Journal des débats 1994-avril-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): I have become convinced that this NDP government is not committed to employment equity, to employment equity that provides fair access to employment, training and promotion. This NDP government had four years to bring about legislation and regulation that would be fair to all regardless of race, sex, age, nationality or religion. The NDP government has failed miserably.

Royal assent was given to this inadequate compromise bill almost five months ago, and still the final draft of the regulation is yet to be presented for the legislation for proclamation.

Furthermore, it is evident that this government is unable to handle this issue adequately. Recently we have seen the Attorney General completely mishandle a situation here, forcing 90 people, mostly war veterans, out of their part-time jobs. After pressure, she has reverted to get 19 back into the job. The minister responsible for Management Board had to withdraw his controversial direction, in advertising for a vacant position, that white males may not apply.

This government has done more harm than good towards employment equity, and we hope they can get their act together and bring forth a proper bill.

FESTIVAL OF THE MAPLES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): As the end of the maple syrup season is upon us, the fun is set to begin in Ontario's maple syrup capital, Lanark county. I invite all members, families and friends to come celebrate the 1994 Festival of the Maples this Saturday, April 30, in Perth.

This annual event features many forms of entertainment, both on stage and in the streets. This year the Festival of the Maples is placing a special emphasis on entertainment and activities for children. Kids can enjoy the Ferris wheel, boat rides, a petting zoo, a magic show and much more.

Events for all ages will include a pancake breakfast, display booths, barbecues, music, dancing, chainsaw competitions, trolley-car rides and a vintage car display.

The more competitive participants are encouraged to take a sap bucket and spile in hand and become competitors in the maple olympics in the afternoon.

I extend many thanks and best wishes to the Perth Chamber of Commerce for coordinating this event, and to the Lanark county maple syrup producers for their sponsorship.

Last year's festival drew close to 10,000 visitors, and with anticipation of an even greater turnout this year, I am sure that this festival will help us preserve the rich maple syrup heritage of Lanark county.

DENISE HOUSE

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): Today Denise House marks 10 years of helping abused women and their children in Durham region.

They began as a 10-bed refuge called Auberge in Oshawa and they helped women like Maria. Maria showed up for work on Monday, as usual. This time a bruised cheek was barely visible under her makeup. "I fell in the shower" was her only explanation, and she lied. This was not the first time she had covered the truth and a bruise. There had been many other times.

Maria was like 200 other women who came to Denise House last year fleeing from violence in their homes. Thanks to the care and the counselling available at Denise House, these women were able to make necessary choices about their future.

Unfortunately, an event in December 1989 reminds us of the tragic consequences of family violence. A former resident of this refuge, Denise Penny, was murdered by her husband in plain sight of her three-year-old daughter. It was to honour her memory that the shelter is now called Denise House.

The children who come to Denise House also receive help because their behaviour and attitudes are frequently warped by the violence in their homes.

Denise House is a sign of hope in our community. It provides an outstanding example of women helping women and their children in crisis situations.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): Early last year, Bob Rae cancelled funding for the southern portion of Highway 416, funding which had been allocated by the previous Liberal government. Five weeks later, Premier Rae announced an increased multibillion-dollar allocation of funds to build subways and highways in the Toronto area. There is no question eastern Ontario's funding allocation was diverted to Metro Toronto.

If that was not bad enough for eastern Ontario, the government is now making matters worse. It established a new transportation capital corporation to work with the private sector to build roads, and what does the government do? It called a request for proposals with the private sector to accelerate the joint venture construction of Highway 407 around Toronto, yet there is no request for proposals on the horizon to create Highway 416 using the new capital corporation.

First the government cancels existing funding to build Highway 416, and then under its new transportation capital corporation is doing nothing to accelerate Highway 416. Will the Premier please immediately prepare a request for proposals to complete Highway 416 or tell the people of eastern Ontario why not?

The minister for eastern Ontario, Evelyn Gigantes, is sitting here today and she is not giving any answers to the people of eastern Ontario. Where is Highway 416 going? Tell us now, Minister.

1340

ANNIVERSARY OF CHERNOBYL DISASTER

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Today marks the eighth tragic anniversary of the Chernobyl nuclear disaster in 1986 in Ukraine. Countless thousands of people were directly impacted by the reactor explosions resulting in death and crippling disease in the aftermath of the nuclear fallout and increased levels of radiation.

I was privileged to have here in my Queen's Park office a legislative intern on an exchange program from Kiev, Ukraine, who witnessed the immediate events of that fateful day. As he related: "A woman working in our office returned from lunch-break with a very red face. We all joked about it. Two others went to wade in a public pool and came back with the same red condition. These people are dead today. We had no idea."

For the thousands of children who continue to suffer from cancer and other radiation-related illnesses, Chernobyl is more than a bad memory; it is a nightmare that won't go away. For them, it is a struggle they must face every day and a challenge that we must continue to help them overcome.

The city of Toronto has proclaimed today Children of Chernobyl Day and a special candlelight memorial service will take place at 7:30 pm at High Park. The service is sponsored by Toronto's Ukrainian Canadian community and the Children of Chernobyl Canadian Fund.

Today is a day of remembrance, but also a time to reflect on how much we in the west may still do to help alleviate the ongoing experience of suffering of the children of Chernobyl. The world has adopted them as its very own, and we in Ontario can do no less.

MEDIA VIOLENCE AWARENESS WEEK

Mr David Winninger (London South): I rise in the House today in recognition of April 24 to 30 as Media Violence Awareness Week in London.

The awareness week program was initiated by Dr Peter Jaffe, the executive director of the London Family Court Clinic. It is significant to note that this is the first time any city in Canada has observed a Media Violence Awareness Week.

There are a number of goals, goals that could be seen as steps, for this week.

Increased awareness that an enormous level of violence comes into the average home every day through the media is the first step to taking action.

Parents are encouraged to monitor and consider the effect media violence has on their children. Dr Jaffe observes that children are vulnerable to violent images and that repeated exposure to acts of violence can have a desensitizing effect.

Once parents appreciate the effect media violence can have on their children, they can then take that important third step to action. The action may be as simple as shutting off the television or as complex as creating alternatives to a culture of violence.

We see that three steps -- awareness, understanding and action -- begin to address the problem of media violence.

I laud this bold initiative on the part of Dr Peter Jaffe in establishing this week as Media Violence Awareness Week in London, and I hope this will be a giant step that will be emulated across the country.

EVA'S PLACE

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): On April 20, I had the opportunity to attend the opening of Eva's Place. Eva's Place is a shelter for homeless youth in the city of North York, located at Leslie and Highway 401, just south of my riding of Oriole.

On that day, the mayor, the city of North York, members of council, Metro members, members of the board of education and MPPs were all there in support of Eva's Place.

Paul Molitor, MVP of the Toronto Blue Jays, was there and donated his MVP van to Eva's Place. It was truly a very special moment.

The mission statement of Eva's Place is that it is providing a safe haven for youth who are unable to live at home for many reasons, including physical and mental abuse.

Eva's Place has been named after a very special person. Eva Smith was a remarkable community activist in the city of North York. I met her for the first time when I was an alderman, back in the late 1970s.

Eva could not be at the opening of Eva's Place. Unfortunately, she passed away just a few months ago. But her family was there, filled with pride, because Eva's Place is a reality and a very important part of the city of North York.

I want to say what a thrill it was to be there. I congratulate the city of North York and particularly would like to mention Nora Spink and Jim Coombs and the board, who have been active in seeing that Eva's Place became a reality.

CAMPING FEES

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, Coldwater area residents Roger White, a Rover adviser, and his wife, Kathy, a Venture adviser for the 9th Orillia, have informed me that you have sunk to a new low by reaching into the pockets of such groups as Scouts Canada.

Your new fee structure for the use of provincial park group campsites includes a fee of $1 per night per youth, $2 per adult per night, an additional $14 per campsite and a further $6 per booking reservation fee.

Minister, you simply cannot justify imposing this youth tax on scouts who draw their membership from rural Ontario and the urban neighbourhoods. You may not think this tax on youth on the surface is exorbitant, but Scouts Canada and I think it's totally unacceptable and outrageous. It will add significantly to the budget of a weekend camp. I cannot believe the income from this outrageous tax grab will provide a dramatic increase in your ministry's revenues. I do believe the loss to the youth of Ontario and to our provincial community will be substantial.

Scouts Canada makes every attempt to conserve its funds, since virtually all of its operations must be paid for by parents or through fund-raising events like tree planting and apple sales. Minister, scouts will have to sell an orchard full of apples to come anywhere close to covering the cost of your new youth tax, and I think you've reached back -- it's outrageous and unacceptable. Shame on you.

EVENTS IN DURHAM WEST

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): I'd like to draw the attention of this Legislature to three events that I participated in over the last little while.

Last week, I went to the Ontario Public School Boards Association where they unveiled their trash tally, which is an auditing process where they go into the schools and do an audit and then do a comparison on how much trash they've reduced. This event took place in the wonderful town of Newcastle, which is in the Northumberland-Clarington board. The young people in that school are the real heroes of this story, because they were able to reduce the cost of taking care of their trash by almost $800 over one year. So I applaud them for that and I applaud the Northumberland-Clarington board for participating in that.

The second presentation was at the Adult Learning Centre in the Durham board, where a number of middle-aged people were involved and handed out scrolls. While I was leaving on Earth Day, outside were a number of young people who were cleaning up the environment. I'd particularly like to mention Peter Fawcett and Fred Parrot who were involved in that.

Just yesterday morning, I was at Duffin's Bay Public School in my riding where I was able to give an Environmental Bill of Rights poster to the class. I was also able to participate and watch the wonderful activities of these young people displaying their talents and being rewarded by the administration for everything from playing the piano to the basketball and wrestling teams that had done so well.

I congratulate all of these and all the teachers involved in all of these events.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr Peter North (Elgin): Today, I'd like to bring to the attention of all members of this House a rather difficult problem in rural Ontario. We have over the last short while been experiencing extreme difficulties with regard to rural policing.

We have in the west end of the riding the area of Rodney, and a friend I know named Frank Deeley has brought to my attention the very difficult things that have happened there recently, most recently problems on their main street which they could not actually get an officer to come and deal with.

In the area of Dutton, where at one point we had 28 officers from the OPP, we now have six. In North Yarmouth, we had more than 16 incidents happen in a three-month period, where people were breaking into homes at all hours of the day and night. Parents were afraid to work their shifts for fear that there might be a problem with their families over the course of the evening or into the night.

We also have had extreme difficulties in the east end of the riding with regard to an area named New Sarum, where we had over a dozen break-ins in the same business in the span of a year.

It is a problem that I'd like to bring to the minister's attention. I'd like to bring it to all members' attention. It is an extreme problem that I hope we can have this minister, this government and all members of the House deal with. Rural Ontario certainly needs its policing. It needs it every bit as much as urban Ontario does, and we hope that in the future we'll get that attention, the same attention as other parts of the province get.

VISITOR

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I invite all members to join me in welcoming to our chamber, and seated in the members' gallery west, the former member for Halton North, Mr Walt Elliot. Welcome.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): My first question is to the Solicitor General. It's almost three weeks ago that my leader stood in this House and called upon the government and all members of the Legislature to begin serious work on a response from the government and the Legislature to the growing concern in communities large and small, rural and urban, north, south, east and west in this province about issues around safety and security in their communities. At the time, Minister, you indicated an interest. Well, nearly three weeks have passed since that exchange on April 7.

My question to you today, Minister: What can you tell the Legislature and the people of Ontario as to your plan and the plan of your government to deal with a rising tide of concern about safety and security in Ontario today?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): I appreciate the opportunity to comment on the issue. To the direct question that was in there with regard to the offer by his leader to commence discussions, that's under way. We're having those discussions, depending on what day it is -- they're kind of up and down, but they're still proceeding, and we are trying to find a way in which there can be all-party agreement to move forward with discussions that has the support and the buy-in from everyone in this place, which, as I recall, was indeed the tenor and the tone of the suggestion made by his leader on that day.

I might also point out that this weekend, for instance, the Crime Prevention Ontario organization is sponsoring a symposium on community crime prevention which I believe will go a long way to assisting us in developing the kind of Ontario positions we need to fit in with the federal responses, recognizing, as he has or his leader has in the House, and the leader of the third party, that many of the areas we're talking about here, particularly areas of the Criminal Code, are indeed the jurisdiction of the federal government. That is not to pass the buck but to acknowledge the realities of the jurisdictional setup and to also indicate to him that we are responding very seriously and taking actions at the provincial level where we can.

Mr Conway: The difficulty that the people of Ontario have is that they hear these commitments from the government to in general terms move forward, but to date we are not seeing any kind of leadership from the Solicitor General. We are not seeing any specific action plan from the minister responsible for the Solicitor General's department or the minister of justice or anyone else in the government.

The difficulty is that in the last two or three weeks there is more and more evidence across the province. Last weekend there was a brutal murder of a young boy in Chatham, Ontario. Last night, we are told by the morning press, a 38-year-old woman was sexually assaulted and robbed at knife-point in her downtown Toronto hotel. The trouble is that these kinds of stories are appearing all across the province, not just in Metro but in Chatham, in all kinds of communities large and small.

The people of Ontario want to know, what do you propose to do, when do you propose to do it, and how do you propose to put before the people of Ontario and their Legislature an action plan to allay growing public concern on this vital issue of the public interest?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me say very directly to the honourable member that everyone in this House has acknowledged that all levels of government have a certain responsibility in this matter.

I believe if we look at what Metro Toronto is doing as a local government, other initiatives across the province, us in this place here and the federal government, there is a concerted attempt to respond in a coordinated way, which I might add was clearly supported and enunciated by all the members in this House, at least as I've heard them ask the questions, in recognizing that there is no one single solution.

I don't think I heard in the member's question the implication that had some level of government taken a single course of action, any of the incidents he's discussed or raised here would not have happened. The reality is that we have systemic difficulties, we have social difficulties which no one can respond to individually. We are, however, taking a leadership role in an area that's not primarily the responsibility of the province. But this government has taken a leadership role --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- in Canada on the issue of gun control, which as one piece of the issue is an important one. Our Attorney General has taken a leadership role on the use of the dangerous offender application, as stated by the federal attorney general that if other provinces --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- did the same as the Ontario AG, there wouldn't be a need for him to look at the change in legislation.

Indeed, we're also, as I said earlier, responding to the initiatives mentioned by members of the opposition and I --

The Speaker: The question's been answered. Would the minister please take his seat. Final supplementary.

Mr Conway: Can the minister today outline a timetable as to how and when he is going to proceed on issues that fall within the provincial jurisdiction? We all understand that local and national governments have responsibilities as well, but days ago I, on behalf of my colleagues, indicated that there were some things we could do provincially, like tighter control on the retail of ammunition, like having the minister of justice for Ontario direct provincial crowns that there shall be no plea bargaining around gun-related offences, like ensuring that there is tougher sentencing for people convicted of the commission of violent crimes, particularly involving firearms.

My question remains, Minister: Can you give the Legislature and the province today a more detailed timetable as to how, when and where you intend, as a government, to act in this provincial jurisdiction?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me deal with two issues that the honourable member raised, one of them specifically on the issue of the ammunition. I've already indicated that we responded to that, and I think in a very positive fashion, in exactly the way that his leader asked and hoped for us to respond. That is a matter still for discussion by the House leaders, and I'm still very hopeful that there will be agreement on the part of all three parties in this place to deal with that in a non-partisan way, so that if there is action we could take at the provincial level, we indeed do so and have the support of all the members here.

In terms of directives to crowns and to others regarding plea bargaining and sentencing, I would defer to the AG to give specifics, but I do know that many of those actions have already happened.

There are a number of initiatives under way in this province, not the least of which are the support and sponsorship by this ministry of Crime Prevention Ontario and the work that they do; the coordinated effort that we have with policing services to provide standards of policing, to assist them in doing their job and ensuring we do it right across the whole province; the funding of rape crisis centres and sexual assault centres. There is a whole host of initiatives.

But to answer the question in a positive way and to be very upfront with the member, many of the issues, as he has said, are in the federal domain. My officials are talking with the federal officials, as are the AGs. We're expecting a package from them to provide --

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- the leadership that they should, and when that happens, we will respond swiftly and effectively.

GOVERNMENT SPENDING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): A new question to the Minister of Housing, and it concerns supportive housing. The plot thickens; the swamp deepens.

In recent hours, I have received new information about another Metropolitan Toronto not-for-profit supportive housing group; very interesting material. I have in my hand new information: an audit done by the Ontario Ministry of Housing of this second group, the Supportive Housing Coalition of Metro Toronto, a community-based, not-for-profit group providing housing services to the community since 1982.

1400

This audit was completed in March 1992, and it says some very interesting things. It finds a whole host of indefensible and inappropriate behaviours, very sloppy accounting practices, untendered contracts, and a very interesting pattern of undeclared conflicts of interest, to name but three of the audit's findings.

