we were told that we were going to have another balanced budget, and they were going to be so fiscally responsible. Much to the chagrin of the NDP -- and frankly, we told them during the election and we told the Liberals that this was the case, that they weren't going to have a balanced budget; we said that their numbers were cooked -- what happened was that when the government of the day got in, it found that in fact there was a deficit of some $2.5 billion; not a surplus, but a deficit.

This is the kind of fiscal game-playing that we've got to stop. Every single person who is involved with politics has got to wake up to the fact that as we have been borrowing in the past $1 billion a month, and with a population of 10 million that means we have been borrowing $100 for every man, woman and child per month under this present government, we are off the tracks. I've spoken about that many times before.

All I wanted to do was point out the inaccuracies of the Liberals' memory as to what happened during their term in office. David Peterson and Lyn McLeod and Bob Nixon, the Treasurer at the time, brought in the employer health tax. The employer health tax was to replace the OHIP fees. Approximately 70% of all employers at the time were paying the OHIP premiums for the employees, but there were a number of small businesses that weren't paying that. We also had the situation that municipalities and school boards and hospitals sometimes were only paying part of the fee. So there was an increase in the cost to those municipal transfer agencies -- which cost the taxpayer, because ultimately the taxpayer pays for all of these things -- of $75 million in extra costs in the first year. That was a cost which was transferred by the Liberal government to municipalities, to hospitals and to school boards.

We know that the kinds of tax grabs the Liberals got involved in during their term in office led to the demise of their government and there was a great reaction from it. Let me read just briefly from a clipping from the time before, 1989, when the Liberals were just about to bring in the employer health tax. It was written by Richard Mackie of the Globe and Mail. It states:

"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.

"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."

At the time, they said it wasn't going to impact businesses. Here we are three years later -- and by no means could I suggest that that measure alone is responsible for what happened in this province. We are indeed, as the government of the day likes to proclaim so often, in a worldwide recession. It's very interesting. Until they started getting into trouble politically --

The Acting Speaker: I would ask members to keep their conversation level down. The member may continue.

Mr Turnbull: The government has never accepted any responsibility for this. It's always outside sources. But indeed they took over some of the seeds of destruction of the Ontario economy. At a time when the world was going into a recession, they took over such tax grabs as the employer health tax, a tax which has disproportionately hit smaller businesses. Once again, this government is now going back to the trough and saying: "Gee, maybe there's a little more money in the trough. Let's suck it up."

We have had a task force going around the province -- by "we," that is the Ontario provincial party and the caucus -- examining problems that small businesses are having. It's titled the Mike Harris Task Force on Cutting Red Tape and Growing Small Business, and we are talking about all of the burdens on business and why they're not creating jobs. In addition to the actual task force, we've sent a survey out to 19,500 businesses, and it generated an unusually large response. For anybody who is familiar with the response rate from postal surveys like this, we had a 9.7% return, which is a very good response rate.

Over half the respondents represented firms which employed 10 or fewer people, 36.7% employed less than five workers, and 22.5% had between five and 10 workers. Overwhelmingly, the bulk of the people who were responding represented the small and medium-sized sector.

It's very interesting to note that when asked which of the major provincial taxes had the greatest negative impact on their ability or willingness to create jobs, 56.9% of the responses tagged payroll taxes as the primary culprit, well above the next, which was the 17.1% who pointed to the corporate income tax or the 13.4% who identified PST -- the number one block to creating jobs or maintaining jobs in small businesses.

When business people were asked to rate the problems they had encountered in starting and running their businesses, payroll taxes and dealing with government paperwork emerged as the two items most frequently ranked as a major problem by respondents. Payroll taxes were identified as a major problem by 61.8% of respondents, while dealing with government paperwork was given a rating by 56.6%. In addition, dealing with government paperwork was the least likely to be identified as no problem at all by respondents. Only 9.9% of respondents said that dealing with government paperwork was not a problem, the lowest percentage of all factors.

The Acting Speaker: I would ask the member if he could wind up his remarks and continue in a further debate.

Mr Turnbull: Just to conclude that thought, the bill we have before us, Bill 110, is giving us both payroll taxes, which are a burden on business in terms of creating jobs, and in addition to that creates a paperwork burden which is identified as the next most problematic area for small businesses in terms of creating and maintaining small businesses. With that, I will adjourn the debate.

The Acting Speaker: We will be able to resume the debate at a further time. It being 6 o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 in the morning.

The House adjourned at 1801.

20 avril 1994