Is the minister aware of this audit, and what specifically has she done about its findings?

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): Indeed, I am aware of the audit. It was made available yesterday at the same time as we released the report of the audit concerning Houselink, which has so fascinated members of the Liberal opposition.

We have a new policy in the Ministry of Housing. In the past in the Ministry of Housing, internal reports of this nature which reviewed the contract obligations by the ministry and by partners in the community were not released to the public. That policy has changed as of my decision to release the Houselink report, and the release of the report to which he refers, the Supportive Housing Coalition report, is evidence of that new policy.

So indeed, I am aware of it, and indeed, the ministry has been working, as it did with Houselink, to make sure that those problems discovered by the audit are problems which are addressed by ministry administration monitoring and working with the community-based group.

Mr Conway: I challenge the minister. My information is that this audit was not released by her yesterday, that this was leaked, not released. But I want to be clear that this audit paints exactly the same kind of picture as we saw at Houselink. This is a detailed account of maladministration, misappropriation, untendered contracts involving substantial public moneys, and perhaps most importantly, let me read just this one line, the auditors found in 1992 that there were "undeclared conflicts of interest where two board members were also lawyers of the firm retained by the Supportive Housing Coalition."

Sound familiar? "One has resigned but the other continues to serve in a non-voting yet very influential capacity as treasurer." The report goes on to suggest, to indicate, to recommend in March 1992 that no new allocations be given to this group until they've cleaned up their act of these several and serious sins of maladministration.

Can you confirm, Minister, that no new allocations have in fact been given since this audit was completed in the spring of 1992 to this Supportive Housing Coalition, mindful of the fact that just a few months ago, in March of this year, you had to write off millions of dollars' worth of government obligations --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member conclude his question.

Mr Conway: -- to this band of incompetents? Can you confirm that?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The member goes a little far in his language. The Supportive Housing Coalition has served people in the Toronto community very well for very many years. I can certainly understand the Liberal urge to attack on these questions because these were problems which of course arose during the Liberal administration, and a good defence is always a foaming-mouth offence, is it not?

But I would like to indicate to the member that my colleague and I, the Minister of Health, having considered the issues which were brought forward around the audits of both Houselink and the Supportive Housing Coalition, are quite prepared to see all these matters discussed by members of the Legislature working in the public accounts committee.

Mr Conway: I'm sure the House will be happy to know, mindful of the minister's last response, that over these past several years the executive director of the Supportive Housing Coalition was none other than Mr David White, a very prominent, well-known city of Toronto New Democrat.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): No? David White, who sat on Toronto council for how many years? Not that David White? I'm shocked.

Mr Conway: David White, a very prominent New Democrat. I just want to put that on the record.

Let me just say to the minister that those of us who support supportive housing always expected that it would mean something more than supporting a bunch of out-of-work New Democrats who are just finding a new way to fasten on to the public trough.

This report, Minister, like the report yesterday, represents a damning indictment of how millions of dollars of public money have been poorly, incompetently and inappropriately handled in this province by this sector. Given what that audit says about the Supportive Housing Coalition and what we've found in the earlier audit about Houselink --

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

Mr Conway: -- will you today commit to refer these audits immediately to the public accounts committee so there can be an in-depth analysis of what went wrong here and so that we can look and see what, if anything, you have done to clean up this costly mess?

Hon Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, why can't he take yes for an answer when I give it before he asks the question? Why can't he?

If the members opposite in the former Liberal government were so concerned about dealing with all these terrible NDP people who associated themselves with community-based work in supportive housing, why did they provide allocations to the groups and why did they allow all this to continue for such a long period of time? These are questions which I'm sure will interest all the members of the public accounts committee, and I look forward to that.

The Speaker: New question, third party.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My question is to the Premier, because I want to give the Premier the opportunity to respond to the growing rot at Houselink.

Last week, Premier, when the Toronto Star uncovered an audit at the Ministry of Health, at no time did your Minister of Housing speak up and admit that her ministry had also done an audit. In fact, today, Premier, in response to the last question, your minister is now boasting that she released the audit, when in fact it was not released voluntarily by your ministry but was leaked by people in your ministry.

With regard to Houselink, Premier, we now have two separate audits from two separate ministries with two catalogues of mismanagement, wrongdoing and potential corruption. Premier, to restore the integrity of your government, a subject that you have spoken about loudly and often, is it not time for you to step in -- and we're calling on you to step in today -- and to undertake a complete investigation of Houselink and the other audit that was brought forward today? Premier, will you give that commitment to this House, that you will step in personally and do a complete review of these scandals?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to refer that matter to the Minister of Housing.

Hon Ms Gigantes: As I've indicated, the release of the audit on the Supportive Housing Coalition was done voluntarily by me. When I learned last week that there had been a request under freedom of information for a copy of the report done about Houselink and that it had been turned down, I asked why and I asked for a review of that decision. In the course of that review, I became aware of a second report of the same nature done about the Supportive Housing Coalition, and that one too was released yesterday.

We are quite of one mind, my colleague the Minister of Health and I, that there shall be an investigation of all the matters that concern members on all sides of the House at the public accounts committee, and we look forward to working with members of the opposition in that process.

Mr Jim Wilson: There's something very fishy going on around here. I can understand that if the Liberals were still in government, they'd want to cover up the Houselink affair. What I can't understand is why the Premier of this province, the NDP Premier of this province, won't answer questions about the Houselink scandal. I don't understand that. There's something very, very fishy going on.

My question to the Premier -- to the minister, I guess, because the Premier won't answer: Minister, we have a litany of unanswered questions. Who went to Berlin with Lea Caragata, and why did they go? What is the involvement of your friend Robin Sears's mother? Why is the husband of the Minister of Health's chief of staff --

Interruption.

The Speaker: Stop the clock. Order.

1410

If the member has got his share of the money, then I believe he's about to ask his supplementary.

Mr Jim Wilson: Clearly, the public is extremely concerned about the scandal at Houselink. They're yelling from the galleries.

Minister, we have a litany of unanswered questions. I want to know, for example, why the husband of the Minister of Health's chief of staff is the lawyer for Houselink. Specifically -- this question was to the Premier -- why did it take the press and the opposition to uncover this whole smelly affair? Minister, after an entire week, do you have any answers to these questions I've posed?

Hon Ms Gigantes: I think the member is mistaken. He says there's something fishy, but the fact is that he's just gone fishing and therefore he thinks there's something fishy. Those things don't necessarily follow one on the other.

There are all kinds of suggestions and murmurs and questions: Who's related to whom, who's travelled where, how much did an old piece of furniture cost, and so on? We're looking forward to discussing these things in context, where there will be a chronological framework on the discussion and where it will be clear what actions have been taken, both in the Ministry of Health and in the Ministry of Housing, to ensure that the working relationship with both the Supportive Housing Coalition, in the case of Housing, and with Houselink, in the cases of both Housing and Health, is a straightforward one which is fully, publicly accountable.

Mr Jim Wilson: There's one burning question in this scandal: Why did it take almost four years for this government to respond to this issue, and why did it take not voluntary compliance, Minister and Premier, but inquiries from the press gallery to obtain the audits so we know what actually is going on with taxpayers' money with respect to the non-profit housing sector? I have a couple of more questions for you.

Yesterday in the House, you told us in response to a question that you hadn't extensively reviewed the audit by your ministry, yet minutes later, outside the House, you said you saw no evidence of criminal wrongdoing. Not having reviewed the audit, she concluded there was no evidence of criminal wrongdoing.

To the best of our knowledge, the police have not been called in on this affair. With a government that calls in the police every time there's a leaked cabinet document, I find it more than passing strange that the police were not called in to investigate this scandal.

Minister, I ask why the police were not called in. I also want you to answer to this House, how many audits of non-profit and co-op housing projects have been done by your ministry and/or the Ministry of Health? Third, when we review the non-profit housing sector, we find the names of contractors, lawyers, architects and non-profit groups appearing over and over again. Minister, on behalf of your government, will you expand the inquiry into all non-profit groups and non-profit housing so we can have a full inquiry on how the taxpayers' dollars are being spent in this province?

Hon Ms Gigantes: The public accounts committee will no doubt discuss the framework in which it wants to operate. What my colleague and I have determined is that we agree that public accounts should feel that the matter of Houselink, the relationship with the Supportive Housing Coalition, is one which we're quite agreeable to have examined by the committee.

I should also point out that the proportions of nonsense in terms of accusations and attempted smears and so on going on out of opposition benches really boggle the mind. I understand from a well-informed source working in my office that the David White referred to in some -- no, I'm wrong.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Oh, you'd better watch out. Ruth said no.

Hon Ms Gigantes: Okay. There, I'm wrong. There is no end to the kind of speculation that's being generated on the basis of no good information, and I wish members would say: "Yes, we've got a piece of work to do. Let's settle down and do it." We're quite happy to help in that process.

The Speaker: New question; the honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: What was that about David White, Madam Minister?

The Speaker: To whom is your question directed?

Mr Stockwell: I've got to get this clear: the well-informed source. David White --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Interjections.

The Speaker: The member for Etobicoke West.

GO TRANSIT

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I will ask my question to David White, the city of Toronto alderman -- no. I will go to the Minister of Finance, who is not here, so in lieu of that, I'll go to the Premier.

Mr Premier, could you confirm that as part of the GO Transit sale and leaseback transaction the provincial government asked the federal government to waive its 15% withholding tax? Could you advise the House about the status of that request and whether in fact anyone had to pay the withholding tax at all.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): I'm going to have to take that question as notice and refer it to the Minister of Finance and ask him to respond.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Supplementary?

Mr Stockwell: Does the Minister of Housing have an informed source on this one, do you think? I guess I'd better get my supplementary on the record, Mr Speaker.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): You may never get on in question period again.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. As I understand it, the $425-million GO deal was closed offshore in Bermuda and involved a transfer from the crown corporation to a company called Asset Finance Bermuda.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): So that's why they all went to Bermuda.

Mr Stockwell: That's right. Now, they went to Bermuda and it was closed with Asset Finance Bermuda. As I understand it, that company immediately, in turn, flipped the assets -- you know that word very well, I'm sure -- to the ultimate purchaser, who ideally got out of paying the tax because of the flip and the closing in Bermuda.

I would also ask the Premier, would you not agree that we have a case here of an agency of government participating, if in fact this is the case, in an elaborate scheme to avoid literally millions of dollars of Canadian taxes, trying to avoid that through the withholding tax of 15%, if they did flip it in Bermuda and thereby got out of paying the 15% withholding tax?

Hon Mr Rae: Again I'm sure the Minister of Finance would be happy to have a very learned discussion with you on this subject. I think you should probably wait for him to respond.

Mr Stockwell: The problem is I've got another supplementary.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): You're not going to get an answer yet.

Mr Stockwell: No, I don't plan to, but maybe I can put this on the record and when you run into Floyd maybe you can mention this to him.

1420

The last time this House talked about a property flip of this magnitude it was engineered by a couple of people named Player and Rosenberg, as I recall. I recall your party had a nervous breakdown caused by moral indignation over the whole affair.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): They all had a nervous breakdown and a big run on the cash.

Mr Stockwell: Yes. Now we have a crown agency, as I understand it, playing tax avoidance games. When most people in this province don't want to pay our high taxes, they go to Buffalo. It seems you guys go to Bermuda, Mr Premier. Don't you think, Premier, this type of action by a crown agency makes a mockery of all your hand-wringing about cross-border shopping, the underground economy and federal transfer cuts? Isn't it kind of a classic case of you, the Premier, saying to the people, "Do as I say, not as I do"?

Hon Mr Rae: I know the Minister of Finance will want to explain to you, as he has to all of us, and as we have looked at over the years, the principle in place, which is to get the best possible arrangement and deal for the taxpayers of the province. That's an answer I'm sure the minister will have respected.

WCB CHAIR

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question is to the Premier, and it's about another soon-to-be-out-of-work New Democrat. I read recently, following your announcement last week of reform at the Worker's Compensation Board, that you are considering appointing the outgoing chair, Mr Odoardo Di Santo, to the liquor board.

During Mr Di Santo's term as chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, the unfunded liability has grown at a rate of $2 million a day, to reach the unprecedented level of $11.5 billion. The operating loss last year under his stewardship was $74 million --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): What was it during the Liberal term?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order, the member for Oxford.

Mr Mahoney: -- rates to business have skyrocketed by an average of 33% while claims have gone down by 22%, and staff morale is at an all-time low under the leadership of Mr Di Santo.

Will you assure this House that you are not about to appoint the current chair of the WCB, who you are not reappointing to that position -- will you assure us you will not transfer him over to the liquor board of Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): The short answer is no. I can say to the honourable member, and I say without hesitation, that when Mr Di Santo was defeated after being a member of this House for some time, he received a public appointment from the Liberal government of the day. All of us who know Mr Di Santo, and there are many members on all sides of the House who know him, know him to be a man of integrity, of ability and of great compassion. I am very proud of the fact that Mr Di Santo has accepted an appointment at the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario, and I think he's somebody who deserves the respect and recognition of his peers and colleagues in public service, since he is serving the province very well.

Mr Mahoney: Before that answer, it was simply a rumour. Now the Premier has confirmed that Mr Di Santo has taken a position, presumably at your behest, an appointment with the liquor licence board. I just find that incredible, and so do the people of this province.

This was a 10-year NDP member of this Legislature, currently drawing a pension, double-dipping as chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board, who will now simply move into a new position to see what kind of havoc he can wreak on the liquor licence board.

Let me give you some other examples. He has denied that he was responsible for the decision to build the new building in downtown Toronto, contrary to the facts. He delivered a task force on service delivery and vocational rehab, and absolutely nothing was done at the Workers' Compensation Board during his term as the chairman to improve service delivery. Fewer than 10% of the cases at the board drive 90% of the cost of the board. The board is in absolute chaos.

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

Mr Mahoney: Premier, we would ask you to revoke the appointment. Mr Di Santo does not deserve to be appointed by you to another position in the government when he has clearly failed to provide any leadership at the Workers' Compensation Board.

The Speaker: Would the member please conclude his question.

Mr Mahoney: Will you revoke that appointment today?

Hon Mr Rae: No. I can say that given my experiences in politics, I understand that there will be all kinds of personal things said about individuals. I say to the honourable member that I think the way in which you personalized this is most unfair to Mr Di Santo, but I'm sure we'll all survive those attacks and recognize --

Mr Gregory S. Sorbara (York Centre): He was incompetent. A nice guy, but he is incompetent.

The Speaker: Order. The member for York Centre, please come to order.

Hon Mr Rae: -- that he is a fine person who continues to deserve the confidence of the people of this province.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): How does your community feel about what he is saying?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Stop playing ethnic politics.

The Speaker: Would the member for Yorkview please come to order.

Mr Mammoliti: Go ahead, have a chat with them.

Mr Mahoney: Is this an Italian issue? Is that what you're saying?

Mr Mammoliti: You tell me. Is it an Italian question?

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview is asked to come to order.

Mr Mammoliti: We'll let the Italians decide whether it's an Italian issue.

The Speaker: I caution the member for Yorkview that if he refuses to come to order, he will be named.

MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Recently, your government put the shovel in the ground on an expansion of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. This expansion will house 20 criminally insane patients. The residents of Parkdale have contacted my office to say they are outraged that their already fragile community is being dumped on yet again by your government without proper consultation. Can you tell these residents why, in all of Ontario, you decided virtually unilaterally that Parkdale should be the home for this facility?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier): Mr Speaker, I'll refer this to the Minister of Health.

Hon Ruth Grier (Minister of Health): I'm glad to have an opportunity to address this question because I know it's one that certainly members on our side and members of the community have been very concerned about. But I have to say to the leader of the third party that the need for medium-security facilities in our psychiatric hospitals has been growing, that Queen Street is a hospital that has been there for a long time and that has had secure units for the evaluation and assessment of people who have been referred by the courts, and that the move to change 20 existing spaces into secure spaces is one that was decided upon as we looked to how we can serve people who need care, who are mentally ill, in their communities.

There are now no medium-security beds in Metropolitan Toronto. The decision or the indication that Queen Street would continue to provide these services was made in a strategic plan that was very publicly discussed within the community last year. I profoundly regret that a number of the elected representatives and community members -- that it wasn't made more clear that in fact this was going to be a switch of 20 beds from open beds to medium-secure beds.

Because there is a real concern in the community, I have met with some of the elected representatives locally there. The community advisory board is certainly aware of the concern in the community and I have asked them to see what they can do to meet with community representatives and try and allay some of the concerns people have.

Mr Harris: All I hear from this minister is that you're going to have meetings to try and smoke this through. I don't hear anything about halting construction and making sure there is a proper, open consultation process before this facility proceeds.

You and I know that individuals and families of Parkdale already share their neighbourhood with the current residents of the Queen Street centre, with a parole office, with patients at two treatment centres and with a number of halfway houses. They're saying, "We're prepared to do even more than our share." But without the proper consultation -- and you know that had you not had a facility, and you simply with fudge words changed the definition, you could not have proceeded this way in any other neighbourhood in Metropolitan Toronto without having full, public, open hearings as to what was happening.

1430

I am asking you, given that a considerable number of the residents of Parkdale are new Canadians, given that they don't have the same political expertise and clout to fight your decision that other communities and other neighbourhoods have, will you halt construction? Will you proceed with a full and open consultation process on what is fair in Metropolitan Toronto about where this facility should be located?

Hon Mrs Grier: The member describes a facility. The member indicates that this is something dramatically new and an expansion of the Queen Street psychiatric hospital. This is the transformation of 20 units in the hospital into a double-locked, secure, under-surveillance community, of which there already are two floors in the same building that have the same kind of security.

Mr Harris: Into a completely different definition of what it was before, without the hearings.

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): Why didn't you tell us this months ago?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Hon Mrs Grier: I think it is unfortunate that people in the community were not aware that this was in fact part of the change that was going to happen.

Mrs Cunningham: I think it's unfortunate you didn't tell them. That's the problem.

Hon Mrs Grier: I certainly understand that concern and want to do everything I can to share with them -- I hope they have visited the facility --

Mrs Cunningham: Just boom along without doing your job. Say, "I'm sorry and I'll fix it."

The Speaker: The member for London North, please come to order.

Hon Mrs Grier: -- what in fact is planned, what in fact the security will be, so that they will understand that these are not going to be people who will be in the community. In fact these are people who are going to be much more securely within the hospital than many of the patients who are there now.

DRIVERS' LICENCES

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question this afternoon is to the Minister of Transportation, and the question reaches right into the heart of why we're here. We're here to speak up for our constituents.

The question that I want to ask you, Mr Minister, this afternoon is this: One of my constituents has been blind for the last eight years, and he's been on a disability pension for that reason. Suddenly a miracle has happened and he's got his eyesight back. He's absolutely filled with euphoria at entering the workforce again and not being a burden on any of the social nets.

He has given up his pension and has gone to the local licence bureau to obtain a driver's licence that he had for 31 years. He was told at the drivers' bureau that due to the pressures of the testing system, he will be unable to get a licence until 1995. I appeal to you, Mr Minister, for an answer to this, because it's depriving my constituent of making a living, which he dearly wants to do.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): Well, what better news. We're pleased, needless to say, that his eyesight has returned, and you will indeed convey our good wishes.

The person in question, the member advises, has had his driver's licence revoked by virtue of blindness for the last eight years. We have introduced a graduated driver's licence which is made for new people, regardless of age, from 16 upward entering the system, or if your licence, be it in good standing, has lapsed for a period surpassing more than three years. In this case, with the highest of respect, the licence has lapsed for a period exceeding eight years. We have to be strict.

I have 1,100 reasons to favour a graduated driver's licence: 1,100 people who lost their lives on the roads and highways of Ontario last year.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: While we sympathize, we have to be rather strict and uniform, although we will be reasonable indeed in our enforcement of graduated drivers' licences.

Mr Mills: Thank you very much, Mr Minister. What I'd like to know and what my constituent would like to know is whether there is any possibility that he can call someone in your office and discuss this further. Because I really think that the circumstances surrounding my constituent are very rare and need some direct assistance. I wonder if you could tell me that.

Hon Mr Pouliot: Let me be direct. This is an action directe question and it requires the same kind of answer. Sorry I'm repetitious, but you have to be strict.

The member mentioned in his original question, in his first question, that a test will not be granted before 1995. We're talking within the confines of the graduated driver's licence. In an emergency, a human dimension extraordinaire issue, a special case or the need to find a job, and you wish to jump the queue under the new graduated driver's licence system, no getting away from it, then we have built in some flexibilities within the system to allow that possibility.

I would like to encourage the member to give us more particulars, for no two cases are the same.

TENDERING PROCESS

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): The Minister of Transportation can just stay on his feet, and I hope his answer will be a little bit more direct than the one he just gave.

Minister, your government has decided to use tolls to build the 407 faster. In other words, you're levying a special tax so that this road can be built faster. Normally, through the annual appropriation process, as you have indicated, it's likely it would take a lot longer, but with this special tax you feel you can build it faster.

The question remains, however, and you've been asked that before, why does the NDP insist on bypassing the proper process of public tendering for the building and maintenance of this project over the next 30 to 35 years, because that will be the length of the contract.

The chosen consortium will not finance the project, which had been the main reason why you limited the bidding process. In view of this fact that this is a public project now, will you separate the toll technology aspect of this road, for which I think some of the consortium members have a special expertise --

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

Mr Daigeler: -- from the building and maintenance features so that all roadbuilders in Ontario can properly bid on this project?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member opposite is right. As we develop the team for the 407, and the member has mentioned that without the possibility of tolls, without the opportunity afforded to the capital corporation, without that innovative system, it would take -- I think you mentioned the year 2025; you're right. We had the choice to wait until we're into our twelfth term of office to complete the road or to do it by the year 2000, six years from now. We chose the latter because it puts people to work and it responds to the 401 being oversubscribed.

There was no problem. Economies of scale are what we have to keep in mind. Both consortia are extremely capable to meet the size of the project. Their financial capabilities are assured. We've already saved $200 million in value engineering. A bigger piece of the pie will ensure that we will save even more --

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Pouliot: -- in the future, but we have to go "whole sum." Economies of scale are the driving force, and the innovation of the capital corporation charging tolls to repay the lenders makes it all possible. The users will pay for the 407, and it will happen in a relatively short time of six years for a project worth well over $1 billion, creating well over 20,000 jobs.

Mr Daigeler: Since I do believe the minister is an intelligent person, I can only conclude that he's deliberately sidestepping the real issue here. The issue is not the tolls, the issue is not the savings that he referred to because, frankly, those savings are because he's building less road than was originally planned. The issue is why are a great many of Ontario roadbuilders excluded for the next 30 to 35 years from bidding on one of the biggest construction projects in this province?

1440

I would like to say to the minister in the words of one of those contractors, who so far has been excluded, and he's not part of the consortium, "This immense project will be awarded to a select group and to the disadvantage of both the industry at large and the general taxpayers and motorists of the province."

Minister, the issue is, can you assure me and the taxpayers that their tax money is properly spent and the proper public tendering process will be followed?

Hon Mr Pouliot: With respect, we have to keep in mind that the consortia are made of several companies. Once you get to the subcontracts, you pretty well involve more than 50% of the roadbuilders, of the contractors. Then we have to keep in mind, because we begin to understand in phase 2, Mr Speaker, phase 2 being the infrastructure program, that provincial-municipal-federal entity, that one third of the municipal contract --

Mr Daigeler: What does that have to do with the question?

Hon Mr Pouliot: Let me answer please. You're talking about jobs for contractors, for people who build roads. Well, one third of the submissions have Ministry of Transportation guidelines and contracts attached to it so they'll be building more municipal roads. We're moving on four subway lines. That's transportation money.

Our transfer payments, which will be announced tomorrow, will resemble what was allowed last year, so there's no decrease there. We've been able to preserve our base highway capital program, so there will be more work during the next construction season than ever before, regardless of the difficult times that we've been in. This is good news for the roadbuilders and it's cause for celebration indeed.

POLICE OFFICERS

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): My question is to the Attorney General and it's regarding the special investigations unit. The special investigations unit was audited through your ministry, and the very first recommendation was that the Attorney General is to deal with the issue as to whether police officers must give statements and potentially incriminate themselves.

I know that the report has now been in the minister's hands for many months. I have yet to see any legislation to amend the Police Services Act to clarify this situation, and I wonder if the minister can tell us whether she will be introducing legislation this spring that will clarify whether police officers must incriminate themselves or whether police officers will be given the same protections as all other potentially accused people who might have been involved in a crime.

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): The member may be aware, certainly it was part of our release when we received the audit report, that we had committed ourselves to a six-month process of consultation with police service organizations and with the general community around the findings in the report, and that would include that particular issue. There has been a great deal of discussion between the Solicitor General's ministry, my ministry and the police service organizations around what form of accommodation we could make to clear up some of the investigations that are there that continue to not be resolved because of lack of interviews with police officers, and we have reached some conclusions.

There are still a number of cases in which the investigation has not been able to be completed for that reason, and we remain concerned about that. But we're equally concerned about maintaining the rights of the individual involved, a police officer or not. This is not an issue that we would expect to be giving any kind of legislative solution to this spring.

Mr Harnick: The question is very simple. Are you going to bring in legislation or are you going to continue to let the officers who are now the subject of investigations languish? You know, it's a very simple proposition. You're either going to do something or you're going to do nothing. But you've been studying this issue, which has been in your bailiwick, for over two years. I want to know when we can expect to see legislation and when these officers can find that the dilemma they're in is going to be resolved. Will you tell us?

Hon Mrs Boyd: I did say to the member that we do not anticipate bringing in legislation this spring, that what we are trying to do is reach an agreement about how to deal with the legislation as it now stands, understanding that eventually the legislation will need to be changed.

There are many recommendations in the audit report and in other reports that have been done about changes in the Police Services Act. It seems to us to be not a good use of the time of this Legislature to make one change in the Police Services Act, even if we could resolve that issue satisfactorily to the consensus of all those parties -- and we haven't been able to do that yet -- when there are many other issues that require further discussion with the police service organizations and with the community.

CAMPING FEES

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. Algonquin Park has built its reputation as one of the finest parks in the country by making the experience of Ontario's wilderness accessible to people. My question for you concerns a group of people from my riding for whom that experience could be the experience of a lifetime.

Camp Outlook is a charitable, non-profit organization run by volunteers. Every summer for the past 24 years this group has taken about 120 disadvantaged Kingston-area teenagers on canoe trips into the park, far from their often troubled lives at home.

Recently your ministry announced that for the first time, charitable groups like Camp Outlook will pay a fee to use Algonquin Park. Members of Camp Outlook have told me that the new fee will increase their annual costs by about $4,000. I've also had a petition signed by some 350 people asking that the ministry exempt Camp Outlook from paying the fee.

Minister, could you please tell me if there is some way Camp Outlook can continue to use the park for free to carry on its valuable work with troubled youths?

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): It's true that last year when we examined the fee schedules of the provincial parks, we found some situations which are clearly inequitable. We have situations where a number of people in the province are paying full fees, we have other situations where some groups were paying half fees and still other situations where some groups were paying no fees.

It was very hard to find a rationale for the differences, so what we have done, in the interests of an equitable sharing of the costs of running our parks system and in the interests of recognizing the value of the resources we have in our parks system, is reorient the park fee system.

Qualifying youth groups will be asked to pay what amounts to half fees. They are the same fees that senior citizens are asked to pay, and we think we have created a more equitable situation. Everybody must pay to recognize --

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

Hon Mr Hampton: -- the value of the resources, but we have recognized the ability to pay as between different groups.

Mr Gary Wilson: Minister, the people at Camp Outlook recently suggested to me that they would be willing to offset the cost of the entrance fee by doing park maintenance on interior trails and campsites. Another possible suggestion to mitigate the effects of this new fee would be to impose it gradually so the group would not have to bear the full weight of the fare immediately. Minister, would you consider either of these options to help this dedicated group continue using the park?

Hon Mr Hampton: There are a couple of options. The reality is that Algonquin Park, along with some of our other larger parks, has a volunteer program. Camp Outlook, which does perform a valuable service, could apply to park officials to be recognized under the volunteer program.

It may also be that for some of the activities that Camp Outlook wants to carry on, they might be better off to carry on those activities on crown land outside the park. So while half fees will have to be paid, it may be possible for Camp Outlook to work something out with the volunteer program and to use other crown land for some of its activities.

1450

CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST LEGISLATION

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs. As you know, Mr Minister, conflict-of-interest legislation has been on the mind of every taxpayer and municipal politician in the province. You and your predecessor had promised AMO two years ago that you would introduce such legislation.

I find that if you keep stalling with the legislation, it will be too late for the 1994 municipal elections. If you intend to introduce such legislation, I would like to know what your timetable is all about.

Also, municipal candidates must know well in advance, as you know, Mr Minister, what rules will govern their office before proceeding to run in the upcoming municipal elections. What is your legislative agenda? Will you introduce such legislation?

Hon Ed Philip (Minister of Municipal Affairs): I thank the member for an excellent question and I'll be happy to answer his question.

I agree with you that any legislation should be fair and therefore should apply to candidates as well as incumbents. You cannot have legislation in place after the election and therefore have one set of standards for the people who won the election and one for those who did not. I agree fully with that.

I have met with AMO. We've had a committee that has worked with AMO to try to find out what is the best possible course of action, what should be in the open government concept, and I think we're in some agreement. I can assure you that we will be making an announcement fairly soon.

I have assured AMO that, one, we intend to move ahead with open government legislation, and two, that it will be done in such a way that an incumbent or a sitting member of council is not put at a disadvantage compared to a candidate against that person.

MOTIONS

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): I move that Mr Hope and Mr Winninger exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

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

PETITIONS

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I have a petition signed by constituents:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

"To immediately pass Liberal Bob Chiarelli's private member's bill, Bill 151, to prohibit the sale of ammunition to any person who does not hold a valid firearms acquisition certificate or Ontario outdoors card."

I have signed this petition in support.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition of 19 signatures addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have affixed my signature to this petition.

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 provides needed protection for owners of mobile homes in mobile home trailer parks and owners of modular homes in land-lease communities" -- like Sutton-by-the-Lake in my riding -- "and

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

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

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

It's been signed by residents who live on Damsel Circle, Kelsey Crescent, Geneva Court, Roxanna and Hummingbird Circle as well. I affix my name to it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I have a petition here from Christ Our King Lutheran Church in Mississauga.

"To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

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

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

"We believe in freedom from discrimination, which is enjoyed by everyone by law now. But since the words 'sexual orientation' have not been defined in the Ontario Human Rights Code and may include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and since sexual orientation is elevated to the same level as morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all such references should be removed from the code."

It's signed by 73 members of Mississauga.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "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;

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

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

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed 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 Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

I have signed this petition.

Ms Jenny Carter (Peterborough): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario which is identical to the one which has just been presented and which is signed by over 300 people from different communities throughout Ontario.

HOUSING LEGISLATION

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition that comes from the residents and family members of the Bearbrook Court Retirement Residence: "We are consumers who will be directly affected by Bill 120." Instead of reading the whole petition, in respect for my colleagues I will keep it short. I will sign this document and I am also opposed to it.

1500

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): "Whereas we want you to know that we are strenuously objecting to your 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;

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

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

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I have a number of petitions.

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

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

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

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

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

I shall sign this petition.

LANDFILL

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition from a number of constituents in King City. It's addressed to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the recent announcement by the NDP government to choose three superdumps within the greater Toronto area has disturbed and upset local residents; and

"Whereas these superdumps might have been prevented if Bill 143 had allowed the Interim Waste Authority to look at all alternatives during the site selection process; and

"Whereas we would like to ensure the province of Ontario is making the best decision based on all the facts regarding incineration and long rail-haul and garbage management;

"We demand that the NDP government of Ontario repeal Bill 143, disband the IWA and place a moratorium on the process of finding a landfill to serve all of the greater Toronto area until all alternatives can be properly studied and debated."

I support this petition and I have signed it.

SOCIAL CONTRACT

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): "To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas Bill 48, with its provision for an increment grid freeze, creates wide discrepancies in education sector salary losses required to meet the savings target of the social contract; and

"Whereas Bill 48 unfairly penalizes younger, less financially secure members of the teaching profession, as well as their senior colleagues nearing retirement, for many years beyond the purported three-year commitment required by the social contract; and

"Whereas Bill 48 implicitly undervalues the contributions of female teachers who, having left teaching for years in order to raise children at home, now find themselves caught on the grid with relatively low, frozen salaries upon resuming interrupted careers; and

"Whereas Bill 48, with its arbitrary suspension of terms of collective agreements arrived at in good faith, contravenes the long-espoused belief by the New Democratic Party that the collective bargaining process is a sacred and fundamental cornerstone of democracy;

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

"That, without delay, the Legislative Assembly vote to rescind Bill 48, and thereby free up negotiated salaries that help to stimulate renewed consumer confidence in spending; the result in economic growth should help to save precious public sector jobs and services."

I support this and will affix my signature.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Joan M. Fawcett (Northumberland): I have a petition from 37 people in my riding in the Campbellford area. It's a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas Bill 55 will make it illegal for people to make any public statement, written or oral, which ridicules, demeans or discriminates against a person on the grounds of sexual orientation, threatening free speech in a democratic society and the freedom of religion for historical Christianity, which does not condone homosexuality;

"Whereas Bill 58 will allow legal actions to be launched against any person or organization that promotes hatred or the superiority or inferiority of a person or class of persons;

"Whereas we believe that Bills 45, 55 and 58 will cause an enormous negative impact on our society over the long term because of the redefinition of fundamental institutions of marriage and family;

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

"That the House refrain from passing Bill 45, Bill 55 and Bill 58 and that 'sexual orientation' not be added to the Ontario Human Rights Code."

CASINO GAMBLING

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): "Whereas the government of Ontario has permitted the construction of a casino gambling establishment in the city of Windsor, citing as reasons the attempt to assist border communities hit hard by cross-border shopping, free trade and the proliferation of gambling casinos in surrounding provinces and the border states; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has further indicated its intention to permit the establishment of a second casino in the province by a first nation of Ontario; and

"Whereas the United Chiefs and Councils of Manitoulin on Manitoulin Island has publicly declared that it would like to see the first native casino in the province built on Manitoulin Island; and

"Whereas many Christian denominations across Canada have taken the lead in opposing legalized gambling in all its forms, including lotteries and casinos, calling it a regressive tax on the poor and a magnet for criminal activities and warning of the selfishness of gambling; and

"Whereas many church ministers in Windsor, where the first provincially sanctioned casino is slated to open some time in 1995, fear that the opening of this casino will lead to gambling addictions and related family and social problems, requiring them to meet the social needs of gamblers and their families; and

"Whereas Manitoulin Island is already known to have a higher rate of social and health problems than the provincial average, including a rapidly increasing crime rate for its population size, especially in the areas of spousal and family abuse brought about, in part, by alcohol-related problems and poverty, both of which could be exacerbated by the establishment of a gambling casino, the premise of which is to make winners of a few at the expense of the majority of losers;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, respectfully ask the government of Ontario to reconsider the establishment of gambling casinos anywhere in the province, and that the government of Ontario turn down the request by the UCCM to build a casino on Manitoulin Island."

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): I have a petition addressed to Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, sponsored by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters.

Basically, it has asked that the "undersigned petition Premier Bob Rae, Solicitor General David Christopherson and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario" to change their plans and "grandfather responsible firearms owners and hunters and only require future first-time gun purchasers to take the new federal firearms safety course or examination."

I have attached my signature to this petition.

LONG-TERM CARE

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): To the Legislative Assembly:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has stated that multiservice agencies, the new single, local point of access for long-term care and support services, must purchase 90% of their homemaking and professional services from not-for-profit providers, therefore virtually eliminating use of commercial providers;

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

"We protest the action to drastically reduce the service provision by commercial providers and respectfully request that the impact of this policy decision, including a cost study, be performed before any further implementation."

I have attached my signature to that.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Government House Leader): Madam Speaker, just before we proceed with the moving of third reading of the bill, I believe we've reached an agreement among the House leaders that the parliamentary assistant will move third reading and speak for two minutes, that the member for Ottawa Centre will speak for an additional five minutes and that then the two opposition parties will split the remaining time in the hour that's set out in the time allocation motion.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Is it agreed? Agreed.

I would just like to remind you that we are proceeding following the order of the House dated April 7, 1994, which states that one hour be allotted to the third reading stage of the bill. At the end of that time, the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and shall put every question necessary to dispose of this stage of the bill without further debate or amendment.

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

Mr Drummond White (Durham Centre): On behalf of the Minister of Municipal Affairs, I rise to present for third reading Bill 143, an act that will reform regional government in Ottawa-Carleton.

The main features of this legislation include: direct election to regional council, to be in place for the 1994 civic election; regional responsibility for policing under a regional police services board; a new role for regional council in acquiring land for economic development purposes; and provisions concerning French-language school boards in the region.

The hearings held by the standing committee on resources development accomplished a great deal after two full days were devoted to listening to approximately 40 deputations. A broad cross-section was heard from, both those who supported and those who opposed the bill. They included local politicians, ratepayers, business organizations and both urban and suburban residents.

There can be no doubt of the level of interest in regional government in Ottawa-Carleton and in the sincerity of the views that were presented. However, a substantial process has been followed in developing these reforms, and these hearings were only part of that process. There has been a broad consultation on these issues including three studies in the past several years. The population as a whole supports this legislation overwhelmingly.

The time has come to act, and the time has come to put into place a new system of regional government which will serve the present and the future needs of Ottawa-Carleton. The time has come to act, and this is the act which the population of Ottawa-Carleton supports.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): I represent very proudly the riding of Ottawa Centre, and I am absolutely delighted that we have come to third reading of Bill 143. If I could just take a few moments for members of the House and interested people who may be watching to outline what we've done as a government in addressing the questions around the structure of regional government in Ottawa-Carleton since we were first elected in the fall of 1990, the then Minister of Municipal Affairs, Dave Cooke, announced first of all that we would be taking steps to make sure that in the subsequent municipal election in 1991, the office of regional chair would be one for which the population as a whole could vote, and that was a first. Up to that time, the chair of regional council had been chosen among people on the regional council, who voted among themselves for a regional chair. It was a very widely accepted change, and it was taken in the context of an outline by Mr Cooke at that time of the measures the government would undertake to address the larger questions of the structure of regional government.

Our regional government will be 25 years old this year. It's the oldest in all of Ontario, and the basic structure has not changed significantly since it was first constructed under the Conservatives way back 25 years ago. Times have changed, and there's a wide recognition in Ottawa-Carleton that the structure of regional government, which now has a budget of $1 billion a year, also needed to change to reflect people's real desire to see a more accountable regional structure.

The problem with the current structure has been one in which people are elected at the municipal base to represent the people in their municipality within their municipality, but they also became representatives on regional council. The ways in which that was done differed from municipality to municipality, but for example, in the city of Ottawa each council member of the city of Ottawa automatically became a member of the regional council, a very indirect and arm's-length kind of responsibility and one that I think people in Ottawa-Carleton have come to see as not very satisfying in terms of its public accountability.

When Mr Cooke first outlined what we would be doing, he said that we would undertake further consultation with the public of Ottawa-Carleton. That was done with the assistance of the commissioner appointed, Graeme Kirby, who did an absolutely top-notch job of involving the public in Ottawa-Carleton in discussions around the regional structure. I think all sides of the House agree on that and there's widespread appreciation in Ottawa-Carleton for the work that he carried out.

Following the recommendations that Mr Kirby brought to the government, new legislation was tabled back in July 1993 very much in the form that it sits before us today. It addressed, as my colleague from Durham has suggested, some very basic issues of responsibility for matters which should lie at the regional level: matters affecting the environment, economic development and policing, most importantly.

I think the time has come that people in Ottawa-Carleton are more than ready to see these changes. I'd like to personally, on behalf of people in Ottawa-Carleton, thank all members of this Legislature who have participated in work on this legislation, many of whom came to visit Ottawa-Carleton and hear the deputations that were made to the standing committee and expressed a great deal of interest and concern for the views of the people who came before that committee. I very much appreciated that, and on behalf of people in Ottawa-Carleton I'd like to express my personal thanks for their assistance.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): Each of the opposition parties will now have 26 minutes to express their views.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): What else is new at Queen's Park? Not much: another closure motion. This is the 14th time this government has used time allocation. The minister is not present today; he's being represented by his parliamentary assistant. The Minister of Housing is leaving the House after a very short speech of seven minutes, for the simple reason that she didn't want to hear the truth, the real truth, about Ottawa-Carleton and the major changes introduced in Bill 143.

I want to admit that in Ottawa-Carleton, being 25 years old, our government needed some fine-tuning. That's why David Bartlett and Katherine Graham were commissioned to do a study on delivery of services and also the composition of our regional wards. These two studies were done by professional people and it made a lot of good sense.

We were told time after time by the Minister of Municipal Affairs that people in Ottawa-Carleton supported Bill 143. I want to tell you otherwise.

We witnessed only last Friday, April 15, and Saturday, April 16, in Ottawa -- we finally convinced the minister that some hearings should take place in Ottawa-Carleton. I want to tell you that of the 31 deputations, the 31 submissions tabled or given to us verbally, 95% of the submissions were against Bill 143 in its present form. So to say that the majority of the people of Ottawa-Carleton support Bill 143 is totally wrong.

1520

I want to tell you about the supporters, the original supporters, of Bill 143. I know the minister has used the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade's name on a few occasions, saying, "I have the support of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade." Well, only Sunday in the Ottawa Sun -- I want to quote the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade:

"Willy Bagnell, president of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade, says the city of Ottawa has already made the first mistake by giving councillors a full-time salary of $45,000.

"'If regional council ends up being a full-time job that would be a mistake,' says Bagnell. 'We've always supported this bill because it was a step in the right direction to one-tier government.'"

The minister -- not only the Minister of Municipal Affairs but the Minister of Housing, the member for Ottawa Centre -- has always said that no, this will not lead us to one-tier government. Everybody else, even their supporters, is saying this bill will lead us to one-tier government. Again, even the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, their staff are having second thoughts on Bill 143. Let me quote again from the Ottawa Sun of last Sunday, from the regional municipality CAO.

"At the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, they're not sure what impact reform will have.

"'It's going to be the major role for staff to coordinate with staff from other cities,' concedes chief administrative officer Merv Beckstead.

"After 22 years of municipal service, including time with the city of Nepean, Beckstead was starting to have his doubts."

I just want to prove to this House and to the Minister of Municipal Affairs that their support is dwindling, and this is only third reading. It hasn't received royal assent yet, and their supporters are dwindling.

I know that I have very little time because other members of the Ottawa-Carleton region will want to address this bill. But again, I want to point out that time allocation and time closure are being used again. Bill 143 is not of major importance to this government. The minister should be in the House to listen to what the members of Ottawa-Carleton have to say about Bill 143.

Let me go back to our hearings in Ottawa-Carleton on April 15 and 16. People were refused for the simple reason that we had no time. They had no time to hear the opposite. They wanted to shut people up, and that's exactly what Bill 143 is doing; that's exactly what time allocation is doing. We're not getting used to it. We will continue to fight the government, because this is the wrong legislation that we need in Ottawa-Carleton. We need a regional government that will work with local municipalities.

In the beginning, 25 years ago, regional government was instituted in Ottawa-Carleton to work with 11 municipalities; to work and to share in economic development, share in transportation costs, in social services.

What we are doing today is we are destroying local government in Ottawa-Carleton. Don't be surprised if within the next few months that this government has in power it continues to destroy local government. Yet this government was supposed to be the government by the people, for the people. "Write in; come and visit us." Even this afternoon the driver for the Minister of Transportation was going to pick up his own colleague who had a problem in his riding. So that's how accommodating they are. "Come and visit us, come and see us; open doors."

Yet when it comes to Ottawa-Carleton, when it comes to eastern Ontario, well then, we're off the map, because this government thinks that anything east of Bay is eastern Ontario. We have to remind them every so often that Ottawa-Carleton exists. We represent 750,000 people and we will be heard.

I don't know why the present Minister of Municipal Affairs didn't use an arbitrator, because nobody knows what the real cost of this new regional government will be in Ottawa-Carleton. They did it for Middlesex; they appointed an arbitrator to look at the cost. But now people are questioning the cost of this new regional government. Why?

They didn't introduce time allocation for the Middlesex bill. No way. But Ottawa-Carleton? I point out again, not a member from that side, the NDP side, from the Ottawa-Carleton area is present today to address this very important bill.

I will vote against this bill because this is the wrong legislation for Ottawa-Carleton. They will pay the price in future years.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): It's with a little bit of sadness that I speak on this issue today. I have been involved in this debate through a number of months now and I can say that this bill is being watched closely, not only in the Ottawa-Carleton region but right across the province of Ontario, because what happens here in the Ottawa-Carleton region from a municipal structure point of view is quite likely going to be the vision of the future across other municipalities in the province of Ontario.

The vision that we're seeing is one-tier local government. So perhaps in the future, when we look back, we'll say, "This is the day that local municipal government died in the province of Ontario."

I think it was an excellent approach to go to Ottawa. We had very limited time. This whole issue has been rushed through. The government did not give priority, first of all to Bill 77, now to Bill 143, which encompassed the structural changes for municipal government. Because the government did not give priority, this matter was rushed through with great speed. The people in Ottawa-Carleton were allowed one and a half days, a Friday and a Saturday morning; a very sad state of affairs. That's all the time that was allowed to speak to this bill.

Notwithstanding that, we accommodated within that short period of time as many people as we could. The overwhelming view of not only the people of Ottawa -- when I say "Ottawa," I mean Ottawa-Carleton -- but the business community in Ottawa-Carleton, the politicians in Ottawa-Carleton, was in opposition to Bill 143 as it stands today.

However, those who did speak in favour -- and there were some people who spoke in favour. The mayor of the city of Ottawa, for example, spoke in favour and she made it clear that she was in favour of one-tier government. When she said "one-tier government," she meant a regional sort of government. She did not mean local governments, but a regional sort of government.

The board of trade of Ottawa was also in favour of this bill, to be fair. Again, the board of trade's point of view is that this is a step towards one-tier government. They would support one-tier government because, in their view, we have too much government, and eliminating one level of government would be a healthy step.

Those, almost unanimously, I would say, who did speak in favour of this particular bill -- and they were very much in the minority -- were clearly in favour of a one-tier government. They were clearly in favour of eliminating the local governments. That's what we found. I'm not surprised, but that's what we found. I think that's the vision of the future of this NDP government for the province of Ontario.

That's why we found, not when we went to Ottawa-Carleton but through the process of this whole debate, that opposition has come in from across Ontario. Opposition has come in from here, Metropolitan Toronto. Opposition has come from many, many municipalities, large and small, across this province, because they see the writing on the wall and they realize that if this government is prepared to implement a form of government that is a step towards one-tier government in Ottawa-Carleton, this government will obviously be prepared to implement that level of government anywhere else in the province, and that's what's striking fear into the hearts of municipalities.

1530

I might say that the mayors and municipalities across Ontario have every right to be concerned about one-tier government. It has not been proven that a one-tier government is less costly and more effective in terms of delivering services to the people of Ontario.

As a matter of fact, there was a report commissioned by the 11 municipalities in the Ottawa-Carleton region from Price Waterhouse. Price Waterhouse looked at the cost of a one-tier council. And what did they find? Not surprisingly to me, they found that the one-tier system would be more expensive than the two-tier system that's in place today. Salary levels would tend to rise to the most expensive level. The level of service would tend to rise to the most expensive level. There are many reasons one-tier government would be more expensive than the setup that's there today. As a matter of fact, the Price Waterhouse report indicated that the additional expense just for the services delivered today would be somewhere in the range of 7% to 15%, I believe it was, more expensive. That's the kind of government we're heading to.

What we also heard -- and I guess it's a restatement of this concern -- from people, from politicians, from the business community, is, why not do a cost analysis of this government? I see the parliamentary assistant is watching now. I know he's heard that question and I'm sure I stated that question to him during the debate: Why not do a cost analysis?

We have, for example, a councillor in the city of Ottawa, Peter Harris, who says that the costs will be up to $4 million simply for the full-time councillors. This same Councillor Harris from the city of Ottawa says, "It's hypocritical at this time to insert a new, costly measure to govern Ottawa-Carleton." It says, and this is the key statement, "The taxpayers in Ottawa-Carleton want less government, not more government."

That is perhaps the bottom line to all of this: The taxpayers want less government, they want less expensive government. That's what they're pleading for. If you see a survey or poll, I'll wager you that the bottom line somewhere in that survey or poll is indicative of the fact that people want less, and less expensive, government, including at the local level. But have we done a cost analysis? No, we haven't done a cost analysis. There's a councillor from the city of Ottawa saying it's going to be costly.

Here's a private citizen who lives in Osgoode township, has a business in the city of Ottawa, Dale Harley, and in his brief to us when we were in Ottawa, he indicated: "It is evident that there has not been a thorough examination of the financial impact of Bill 143 on local taxpayers.... I encourage the government to carry out a proper study of the financial implications of this bill."

Shouldn't that be automatic? In this day and age, when it is so imperative that we control government costs, when a significant change is made shouldn't it be automatic that we have a cost analysis to show what the additional costs are, the additional costs in policing, the additional costs associated with direct election, the additional costs in terms of the works activities that will be associated with the region, the extra economic development activities that will be taken over by the region? We have no costs on this. We simply have blind faith that this is somehow a better government and it should be implemented.

We have the chamber of commerce of the city of Gloucester saying, "The chamber of commerce is deeply concerned with the choice that the government has made to go ahead with major and costly structural changes when less costly administrative changes could have been achieved through simple bilateral negotiated improvements and reallocation of duties and responsibilities between local and regional governments."

They're saying: "How about a little common sense? Let's not impose a costly structure. Let's just sit down, discuss this and work out what makes common sense, avoid the duplication, and we'll have an effective level of government." That's the chamber of commerce speaking from Gloucester.

So there you have it. We have citizens, we have the business community and we have politicians, in majority, in the Ottawa-Carleton region saying this bill is not headed in the right direction.

Just one extra minute for me to finish up: There was considerable concern expressed with regard to community policing. Communities such as Nepean and Gloucester, that have their own police force, are very concerned they will lose a service they're very proud of, a service that is delivered on a cost-effective basis within their municipalities. There will now be a regional police force. They're concerned that the regional police force will not have the same contact with the local citizens that they have with their community-based policing now. I think they have every right to have that concern.

Kanata now has an arrangement with the Ontario Provincial Police, and the cost for policing in Kanata is about half the cost per person of what it is in the city of Ottawa. So Kanata is looking not only at the loss of a police service tailor-made to their community but also at a significant increase in cost.

Finally, the liaison between the municipalities was of uppermost concern in everybody's mind, the fact that the mayors will no longer serve on the regional council. This message came through time and time again. People will still look to their mayors for answers: answers on local issues, answers on regional issues. They will still hold the mayors accountable for all of those issues, but the mayors will no longer have regional responsibilities. That linkage between the local and regional municipalities will be lost, that linkage that's important so that all the municipal politicians, the local and regional politicians, will work together on transportation issues, planning issues, waste disposal issues, all those issues. That linkage will be lost, and I'm afraid it will lead to a more parochial approach.

That certainly is the concern of the deputants we've heard in the Ottawa-Carleton region. Unfortunately, I'm afraid it will lead to a conflict between the two levels of government and ultimately the disappearance of local government in the region of Ottawa-Carleton.

With those words, I will sit down and allow the member from Carleton to take over the rest of the debate.

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): Before I start the debate, I'd like to inform the constituents of my riding, the members from the Ottawa-Carleton region, that we're debating an extremely important bill, Bill 143, and the Minister of Housing, representing Ottawa Centre, is not even in the House. The Minister of Municipal Affairs, who was supposed to be so excited to introduce the bill and pass it through as quickly as possible, is not even in the House.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I have the greatest respect for the member who is just beginning to speak, but I would point out that it is completely against the rules of the House to refer to the presence or absence of another member of the assembly.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. I believe you are correct.

1540

Mr Morin: The bill we are debating today, Bill 143, is the product of a very sad state of affairs. It is the result of this government's lack of commitment to the very principles it claims to embody, to the democratic principles of justice, responsibility to the electorate, openness, respect of differing views, and the list goes on. This government might as well be governing by decree. The end result would be the same.

For years now the people of the Ottawa-Carleton region have awaited reform. They grow increasingly concerned about quality of services, cost and efficiency, and yet they remain attached to the local government and are proud of their community. These are very positive and constructive points, proof that despite the violence, the uncertainties and the lack of focus that often seem to characterize our society, there is an underlying current of decency, caring, respect and hope for the future.

As politicians, as part of the political system, we should be building upon these sentiments. Now is not the time to disrupt communities, to tear at the fabric of our communities, which is what Bill 143 does.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs introduced Bill 143, then known as Bill 77, last summer: July 22, 1993, to be exact. Nothing happened. There appeared to be no sign of urgency. The government was obviously not concerned with deadlines nor with the upcoming municipal elections. Instead, it accused opposition parties of obstruction, of preventing passage of the bill. It played political games with an issue of major importance to the people of Ottawa-Carleton, yet all we requested was a full examination of the proposed legislation, a proper debate in the right forum to ensure that this reform is the one best suited to the needs of the people and the communities of Ottawa-Carleton.

We are not interested in a reform that meets the requirements of a select group of individuals, namely, those who have caught the minister's attention. Regional reform belongs to everyone, not to special interests, not to a few politicians who want to decide what is best for everyone. The people must have a say.

Bill 77 was amended, then reintroduced on March 22 of this year, eight months later, but with a difference. There was a new urgency: It was imperative that Bill 143 become law in time for the upcoming municipal elections. Yet this government knew all along about the elections, it knew it was working against a deadline. Now the delay in dealing with regional reform is creating difficulties for the region's clerks, for candidates. Is this a surprise? This was foreseen months ago. It just wasn't a priority then for the government.

In the rush to pass this legislation, the government has completely ignored the wishes of Ottawa-Carleton's population. It scheduled a few days of hearings, listened to some 30 to 35 speakers, the overwhelming majority of whom were opposed to Bill 143. Because of time allocation, there was no time to discuss the amendments my party proposed. All this is blatantly undemocratic.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs' chief of staff states in a letter: "Since Bill 77 was introduced on July 22, 1993, the minister has received over 1,000 letters in response to the bill. Most of these letters were opposed to the proposals contained in the bill." Clearly, this government has failed to demonstrate to the House that the people of Ottawa-Carleton are supportive of this bill. Quite the contrary: The residents in the region have continually raised strong concerns regarding the cost of this reform, cost in human as well as monetary terms.

I've mentioned the following before, but it bears repeating. People are greatly attached to their communities in a very positive sense. They feel and need to feel a part of the community, a member of the human family, so to speak. This link exists mainly at the community level where one enters into close, familiar and regular relations with people. The people of Ottawa-Carleton wish to retain the familiarity, the comfort and the security which accompany local government. They have no desire to see some large, distant political entity govern their affairs.

The second concern raised is that of monetary cost. The government has yet to reveal the real cost of this reform. If the city of Ottawa's actions are a sign of things to come, we are looking at a very expensive reform. Last week, and it's worth repeating again, the city of Ottawa approved a resolution conferring full-time status to its councillors, with increased wages. What other hidden costs will spring out as this reform unfolds?

Bill 143 is leading the region of Ottawa-Carleton into one-tier government, whether the people of the region like it or not, because this government and the member for Ottawa Centre have decided that it is right, regardless of how people feel about it.

I would ask the minister to be frank and to explain to this House and to the people of Ottawa-Carleton what is going on. Who is really behind the push for this reform? Who is pulling the strings? Why won't this government listen to what people want and base its decisions on proper criteria instead of continuously imposing its views and its policies?

Mr Speaker, I don't have to tell you that I will vote against this bill.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): It's with some sadness that we come to a forced close on a debate of Bill 143. It's a disappointment, because the government tried, I think through nefarious means, to get the opposition to collapse and debate this bill, wash it up, in one hour of legislative time in this Legislature. I have never understood why the government felt so crass about a major, important piece of legislation for Ottawa-Carleton. I say they have not represented the people of Ottawa-Carleton well in terms of the process they have allowed for this bill.

They have also not consulted with the people of Ottawa-Carleton on this bill in a forthright and meaningful manner. We have had a number of commissions that have studied the matter, have gone out into the community, have consulted with the people, but Bill 143 does not reflect the results of those commissions. It does not follow Bartlett, it does not follow the Kirby commission, in terms of the implementation of this bill.

I've worked with a number of the mayors in my area for some period of time. I've been fortunate enough and privileged enough to represent the people of Carleton for some 17 years in this Ontario Legislature, and I have grown to know a number of the municipal politicians over that period of time. I have nothing but the utmost respect for each and every one of them.

1550

I was touched to read the submission of Albert Bouwers, the present mayor of the township of Osgoode, who represented the various mayors in Ottawa-Carleton, at least all of the mayors save and except for the mayor of the city of Ottawa.

Albert Bouwers has served his people in Osgoode township for even a longer span than I have in this Legislature, and I feel that Albert Bouwers representing the mayors was an appropriate representation because he could speak from an unbiased position, as he does not intend to seek either a regional seat or a mayoralty seat. So I had hoped that when the government read his particular submission, they would have at least lent a little bit of weight to it.

We have also been fortunate in this debate through the consultation process, which the government unfortunately did not listen to, to have had people like Anton Wytenburg, the former mayor of Goulbourn, set up a task force in Goulbourn to consider the Kirby report, to go through recommendation by recommendation with the people of the township of Goulbourn and ask them what they thought.

The former mayor, Mr Wytenburg, after considerable work, put down the recommendations in a report and submitted it to the township of Goulbourn at no cost to the township of Goulbourn, as a volunteer, as an outstanding citizen of his township and of Ottawa-Carleton.

Unfortunately, the work of individuals like Mr Wytenburg went for naught. It went for naught because this government failed to follow the advice of the people it commissioned to look into the problem. I guess that's what angers people mostly in Ottawa-Carleton.

It was summed up by Mr Phil Downey in the Ottawa hearings when he said, "The people I talked to perceived that we are getting a made-in-Toronto solution to the Ottawa-Carleton problem." That's what we have here, the arrogance of the NDP government sitting in Toronto, giving a Toronto solution to an Ottawa-Carleton problem, because the people in Ottawa-Carleton spoke out and they spoke clearly as to what they wanted in the restructuring of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton.

Unfortunately, the callousness, the arrogance of this government came forth in Bill 77 and in Bill 143, and that callousness and that arrogance were exhibited time and again in the process that we were dragged through in this Legislature and in the committee hearings, which were ever so brief, in Ottawa-Carleton.

Thirty people and groups had the opportunity to make presentations in Ottawa-Carleton, a day and a half of hearings, hardly adequate time and on very, very short notice. We had a lot of support, four to one against.

If you look through each of the briefs, as I have, and read them in Hansard, four to one against, and the people in Ottawa-Carleton, quite frankly, the ones who were for, such as Mr Brian Bourns, as evidenced in committee hearings and Hansard, were in fact asked by the minister from Ottawa Centre to appear on behalf of the government to buttress up its case.

Alex Munter came and spoke in favour. He ran against me in the last election for the New Democratic Party. We had partisans on behalf of the government side cajoled by the NDP government to come and sing the party line.

We had the real people, the people who were not representing political interests, people like Frank Spinks, who represented a group in the Ottawa-Carleton area that are concerned about taxes, come in front of the committee and express his concern that no economic analysis had been done on this legislation. We had people like Phil Downey, a successful businessman, come and express his concern that this was a Toronto-made solution to an Ottawa problem.

We had people like Wilf Pillsworth and John Gruber, ordinary citizens who put a significant amount of effort into looking into the issues of policing in the city of Kanata, because the city of Kanata is really going to take it in the ear with regard to taxes as a result of this bill. Their police bill is going to double from about $3.1 million to about $6 million in taxes because of Bill 143, and that's a fact.

The chamber of commerce was represented by Allan Whitten, John Rick and John Reiter, who all appeared there on their own time to express their concerns about Bill 143 and the fact that there's no economic basis for the restructuring of the Ottawa-Carleton area as outlined in Bill 143.

I had the opportunity, fortunately, to talk to other representatives from other parts of this world about restructuring government. It's odd that if we talk to people in other parts of North America and in fact in Europe about the structure of government, we find they are travelling in exactly the opposite direction of this government.

What is happening in the new restructuring of eastern Germany for instance, in Berlin, where I had the opportunity to speak to some parliamentarians from that area, both at the municipal level and at the state level? What they're trying to do is download responsibility; not fiscal responsibility, but responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the people. They want to strip themselves of power and put it down. They're not talking about taking power from down below and lifting it up, as we are here in the restructuring put forward by this government.

This government has not learned that the people out there trust their local governments more than they trust their regional governments and more than they trust their provincial governments. Therefore the people out there would prefer their local politicians to make some of the decisions for them.

Merle Nicholds, the mayor of the city of Kanata, along with many of her colleagues, put forward a valiant fight against this particular bill. She sees the very detrimental effects of this legislation, how much it is stripping the city of Kanata of the ability to grow as a prosperous, high-tech area in the province of Ontario.

One of my former opponents in a previous provincial election, Roly Armitage, calls himself the bürgermeister of West Carleton. He's a veterinarian. Thank the Lord Roly Armitage ran against me in 1987, because if he would run against me in 1995, I think he'd probably whip me now. If Roly Armitage could represent the people of Carleton as well as he does West Carleton, I think I'd be in real trouble.

What you're doing with Roly Armitage is saying to him, "You know all of the problems, Mayor Armitage, but you're not going to have the opportunity as mayor to go to regional council and tell them what in fact is happening in West Carleton township."

West Carleton township is either the first- or second-largest township in all of Ontario. It is the largest township in all of Ontario that is densely populated or fairly highly populated. There are about 14,000 people in that particular municipality. It is very large in geographical area. It is the combination of three former townships undertaken in an amalgamation in 1974.

I have a great deal of respect for Dr Armitage. Dr Armitage understands the people of West Carleton, and I think it's doing a disservice not to allow him to sit on regional council.

Jim Stewart from the township of Rideau, in addition to being the mayor, operates a retail store in downtown Manotick. Jim, not only in terms of being a mayor but in terms of being a small businessman in Rideau township, knows what's going on, because people not only drop in at city hall, they drop into his store from time to time and say, "Jim, we're having a problem with this or we're having a problem with that." When Jim goes to regional council, he knows what he's talking about when he's talking about problems for Rideau township.

Paul Bradley similarly runs a grocery store as well as being the mayor of the township of Goulbourn, a young man of about 45 who I think shows tremendous, tremendous political ability.

1600

I've got to tell you that these part-time mayors -- if you want to call them that, because they spend tremendous amounts of time in terms of their civic duty -- have their finger on the pulse of their community more than any regional representative is ever going to have with regard to township affairs.

I think it's a travesty of justice that we're taking these talented men and women off regional council. They're in close contact with people; they are trusted by their people; they have proven themselves in terms of service in the past; they have made wise decisions in the past. Many of these people are going to be discouraged from running for regional council because they want to be the mayor of their area.

The system in the past -- I can guarantee you this -- has worked better than what is proposed under Bill 143. We cannot support this bill.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): This completes the time allotted for the Progressive Conservative Party. Further debate?

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): First of all, I'd like to welcome back the member for Carleton. I just want to tell him that I missed him, and I guess we missed him, defending the interests of his riding over the last two weeks while we had the public hearings and during clause-by-clause. But it's good to see him here at least to vote, hopefully, against this bill and joining with myself and other members from the Ottawa-Carleton area who are very much against this.

I realize that we do have people who are in favour of this project and, frankly, those who are in favour I think are doing it for a good reason. What is that reason? Because it's going to benefit them and it's going to exclusively benefit them. That's the issue and that's the objection I have, because unfortunately my riding and my city, which has over 110,000 people, is losing on the whole front.

I can tell the minister, who has finally arrived, that we don't like it and we'll remember that. Mind you, the NDP I think has no chance in my riding, and perhaps that's the reason why he's pushing this bill through without any kind of consideration for the people of the other municipalities in Ottawa-Carleton.

I understand, and the mayor of Ottawa has said that very clearly and the chairman of the Ottawa board of trade has said that very clearly: Some members of my own caucus are in favour because this bill does benefit Ottawa, no question and no bones about it. So why would they not fight for it?

But I think the government and the provincial government and the Minister of Municipal Affairs have a responsibility: It is a moral obligation to represent the interests of all the people of the province and of all the people of Ottawa-Carleton, not just of the city of Ottawa and not just of the member for Ottawa Centre.

That's why I'm so opposed to this bill. There would have been an opportunity to bring forward reforms that would have been accepted. Not everybody probably would have been in favour -- I'm under no illusions -- but I think there was the potential to get together and work things out through cooperation and not through coercion, as we have done, as the Liberal government has done before.

We had a bill on the order paper that was going to be acceptable pretty well to all of the mayors and to all of the councils in the whole region, and only this minister, not even the previous NDP Minister of Municipal Affairs, was that draconian.

This current Minister of Municipal Affairs has really pitted one city against the other in the Ottawa-Carleton area and has pitted the people of Ottawa-Carleton against each other, and that's what I object to and that's why I'm very, very upset about this, because this is going to have and leave very bad feelings for a long time in the Ottawa-Carleton area, and it was not necessary.

Finally the minister is here. He did not come to the hearings, he did not come to the clause-by-clause, but at least he's here at this point. He never came to Nepean, he never went to Gloucester, he never went to Kanata, and still his parliamentary assistant, and I think the member for Ottawa Centre earlier on, said, "The population of Ottawa-Carleton at large is in favour." How can he say that? What basis do you have to claim that the population of Ottawa-Carleton at large is in favour of your reforms? None.

I have done a survey. I've done several surveys. I did one last year, and the people of Nepean said to me, "Yes, we are prepared to look at regional reform, but only if it saves us money, and certainly not if it costs us money."

Again I did a survey in my most recent householder that was just distributed about three weeks ago, and I asked the people -- I tried to be as neutral in my question as possible, because you know how you can frame the question -- "Do you want the mayor to sit on regional council or not?" I tell you, 70% of the people who sent in their little reply sheet, and they're still coming in, said they're against dropping the mayors from regional council. I can tell you, people on the government side, I directed the hearings and I directed the people who spoke on behalf of Nepean. I can tell you, I would have perhaps liked to; I certainly did not.

The feeling that is out in Nepean, certainly in my municipality and in other parts of the region, is that they are very satisfied with their local government, they are basically satisfied with the regional government. They want some fine-tuning, but fine-tuning in a way that is going to give them more service at less cost. What are we going to get with this bill that we have in front of us? We are going to get more cost for less service, and that's the problem.

The minister's shaking his head. Well, Minister, last week, before this bill is even passed, we already had the first concrete evidence that it's going to cost us more. What did the municipality that has been pushing for this reform do? What was its first decision regarding regional government? They made their local politicians full-time. They increased their staff budget by $20,000. Is that cost-saving, I ask the minister?

In Nepean, we've had only seven politicians, who have been part-time -- part-time -- and they've done a very good job, because the fiscal record of the city of Nepean is the envy of the region and I would say the envy of the province.

Why is it, I ask the minister, that the city of Ottawa is in favour? It has the worst fiscal record, the worst management record in the region of Ottawa-Carleton, and they are the ones who are pushing for amalgamation. Well, it doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense to our municipality and it doesn't make sense to Gloucester and it doesn't make sense to Kanata, and that's what the representatives of these regions have said.

What we have seen, unfortunately, is politics of confrontation, and I think that's frankly the typical NDP approach. You pit one group against the other and then you benefit from it. But what I can't see is where the benefit for this government is going to be. I can see the benefit for the city of Ottawa, and I guess I have to congratulate it on succeeding to get the NDP government on its side.

But I say to the people of Nepean and Kanata and Gloucester and the rural municipalities that unfortunately we're on the losing side. But certainly we will make sure to hold this government accountable and to hold certainly the politicians of the city of Ottawa accountable, because we're afraid that they're going to burden us with increased costs.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for third reading of Bill 143.

Mr Philip, Minister of Municipal Affairs and member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, has moved third reading of Bill 143. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The division bells rang from 1611 to 1616.

The Acting Speaker: Could all members please take their seats.

We are dealing with Mr Philip's motion for third reading of Bill 143.

All those in favour, please rise one at a time and be recognized by the Clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Allen, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Chiarelli, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Duignan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, McGuinty, Mills, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Poole, Pouliot, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Swarbrick, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Winninger, Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Philip's motion, please rise one at a time and be identified by the Clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Beer, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Conway, Cousens, Crozier, Cunningham, Curling, Daigeler, Eddy, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Henderson, Hodgson, Johnson (Don Mills), Jordan, Mahoney, McLean, Morin, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), O'Neil (Quinte), O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poirier, Ramsay, Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 67; the nays are 35. I declare the motion carried.

I resolve that the bill do now pass and be entitled as in the motion.

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

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Projet de loi 138, Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I'm glad to see there's a large number of people here to listen to the remainder of this speech this afternoon, after that vote.

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): Why are they all leaving?

Mr Bradley: I've heard it said that when some members get up to speak the House fills up; sometimes it does the opposite.

I was pointing out in mid-speech the difficulty of making tax changes at a time when we're in a very competitive period in relation to other jurisdictions --

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please. The member for St Catharines is attempting to participate in the debate and there is a great deal of noise in the House.

Mr Bradley: This happens from time to time, I know, at the conclusion of a vote. The member for Sudbury is listening attentively.

I was mentioning in the latter part of my speech that --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Honestly, it's very difficult to hear the member for St Catharines. If you could bring order it would be helpful.

The Acting Speaker: I have much the same difficulty. I'm attempting to get the honourable members' attention that indeed it is very difficult to hear the member for St Catharines, who has the floor very legitimately.

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I know there are times when governments must gain some revenues to carry out their programs. For instance, years ago, I'm sure, when the Progressive Conservative government brought in the sales tax in Ontario, it was to gain revenues for the programs it was going to be involved in. When it brought in OHIP premiums many years ago, likewise I'm sure the Progressive Conservative government of the day raised those taxes simply because it needed the funds to meet its financial obligations. Even though, at that period of time, we were running deficits, as I well recall, deficit after deficit in those years of Progressive Conservative rule, they still needed the funds.

In those days, it wasn't a case of chasing potential investment out of the province; the province seemed to be able to sustain those kinds of increases. What we've got today, for whatever reason one wants to put forward, and there are a variety of reasons, is an extremely competitive regime; that is, there are other jurisdictions now which are trying to lure business and other investment out of the province of Ontario and into other jurisdictions, some of them other provinces, some of them other countries.

If we are to add to that tax burden, as this bill suggests, we make ourselves less competitive. If times were booming today, if there wasn't that much competition for Ontario in terms of gathering investment and retaining investment, people would still complain about a tax increase but the damage that could be done to the province potentially would be much less. It makes it difficult for this government because it's governing in times in which it is extremely difficult to govern in terms of the economic situation.

That's why it really means the government has to examine carefully all of its expenditures and decide what the priorities are. For instance, and this is borne out by surveys which governments have released, people want to see a good health care system and are prepared to pay to have a good health care system for all the citizens of this province. We are seeing an increasing number of people who would like to see our police forces and our court system with the necessary resources to fight crime, which is of great concern to many people, the deputy leader of the Liberal Party today suggesting that, for instance, in many communities he's visited recently that seems to be second only to the concern about jobs.

If the government were to apply these funds to matters that are of great concern to the general population and reduce or eliminate expenditures in non-essential areas, you would find there would be a better situation existing for attracting the kind of investment we want to see in Ontario. This, combined with a number of other taxes, adds a substantial burden.

I'm sure nobody on the other side -- the Treasurer most assuredly is one of those people -- wants to raise taxes, because it's very politically unpopular to do so. That is why I think we see governments moving to what they call "painless taxes." I have a very strong personal point of view on this, not one that is necessarily shared by all members of the opposition or all members of the government, that the government moves in the wrong direction when it simply tries to get more and more of its funding from gambling proceeds.

I wish -- and I think this will happen in four or five years -- there was a groundswell of support for assessing very carefully the impact on our society of the various new kinds of gambling before governments proceeded. It's so attractive -- because no one wants to pay new taxes that aren't so-called voluntary -- for governments to move into new areas of deriving funds from gambling. Yet we keep seeing reports coming in that these funds, that this regime of "Let's get into new and different ways of gambling" -- and it's not this government alone, by any means; virtually every jurisdiction today is attracted to new ways of gambling to get its funds.

I express again my concern that this province -- because I sit in this Legislature, but I would certainly apply that to other provinces, any federal jurisdictions, the states next to us. They're all moving far too rapidly into new gambling ventures before looking at the impact on very vulnerable people. Those are often people who are in desperate circumstances because of the fact that they don't have a lot of money, and this represents a chance to grasp at that chance and to perhaps become a millionaire or at least win a good deal of money through slot machines or these video terminals or lottery proceeds or something of that nature.

I'm told that now they're even installing bank machines in bingo halls so that if you didn't bring enough money to spend on gambling there's a bank machine there that you can get more money from.

For instance, people who enthusiastically went after offtrack betting for their establishments are taking a step back now and saying perhaps that isn't the route to go. I have an example in my own community of a tavern which enthusiastically went after and was successful in receiving the offtrack betting franchise, I guess I'll call it, and now I see in my local newspaper, the St Catharines Standard, that the same company has decided to give that up because their experience was not one which was ultimately beneficial to that business.

But what I'm just as concerned about is that there are very vulnerable people out there, gambling addicts, people who are desperate, don't have much money, and they are really the people we are taxing when we apply new gambling ventures to this province.

I hope the government will reconsider this particular legislation, withdraw the tax and try to ensure that Ontario is a competitive place for investment.

1630

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'd like to comment briefly on the remarks of the previous speaker with regard to Bill 138. It's interesting to note that the taxes had not even been put on yet for the beer and wine and here they are wanting to pass this bill to implement these taxes at 26 cents, but they've already reduced that to 13 cents.

What this bill does is add 5% on every person who's paid insurance in this province since last July, I believe, without any legislation being in place. This bill was brought in on May 10. Here we are, almost to May of the next year, and we're still dealing with last year's budgetary policies. I find it hard to believe that we're dealing with repealing the tire tax of $5 as part of this bill and that's already been off since last July 1. But for all those people who had to pay that extra 5% on their insurance, the legislation hasn't even been passed to do that yet. Also, there's the fact that parts and labour are all part of this bill, and the member who just spoke mentioned some of these things in his remarks.

When you look at the budgetary policies of this government and what it's doing to the people in Ontario, with regard to this bill and motor vehicles, many people had problems. They wanted to give a gift to one member of a family, and now they have to go through a whole process of buying a kit to make sure the process is in place. The onus being put on these individuals -- a mother who wants to give a car to one of her children now ends up paying a whole pile of money; plus, the Red Book inflates what the price was really intended to be.

The member speaks about some of the problems with the budgetary policies of this government that we can certainly see.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the member for St Catharines. One always wonders whether his comments today are different from when he originally started his speech, and what frame of mind he may be in, since I know his beloved Buffalo Sabres weren't successful last night. That may impact his mood and reaction.

The member for St Catharines said the taxes should be revoked. He did not provide any alternatives about what should be put in place. I want to remind the member that these taxes were part of our strategy to deal with the burgeoning deficit, to ensure it didn't get up to the close to $17-billion mark. We did the tax portion of that, we did the social contract, we did the expenditure control plan. Of course, now that the fiscal year is over, we can see that strategy was very successful in terms of getting a handle on the deficit issues, protecting jobs, and ensuring that we're going to be in a stronger position as the economic recovery is going to continue in 1994 and 1995.

I do wonder, though, what the member for St Catharines would put forward as an alternative if you take that tax off. Speaker, as you remember, their leader said we didn't cut enough; they wanted us to cut a couple more billion. They didn't say how. They didn't like the social contract, they didn't like what we did in the expenditure control plan, but we should cut more. It makes us wonder whether there are new ideas out there from the Liberal Party.

I have a great deal of respect for the member for St Catharines. He usually does have a lot of good ideas and creative ideas, but in this speech I didn't hear a lot of them. It sounded more like a lament, to me, from some of the past good old days of how things used to be.

Mr Mahoney: I actually wasn't going to comment, but remarks made by the member for Oxford have led me --

The Acting Speaker: We are commenting on the member for St Catharines.

Mr Mahoney: I know we are. His remarks are commenting on the member for St Catharines, so therefore, in a circuitous way, I will do the same.

For the member to actually suggest that, "We have a handle on the deficit," I think the words were, is really quite remarkable. What the member for St Catharines is talking about is a difference in time. When it might have made some sense several years ago to implement a particular tax for a particular purpose, today what this government fails to understand is that by increasing taxation -- as I see the Treasurer leaving the room -- increasing the percentage level of taxation, I say directly to the young member for Oxford, has decreased your revenue. Do you understand? Your revenue has actually gone down as the percentage of taxes has actually gone up. Don't shake your head; it's true.

Every year you say you have a handle on the deficit. Well, I'll tell you, you're wrestling the deficit to the ceiling in the province of Ontario.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Jerk.

Mr Mahoney: What you have managed to do in four years in government is take a total provincial debt of $39 billion and more than double it. By the time you're finished -- and we understand that your Treasurer will be coming in with a record low, for you, deficit of $8.5 billion next Thursday. Imagine calling an $8.5-billion deficit a record low deficit for a government, but that's what it is. You have actually increased the debt by increasing the deficit every single year, you've driven taxation through the roof and you've totally destroyed any confidence the consumer or the business community has in this province. If that's getting a handle on the deficit, we're all in big trouble.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant.

Mr Stockwell: Point of order.

The Acting Speaker: On a point of order, or a participant?

Mr Stockwell: Point of order, Mr Speaker: The comments made by the member for Downsview are most inappropriate and definitely out of order and I would ask him to withdraw them.

The Acting Speaker: I did not hear. Does the member for Downsview feel there were unparliamentary comments?

Mr Perruzza: Mr Speaker, I will say in this place and I'll say outside that the member for Mississauga is totally incompetent, and I'll repeat that from here to Anderson, Ontario, all the way up to the lake. I have no problem with that, and if he's got a problem with it, then he can --

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Perruzza: -- take it down to the bank.

Mr Stockwell: Well, I'll comment for the two minutes. That's not what he said. As usual from this member --

The Acting Speaker: Is this the final participant?

Mr Stockwell: -- what he says and what he attributes to being said are usually two different things. It's typical coming from this member.

I will comment, Mr Speaker, for two minutes. I wonder why this government does not comment on the GO rolling stock sale. Here's a clear example. They want to talk about taxes and deficits and tax loopholes. Remember when they got into power they were going to close all those tax loopholes and tax the corporate rich, the corporate welfare bums, they called them? What does this government do when it sells the GO rolling train stock? They take a trip to Bermuda, sell it to a Bermuda company, allow them to set up a shell company, transfer the assets to that shell company, all to avoid a federal tax, the 15% withholding tax.

I'm very surprised the member for Oxford didn't talk about that. He used to talk about the tax loopholes and the corporate welfare bums and the two-martini lunches. The first opportunity this government has to take advantage of a loophole with respect to the withholding tax, it flies its officials to Bermuda, closes a deal by selling the GO rolling stock, the trains, in Bermuda, not in this country, because if it closed it in this country it would have been subject to the tax laws of this country. Is that the ultimate in irony, coming from the socialists, the ultimate ironic statement from a government like this, that talked all those years about the corporate élite and the wealthy and the rich? One chance they have to pay the withholding tax, and they fly to Bermuda, set up shell companies and act like Bill Player and Rosenberg. It's awfully shameful.

I liked the comments made by the member for St Catharines. I'm very astounded that the member for Oxford -- who dresses like he's from Oxford now; a very good dresser, I might add -- wasn't commenting on that shell game you played with the taxpayers' money, you corporate welfare bum.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for questions and comments. The honourable member for St Catharines has two minutes in response.

Mr Bradley: I would like to first of all comment, because there have been many comments around here, that in fact the members on the government benches have improved their wardrobes considerably over the years. I want to compliment them. I look over there now and there are a lot of new suits, a lot of nice ties and so on, so I don't want to hear any of these stories about the government members --

Interjections.

Mr Bradley: I'm trying to be nice about it, because I see some new jackets, new ties and so on. This is great to see.

The you-brew tax is an example of where the Treasurer has recognized he's wrong and has made a modification to that tax. It took a lot of statements and a lot of questions from the opposition. The member for Ottawa South, for instance, made representation on many occasions in this House, and the Treasurer understood he was wrong on that. He understood the detrimental effect and he was prepared to withdraw that tax.

1640

Hon Howard Hampton (Minister of Natural Resources): What happened to your red tie? If you were loyal, you'd --

Mr Bradley: The Attorney General of years gone by says I don't have a red tie on today, obviously commenting on the wardrobe of people over here. I tell you, when you're in opposition, things are tough.

Hon Mr Hampton: What happened to red ties?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please.

Mr Bradley: I want to also say that when a Treasurer is prepared to withdraw a tax, he will find support over here. I think there was a round of applause that came from this side of the House when Mr Laughren announced that he was admitting his mistake and changing the tax on you-brews. That's what we're suggesting, that you do that and let the economy start to move in Ontario and then you will find those revenues coming in naturally from this stimulated economy.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe a quorum is present.

The Acting Speaker: I believe we have a request to check if there is a quorum.

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

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I'd like to say a few words with respect to Bill 138. This is one of several bills dealing with the 1993 budget. It is ironic that we're dealing with these bills about a week before the next budget, which will be on May 5.

This specific bill deals very briefly with a number of things which have been mentioned by other members in this House: the 8% tax on insurance for drug benefits, health benefits, dental benefits -- dirt. This is the tax that one of the Toronto media said, "They're even taxing dirt." This is the bill that sets the 5% tax on auto insurance and, of course, brew-your-own.

I must say, when you start looking at the rationale of why we're doing taxes, as to what this province is getting for the money that is being charged to the taxpayer of this province, we have to look at what this bill and other bills like it have done in one year. This bill and other bills have resulted in a total of $2 billion in new or increased taxes. That is an all-time, record-breaking tax grab for this province. It has resulted in the philosophy of this government resulting in another $10-billion deficit.

More seriously, it has resulted in a credit rating moving downward, the third in three years. The Provincial Auditor has refused to endorse the province's books. There is a tax revolt that's getting stronger and stronger with respect to this and other bills, resulting in the underground economy which is a very serious problem in this province. There is another forecasted revenue shortfall, an estimated $1.6 billion in lost revenue. When you look at the overall financial position with respect to this province, it's not good, specifically when you fit this bill in with all the other financial policies that are being put forward by this government.

The government did recognize, and there is an amendment coming along somewhere in this place with respect to you-brew, pursuant to a press release of April 18 when the province reduced the tax on produce-your-own beer and wine. Effective April 18, the tax applied to beer and wine made at produce-your-own outlets would decrease from 26 cents a litre to 13 cents a litre, and tax increases scheduled for June 15 of this year and June 15 of next year with respect to you-brew would not take place.

The difficulty is, of course, that meanwhile this is a new, struggling business, all these businesses, and there's about 100 of them that have simply gone out of business since this budget announcement was made last year. It's a rather expensive way for the government to find out that it made a mistake. I think that one has to look philosophically. This is a prime example of, will the levying of taxes necessarily mean an increase in revenue?

Someone mentioned during the response to one of the previous speakers the whole issue of the cigarette tax. I think that we're all predicting. The Treasurer has said, "Oh, well, revenue is going to fall as a result of the cutting of the cigarette tax." I will bet that there will be as much revenue, if not more, as a result of less activity in the underground economy. The predictions of what the underground economy is generating in this province are unbelievable, and I think that this government soon, if not with this bill, should start looking at that whole topic and how it's affecting this province.

I will make one further comment with respect to the you-brew industry. Here is an industry that was starting to get its feet off the ground. It was starting last year --

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): There are more improvements now than before the tax.

Mr Tilson: Well, I'm sorry, but the fact of the matter is that when this tax came into existence, a whole bunch of businesses went out of business, a whole number of jobs were lost.

This government over here is talking about how it's going to improve the jobs in this province and here, with the implementation of one tax, 200 businesses went out of business as a result of this tax. Now the Treasurer comes along and says, "Oops, I made a mistake." He's now going to reduce it, and meanwhile all these people have lost their jobs and businesses. People who have invested in a business have now lost their investment.

I would hope that the Treasurer, the Finance minister, would get his act together before he starts implementing these philosophies and looking at the effect as to where this province is going; for example, the whole issue of the beer industry, which, mind you, with the exception of you-brew, isn't really an issue with respect to this bill, but the whole issue of tax in the brewing industry.

In Ontario 47% of the $26.40 price for a case of 24, including the deposit, is a government tax. Mind you, the national tax average of 53% makes Canadian beer the most heavily taxed in the world. By comparison, the average US tax on beer is 18%. So you have to look at all of this.

It talks about doing business in Ontario, the cost of buying products, the cost of providing jobs. I can tell you, this whole philosophy that the government has entered into with Jobs Ontario, saying they're going to increase jobs in this province, when people start looking at the tax structure and the heavy burden on the employer, people are taking a second look as far as starting up a business in this province.

The issue of auto insurance: I think that this whole topic of auto insurance has been a very important issue for a number of years. It started off with the debate of changing the tort system to the OMPP, and the NDP, led by Mr Kormos, who became perhaps notorious for his 17-hour filibuster in this place, attacking the Liberal government for its OMPP philosophy on auto insurance.

Then, of course, the New Democratic Party came to power and said a number of things with respect to auto insurance, very little of which they followed. But they did say, "We're going to introduce Bill 164," and that is now law in this province, with the minister responsible for auto insurance saying there isn't going to be any more increase in the cost of auto insurance in this province.

1650

Have any of us looked at our premium notices since this government has taken office and since Bill 164 has taken effect? You have to start looking at these things, because the minister responsible for auto insurance says one thing and then, all of a sudden, the Finance minister comes along and says, "We're going to have a tax of 5% on auto insurance," at the same time as Bill 164 is being debated in this place.

It is a strange place, when the government is attempting to solve a defective Liberal system by saying premiums are going to be kept down. Premiums haven't been kept down, and one of the reasons that premiums haven't been kept down is Bill 164, of which much has been said in this place; but the other is the 5% tax that is being billed to the people of this province through this Bill 138.

There are higher auto insurance costs as a result of this bill. There are higher auto insurance costs as a result of Bill 164. I can tell you that when you start looking at the 5% tax that's being put on auto insurance premiums now by this bill, you add that to the 3% premium tax, which Mr Laughren, the Finance minister, introduced some time ago, which was a hidden tax built into premiums, so in effect there's an 8% tax. On top of that there was the 4.4% that the consultants for the government who were putting forward Bill 164 had said would take place, and then there are the usual increases that seem to have risen each year because of increased costs of auto insurance.

So there are people who are getting insurance bills, insurance premiums, in their envelopes, addressed to them, to be paid forthwith, of increases of anywhere between 20% and 30%. It's a very strange situation. Why would the government with this bill pick on, of all things, auto insurance to try to bring revenue into its coffers in an area where it has been trying to keep the cost of auto insurance down? It's a very strange thing to do.

Of course, there are other issues. Now we're going to have, will the NDP pay brokers to become tax collectors? Essentially that's what's happening. The brokers will have to collect the tax, more forms to complete, more funny paperwork to fill out by the insurance brokers.

Then there's the issue of the favourite topic of this government and other governments: the GST. We talk about harmonizing the tax between GST and PST. That has been a favourite topic of both federal and provincial governments across this country. There is no GST with respect to your auto insurance, but for some unearthly reason, this government has decided to tax auto insurance. So now we're having more complications, more paperwork, more strange paperwork with respect to the general public. It is becoming more and more difficult to do business in this province, specifically with respect to auto insurance.

There are higher auto insurance costs again after we were promised by Mr Charlton, the minister responsible for auto insurance, that we would have cheaper premiums in exchange for the right to sue with a no-fault scheme. That was his promise. Of course his Treasurer, his Finance minister, has stabbed him in the back with this 5% tax, but that was his promise. That was the promise on behalf of this government, and I can tell you, it is making people, anybody in this province, very, very angry.

I can speak specifically with respect to the people in my riding, the riding of Dufferin-Peel, which consists of the county of Dufferin and the town of Caledon, areas where most people who work have to travel by automobile. They live out in the country. They work in the south, in Mississauga, Brampton, the Toronto area, or they work in other areas and they have to use their automobiles to get to places of work.

It's become a very mobile society, not only for pleasure driving, but for their cost of living, and this is another cost. It's another cost to those people, with respect, because they need to have the automobile. There are some people in this province, I suppose, people in Metropolitan Toronto, who don't need an automobile.

So one starts looking at the fairness of tax. These people need automobiles. People in my riding are saying: "Well, it's another cost." You know, we've had cost increases with respect to tax and the issue with respect to auto insurance premiums. They just groan and they don't understand it; they simply don't understand it. All they know is that their insurance premiums are going up, and we know by this bill that they're going up by at least 5%, so people don't understand.

I will tell you one other thing. I've always taken the position that this 5% tax is a tax on a tax. In 1992 -- I think it was 1992 -- the Finance minister reinstated the 3% premium on auto insurance tax. This was a hidden tax which was built into the auto insurance premium. Now there's going to be a 5% tax on that, on the 3% that's hidden within the premium, so there will be a tax on a tax: the 3% premium which is hidden, and then on the overall cost there will be a 5% tax, so it's a tax on a tax.

The 8% on home insurance and group benefits certainly is giving a great concern to the employers in this province, specifically with respect to benefits, and I will be speaking about that. That's a topic which many people in this province who are trying to provide jobs are concerned about, because we've got into a system of providing benefits to our employees. Many are in their employee contracts, their union contracts. It's part of the system of their salary plus benefits, and here is yet another burden that is going to be put on the backs of the employers to provide health benefits with respect to this province.

I can tell you that there are many employers in this province who are looking at, can we afford it? We've got a difficult recessionary period where income isn't the way it used to be. We have more bureaucracy in this province, more difficulty, more competition to deal with other jurisdictions around us. We've got increased personal tax; we've got all kinds of taxes under this system. It's becoming more and more difficult to keep a job and to provide jobs. So something's got to give. Either people are going to lose their jobs or salaries are going to remain the same or be lowered, or there's going to be a lowering of benefits, because there's so much money in the pot that the employer has to pay to make a living to keep his or her business going. There's only so much money there, so eventually something's going to have to give.

I debated last week the issue with respect to the health tax and how that's being put on the backs of the employers. So there are more and more taxes that are being put on the backs of the employers, and the employer is finally going to say to the employee or to the union that he or she is negotiating with: "I don't have any more money because of the strange tax system that we've got in this province. There's just no more. It's not going to pay me to operate a business in this province."

That issue of jobs is the main issue that concerns the people of this province, and the government stands up and talks about Jobs Ontario and the various programs they have to stimulate jobs. But the fact of the matter is that there's only so much money available and this type of tax, this 5% tax on benefits, is creating major problems with respect to the employer.

I guess we could start looking at the total tax, the total increase in premiums, before I would close with respect to the issue of premiums in this province for auto insurance. On the very face of it, depending on the increases from company to company, there is at the very minimum a tax increase of 17% on auto insurance premiums in this province. Then, of course, depending on the policies of the particular insurance company, that goes anywhere up to 30%. I have had people in my riding of Dufferin-Peel tell me that they're getting insurance increases of up to 30% and they don't understand it. So when you start looking at the various taxes that have been set -- the 3% tax, the 5% tax that's been added to auto insurance, the four-point increase that was put on as a result of Bill 164 and the 5% increase each year with respect to auto insurance, it makes people absolutely dizzy. They have no idea why and they simply don't understand it.

1700

They're becoming very, very cynical with respect to this government and other governments that have come along and said, "We're going to keep insurance rates down." The Liberals said it, because Mr Peterson suddenly discovered that the tort system may not be working. Insurance premiums were going up, so he introduced the OMPP. This particular government, the NDP government, went absolutely bonkers over that and criticized that whole philosophy.

Now of course we've got Bill 164, plus this bill which adds an unbelievable cost to insurance.

Insurance agencies are sending out notices to their policyholders. I have one that was sent to me, just to show what they're doing in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, but I suspect that similar agencies are doing the same, to explain to the public why their premiums are going up. They've talked about this 5% tax through Bill 138; they've talked about the increases of premiums due to the implementation of Bill 164; they've talked about how beginning January 1, 1994, you will no longer be able to sue for economic loss.

I'm quoting some literature that was sent out by one of the agencies in one of the municipalities in my riding, Orangeville Insurance. They say:

"Beginning January 1, 1994, you will no longer be able to sue for economic loss if you suffer serious bodily injuries in an auto accident. This means that you will not be able to sue for the loss of money you would have earned from being employed. Who will that change affect most? High-income earners, those with net incomes greater than $1,100 per week; students with a high future income earning potential; persons whose present income does not reflect future earning potential, and others with special need for additional coverage."

Then they say there's a need for other alternatives and they offer, as other insurance companies are offering across this province, additional insurance. So as of January 1, an excess economic loss endorsement has been approved by the companies that this agency represents, and I presume other companies across this province, "This endorsement provides excess coverage over the new basic plan, to the degree that you are not responsible for the accident, in the case of serious injuries from an accident occurring in Ontario."

The ironic part of course is that here we have a tax on auto insurance, we have Bill 164 which is going to cost us more yet it's taking away more rights, and now we have insurance companies saying, "We recommend that you buy more insurance coverage," and of course this government's going to tax that policy. So there'll be a 5% tax on this new coverage that's being offered by insurance companies to cover people whom they used to cover under the OMPP.

Not only that, you start looking at the benefit regulations that are being set forward by Bill 164. The problem with that of course is that the insurance companies have no idea where they're going with this thing, because you're going to be paying for ever. The benefits are going for ever and they have no idea.

The system is doomed to failure, yet you have the gall to levy a 5% tax on auto insurance premiums. As I say, technically it's a triple tax. You've got a tax on the 3%, the hidden premium tax, then you've got the 5% tax on auto insurance premiums and then you've got a tax on the insurance coverage that people are going to have to get because they don't have enough coverage.

It's one of the most bizarre things you've done to auto insurance coverage in this province. It's putting insurance companies in a great deal of risk. They simply don't know what they're going to do, particularly some of the smaller companies. They're worried. Then of course you've got legislation. Bill 164 says, "If you want to get out of it, you can't get out of it." It's a very difficult thing.

I've said enough. I haven't got very much time left with respect to auto insurance other than to say that this is the most damaging perspective in my assessment with respect to the bill.

The other issue is with respect to group benefits. This new tax will certainly raise the cost of insurance to employers. Group tax benefits, health, dental and disability, already represent 5% to 6% of payroll costs. Again we're looking at the amount of money that employers have to keep their businesses going, and yet Bill 138 says, "We're going to add more on to that."

The expansion of the expense the employers are being put to is being made larger and larger and larger, and they're going to finally say: "Why bother? Why do business in Ontario? Why bother?" That's the fear I have. You may say, "Oh, well, it's only a small tax," but you add this to the employer health tax, you add this to all the other taxes that are being levied against the employer, and it creates a grave concern with respect to employers.

Many employers have been struggling to stay alive during this recessionary period, and you have the gall to add this other expense. There have been certain rapid increases with respect to employee benefit costs as governments, to use the words of Blue Cross president Dunbar Russel, "peel away the onion of health care and transfer costs to the private sector." Now, of course, with this bill, they're facing yet another burden of a tax on the private sector, on the people who are trying to provide jobs in this province. Virtually all the insurance premiums get respent on claims.

I've had people write me with respect to the benefits and the increase their businesses are going to be put to, and they're simply saying they'll be forced to cut back.

Here's a letter from Plastiflex in Orangeville that expressed their concern with respect to the benefit package that they're now going to be obliged -- it keeps increasing, increasing, increasing. They say: "This will cause us to review our policy again to determine areas of savings. Unfortunately, this most likely means we will be forced to downgrade the coverage carried, thus reducing coverage to our employee base."

This is just one example of letters I received in my riding, and I suspect similar businesses all across this province are saying the same thing. My fear is that this in turn is affecting people this government is trying to help: the workers of this province. Yet here is an employer putting us on notice that they simply don't have the money to pay what you want them to pay, all for your funny financial policies.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I don't believe we have a quorum present.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Would you please verify if we have a quorum in the House.

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

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1710

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

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel.

Mr Tilson: There's an excellent article I saved from the Globe and Mail of May of last year which talks about the cost to employers. There's an article by Margo Gibb-Clark on May 21 of last year. It talked about one of the things I don't think this government has considered, that companies with fleets of trucks or cars, or companies that simply depend on transportation and the auto insurance they have to pay, will be especially hard hit. As well, there is the 8% on insurance premiums for employee benefits, so they're getting doubly hit.

The article goes on to say, "Health and dental benefits and disability insurance can easily cost an employer 5.75% or more of gross payroll." These are comments by a consultant at William M. Mercer Ltd. "Most employers pay the full shot." They do. Most employers across this province pay the full shot, and so it's they who are getting stuck with this thing.

"Depending on how generous the benefits are, this could add $100 to $150 a year even for an employee who earned...$25,000. For a staffer earning a $40,000 salary, costs could go up $160 to $240," -- that's per employee -- "and for a $70,000 employee the figure could be as high as $420" per employee. It's a lot to expect the employers of this province to carry the burden for the financial wizardry this Finance minister is trying to put forward.

General Motors of Canada, in the same article, talked about "extra costs of several million dollars a year for its 40,000 employees.... GM also offers some health benefits to between 25,000 and 30,000 retired workers, which would add further to its expenses."

I don't think the government's thought this out. I don't think they've thought out, as they have not with many taxes, the effect this is going to have on the very issue they're trying to solve. The government members stand up -- and I believe their sincerity. They know there's an employment problem in this province and the members on the government side continually stand up and talk about how they're trying to save jobs. Yet they sit by and watch these bills, such as Bill 138, be passed in this place, attacking the very people who are paying the employees, who are creating the jobs in this province. So what they're doing is completely contradictory.

I've got roughly a minute left. I received a letter from a widowed pensioner who's on a fixed income. This is a letter from a lady in Shelburne and she is very concerned about the tax on the insurance premiums, specifically with respect to health plan participants who pay 100% of their premiums. This is a widow.

"The Ontario government's budget is totally unacceptable for seniors in my position. I am a spouse of a superintendent teacher who has been on a D pension for 20 years. Are you prepared to do anything about this matter?"

That's the question that's being asked by constituent after constituent in my riding of Dufferin-Peel, and I'm certain it's being asked by constituents to members on the government side and members in the opposition, the fact that we're standing by watching people sink lower and lower in terms of the standard of living.

I'm totally opposed to Bill 138, as are members of the Progressive Conservative caucus. Any increase of taxes at this time, in a recessionary time, is certainly untenable, and I would strongly recommend that the government change its mind and vote down this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Wiseman: I sat here this afternoon listening to a Tory talking about how concerned they are about business and the business climate in the province. I had to hold my breath, because I could not believe what they were saying.

The myth out there is that the Tories are friendly to business. Let's take a look at some of the facts about what the Tory government in Ottawa was able to give us over its tenure as an example of what Tories do when they get power.

In 1991, this business-friendly party increased unemployment insurance rates by 7% at the time when the provincial government of Ontario was putting about $700 million into the anti-recession package to put people back to work. In fact, what this Tory party did was suck all the money out of Ontario that the Ontario government was putting into job creation. They sucked it out with this increase in the unemployment insurance.

Let's take another look at this Tory business-friendly party that increased the interest rates in 1987 to about 15%, jacked the dollar up from 72.5 cents to 89 cents, practically destroyed the export market for our businesses in this province. Not in my wildest socialist nightmare would I have thought that I would have done that, but the Tories did that; the Tory business-friendly party did that.

They changed the Bank Act, Bill C-19. They changed the Bank Act, which now allows the banks to pull lines of credit, to do in small businesses on a regular basis and give no support to them whatsoever. If this is an example of Tory support for small business, I think the businesses out there better stick with the socialists because we're a lot more sympathetic to them than that party is and than that party has shown over the years.

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Thank you for allowing me to have a few comments. I was interested most particularly in the member's speech on taxes on auto insurance premiums, because what that really speaks to is the nerve that this government has in making sure that it gets the very essential elements for people's everyday living.

In my part of the province, in all parts of this province, we must have transportation, and most people have cars or trucks or some type of motor vehicle. If you expect to drive it legally on the streets and roads of this province, you have to have insurance. When you have to buy insurance, the price that you have to pay is the price you have to pay plus 8% for the federal government. There is no discretion. You must pay the price.

Mr Laughren, the Minister of Finance, and the rest of the people have locked in on this as one of those areas that is fail-safe with respect to raising money from those people who must drive vehicles: farmers, seniors, young people, middle-aged people, employed people, unemployed people. Anybody who gets around in this province by use of a private motor vehicle has to pay the price.

That, to me, is a sign that this government has gone the wrong way, in forcing people to increase the cost of doing business: Force the people to increase the cost of being able to go from their homes to the grocery stores, force the people to pay the government a toll every time they step in their automobile. If there is anything more cynical than that, I don't know what it is.

When we were there, we removed that premium tax and some people yelled and screamed that it was the wrong thing to do. I'll tell you, it was the right thing because it reduced the cost of auto insurance. Now these people have put it back on.

Mr Stockwell: I'd like to pick up on the theme with respect to the insurance. We know full well the backtracking this government did with respect to publicly run auto insurance and the fallout from that. There have been a succession of decisions made by this government that were particularly offensive I think to the rank-and-file New Democrats.

Probably it has a lot to do and has related very directly to the fact they get 6% and 7% in by-elections. Not so much that they've alienated the groups that really weren't supporters of theirs, but the bedrock community that used to support them, the socialists who used to support them, have been directly affected or directly offended by some of the kinds of decisions that have come forward.

Auto insurance is one, gambling is another. These kinds of things really upset the public, or specifically the socialists' bedrock support. That's why, when you go to Don Mills or Victoria-Haliburton or any of these ridings where we have by-elections, you're getting like 6% of the vote.

Having said that, I want to comment on the insurance issue. I am glad they didn't go for government-run auto insurance. If they did, can you imagine the unemployment rates we'd be looking at today if all those people in the auto insurance industry were put out of work? It would have been terrible. It was a bad decision. It was a bad idea.

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy and Minister Responsible for Native Affairs): That's why we decided --

Mr Stockwell: Oh, I applaud you for not doing it. I never believed in it, I wouldn't have campaigned on it and I'm glad you saw the light once you were in government. Much of what Mr Wiseman had to say always can be attributed back to what he was mouthing off about when he campaigned and is directly different to what he has done in government.

1720

But I will say this: If a government is going to force the population to buy a product, it doesn't have any right to tax it at that point, and I say directly to this government, I find very offensive your 5% PST on insurance. If you're going to make people buy insurance to drive legally in this province, you should have no right to tax them on top of the regulation you make them buy in auto insurance. When I speak to people, that is a number one complaint: "You tell me I have to buy insurance, and then you tax me on top of the mandatory purchase of the insurance." That, to me, is unacceptable and really bad.

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): It's unfortunate that the issue here is being diverted from the real problem, which is the problem of the excessive cost of premiums. It's unfortunate to have to tax any commodity, including auto insurance.

Am I enthusiastic about imposing a sales tax on auto insurance? Of course not. But the fact remains, notwithstanding what Mr Stockwell would tell you, the problem is that this government didn't implement public auto insurance. The problem is that this government caved in to interests which were entirely alien to what New Democrats and their supporters had believed in for so long until the 1990 election and, I tell you, what New Democrats and their supporters continue to believe in. That is that the real solution to the issue of high premiums and exorbitant costs for drivers is, yes, a public automobile insurance system.

Indeed, daily I receive inquiries and expressions of grievance from people across the province who are confronted with the problem not only of ever-climbing premiums, but of motorcycle operators, for instance, who are simply being closed right out of the market; a regulatory system which is no more capable of keeping the insurance industry in check than it was under the Liberals or before them under the Tories; and a so-called no-fault system which continues to punish innocent victims day after day after day.

The fact is that Bill 164 is a failure, just as 68 was. The fact is that no-fault auto insurance is a great success for the insurance industry, and it's an attack on premium payers and on innocent victims. Tired old song: So be it. The fact is that the evidence is there. The problem isn't the tax; the problem is the absence of a public automobile insurance system.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Dufferin-Peel, you have two minutes.

Mr Tilson: I thank the members for responding to the comments I have. All I can say, particularly to the member for Durham West, is that I represent the riding of Dufferin-Peel in the provincial Legislature. I have no say as to what a Tory federal government's doing or what a Liberal federal government's doing.

I can tell you that all I know is that business in the province of Ontario is getting more and more difficult to undertake. There's a myriad of taxes that have been created by this government and by the previous Liberal government, taxes that people don't understand for policies they simply don't want.

Since 1985 the Liberals and the NDP have levied 65 new or increased taxes in this province, and this Bill 138 is one of them. Ontarians have absorbed $7.6 billion in new or increased taxes since 1985. That's a lot of taxes. From 1985 to 1993, personal income per capita in Ontario has increased by 53.5%, but the per capita provincial tax burden has been increased by 73.3%.

You people have the nerve to say that you're creating jobs in this province. What you're doing is, you're burying the employer. You're burying the employer by strange taxes that you've created, and Bill 138 is one of them.

In 1985, provincial tax revenues equalled 8.8% of the Ontario gross domestic product but will amount to 11.2% of our GDP this coming year. The average Ontario family paid $663 more in additional taxes in 1993 than when the NDP took office. So again, defeat this bill.

The Deputy Speaker: Any further debate? No? If not, the member for Oxford.

Mr Sutherland: I just want to conclude the debate on this bill by saying a few things. Many of the Liberal members talked about decreasing taxes and their concerns about it. They fail to remember the fact that it was the Liberal government that increased the provincial sales tax from 7% to 8% in some of the best economic times. It was they who imposed the commercial concentration tax. It was they who imposed the tire tax. Mind you, let me say the concentration tax and the tire tax are being removed by this government.

Let me say too that with respect to when we get into committee there will be some amendments proposed, one of them related to you-brews.

I just want to comment too about what the Tory members have said about this government driving business out of the province. I look around at my fellow members sitting here, and I see where the economic activity is taking place. I see the member for Chatham-Kent, and Commercial Alcohols Inc is going to invest over $100 million for an ethanol plant. I see the member for Middlesex, and I see what Dimona Aircraft is investing in there. I know there's another plant coming to Strathroy that's going to create new jobs. I think of the $4-billion worth of investment by the auto sector in this province while this government has been in power.

It's very clear: Jobs are coming here. There are many people who do want to invest in the province of Ontario because they know we have a good workforce, because they know it is a good place to invest, they're going to get a good return, they're going to be producing good products for the worldwide market.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's unusual for me to interrupt a member when he is speaking, but we are called to order several times when the issue at hand is not being addressed. Rather than beginning to fight the election on investment possibilities, are we not speaking about a tax measure?

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Oxford, you have the floor.

Mr Sutherland: Let me just say that the member for Bruce wants to interject. He keeps complaining that I'm not participating in debates, and now when I am, he's still not happy. Maybe he's unhappy because we are talking about the reality of what's going on in this province. Despite what the two opposition parties -- doom and gloom -- want to say, there are many people who want to invest in this province because they know they can get a profit, they want to employ people, and they know that this government is willing to work with them to support them in investing in this province and getting people back to work.

I look forward to when we move into committee of the whole and deal with some of the amendments on this bill. I'd like to conclude the second reading debate.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Sutherland has moved second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

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

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it.

The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.

The Deputy Speaker: Please stop the bells. "Pursuant to standing order 28(g), I request that the vote on the motion by the Honourable Floyd Laughren for second reading of Bill 138, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, be deferred until immediately preceding orders of the day on Wednesday, April 27, 1994."

Is it the pleasure --

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: We got into a real problem here on another occasion when people raced up to the Speaker's chair and we were told, "Don't hurry, don't panic." Now what you have done is you have accepted one. We've asked for the deferral not to occur at routine proceedings but to have the matter deferred to a time which is specified in our request, which is 4:15 pm of the clock.

1730

It is, unless you are changing your mind or the mind of the Chair from a previous event, not dignified to race to try to beat somebody else to the Chair so that we can get precedence. If you have accepted theirs but are not accepting ours, I want to know the directions as to how you determine which of these deferrals is to be acceptable. Could you please advise me how you're going to deal with that issue of difference?

The Deputy Speaker: I will answer his point of order first. I agree it was not a nice sight when this happened the last time. At the same time, I must recognize that the first one that reached me was this gentleman and I accepted it as such. You didn't come both at the same time. But that's my ruling.

Mr Elston: So we have to race. We were misadvised.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It's standing order 28(g) that the whip refers to in the motion to defer, is that correct?

The Deputy Speaker: That's correct.

Mr Stockwell: Standing order 28(g), as I read it, says: "During the ringing of division bells as provided in clause (f)," -- I want to be very clear on this because it is somewhat technical -- "the vote may be deferred at the request of any chief whip of a recognized party in the House. The Speaker shall then defer the taking of the vote to a specified time..."

"A specified time," in my mind, is 4:15, 6 o'clock, 5:30, whatever. But "a specified time" is not after routine proceedings, because there's nothing specific about the time routine proceedings will end. So therefore we don't have a specified time as to when the vote will take place other than after routine proceedings. Now, as I read the standing orders, it says very clearly "a specified time." That doesn't say "around" or "near" or "close to"; it says a time. If we don't have a time, ideally, of 3:15 or 3:30, then it doesn't conform to the standing orders.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay. I'm sure that all the members in the House understand that the Speaker has to rely on the regulations, on the procedures, and this is what I'm doing. It says "4:15." May I advise you that if you feel that it does create some problems, some difficulties for you, members, all that you have to do is refer it to the committee on the Legislative Assembly and bring in a change. That is your prerogative. That is the end of the point of order. Please, let's not start a debate.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When we had the big problem before with three members rushing to the Chair, your directions to this House were that everybody should proceed with decorum and present their material to the Chair.

It turns out that the member for Huron was not even in his seat. He was occupying, out of order, a seat that is generally available to the member for Wentworth North. He sidles up to your chair and walks up and presents you with his document before I could move from my seat, where I am sitting, to produce it to you in some manner of decorum, as you instructed us, as you led us to believe that when we were presided over by the Chair that we should give you, in turn, the requests for the vote and you would consider them. It wasn't first come, first served. If that in fact was your instruction, then we would have all raced to the Chair to be there first. You said, "Don't do that; that will not be the way that this House is operated."

Having said that, can you now advise us, sir, that you will accept none other than the first to reach you? In which case, the next time there is a deferred vote to be taken, there will be three people hovering around the Chair so that they can get their position first on the dais.

Second point: Mr Speaker, I want to ask you this question. In terms of the deferral of the vote, the idea of the standing order, which has been enumerated, which has been spoken about by my friend the member for Etobicoke West, was the fact that it is to be deferred to a time which is reasonable for all the parties in the House; it is not, as a result, it seems to me, to have the government party get its way to defer it to its time period without any regard whatsoever for the convenience of the minority.

I happen to be a member of the Liberal Party of Ontario, which is, with the Conservative Party, the minority in this House. We have a right to have it deferred to a time which is reasonable for our considerations. We have fewer members and we ought to be able to marshall them to a specific time. In this case I have requested 4:15 because that fits not only with the needs of our particular party to have our members back here to defeat this tax bill, but it also happens to comply with the time which is reasonable for the people in the Conservative Party.

It is not open to the Chair, in my view, to make a decision, because the government gave you their deferral first, to make us vote on their time frame because it is convenient for them. In fact, the House must arrange for a time which is convenient to all of us so that the members can be here to vote.

I ask you to clearly identify --

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Please give a chance to the Chair to listen attentively to what is being said.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, on the same point, if I might, I would like to raise a couple of points. First of all, there is nothing in the standing orders that says that members cannot be sitting in other than their own seat when they put in a deferral motion. Let's be clear about that. In this case, the member was not sitting in his seat, but there is nothing in the rules that says he or she has to be to submit a deferral motion.

Second, with respect to the comments made by the member for Etobicoke West, if anyone in this House cares to look over at least the last three years where we have put in deferral motions, they will see very clearly that on numerous occasions the deferral slip has only said "after routine proceedings."

We have operated in this House on that basis at least since I was the House leader, which was three years ago. There is no need for the deferral slip to have any specific time.

Third, I think it's incumbent on all members of the House to be here when there are votes. That is the way we have tried to operate in this House, and I would hope the members of the opposition will have their members here, as we will try to, at a time after routine proceedings tomorrow.

Finally, Mr Speaker, I think you have already ruled with respect to this motion and I would suggest we should probably get on with the business of this House.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): In reading section 28(g), I think it was created to allow some accommodation for a party, particularly on an afternoon when it was not able to muster its troops, to allow the division bells to be rung at a later time so that more people in the Legislature could attend and vote on it.

There are two points. First is that perhaps you dismissed the argument of the member for Etobicoke West prematurely in terms of saying it should be a definite time, ie, that it should be 3 o'clock, 4:15, 5:15 or whatever, rather than a time within the legislative process which may take place tomorrow.

As I understand it, the way the government request has been put to you, it is a matter of a point within the proceedings. Therefore, I have no idea, as a member of this Legislature, whether the vote is going to take place at 2:45 tomorrow afternoon, whether it's going to take place at 3:15 or is going to take place at 4 o'clock tomorrow. It depends how long we take tomorrow afternoon with regard to when that part of the process will occur.

I think the whole idea within the standing order was that if a party, and all three parties can do this through their whip --

Interjections.

Mr Sterling: There's really not much sense in me making a statement until you're paying attention.

As I was saying, I think the object of the rule is to let all members of this Legislature know when they must be ready to come and vote in this Legislature. Therefore, the government giving you a notice that it's going to occur some time during the process of tomorrow afternoon's hearing isn't really adequate. I do not know whether the vote is going to take place at 2:45 or 3:45. The whole purpose of the deferral is to give me notice, as an individual member, that that is in fact happening.

1740

The other part which I think you should perhaps consider, Mr Speaker, or the Speaker should consider, is that if you read section 28(g), it says:

"The Speaker shall then defer the taking of the vote to a specified time, but not later than 6 pm on the next sessional day, at which time the bells shall be rung for not more than five minutes."

I contend that if the government chooses to defer the vote on a bill -- in fact, if any whip defers the vote -- if there is a disparity about when tomorrow the various members of this Legislature want that vote to take place -- in other words, the whip of the governing party says one time, the whip of the Liberal Party says one time or the whip of my party says another time -- in reading the specific standing order, Mr Speaker, if you had to resolve the dispute, I would say what you should really do is take the latest time which is put forward by any whip in this Legislature.

Therefore, if they cannot come together, then it should come as close to 6 pm as possible. In other words, if one of the parties wants it delayed to five minutes to 6, that would be the time you would choose.

The Deputy Speaker: Okay, thank you. Please take your seat.

I believe I've been patient enough and I've listened to all the arguments. You are bringing good arguments. It's obviously a problem, and it is not for me to decide how it should be solved. It should be solved by the House leaders. Please get together and try to arrive at a decision. My first --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The first document I received was from the member for Huron, who obviously was not sitting in his place. That is a mistake, perhaps, that the Chair may have made. Had there been two people coming at the same time, if you look at the distance, the first one who would have arrived would have been the member for Bruce.

There is a problem, there is a difficulty, there is an issue that you should decide. My ruling has been this one here, and I will abide by this one.

Mr Stockwell: What about the ruling on the timing?

The Deputy Speaker: Orders of the day.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Motion for second reading, Bill 110, An Act to amend the Employer Health Tax Act and the Workers' Compensation Act.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Turnbull had the floor the last time.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I didn't hear your ruling with respect to 28(g). I didn't hear your ruling, maybe because the member for Lambton was wailing.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West, please take your chair. My ruling has been made.

Mr Stockwell: What is your ruling?

The Deputy Speaker: My ruling I have just told you. Let me not repeat this. I've asked for orders of the day. The member for York Mills now has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: Not on the race for the chair on 28(g). You didn't rule on it.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: If you're going to rule against it, rule against it. Just rule.

Mr Sterling: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Surely every member of this Legislature has the right to raise points of order in this Legislature and demand of the Speaker that he either rule against or for his particular argument. That is what the member for Etobicoke West is asking you.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): On the timing.

Mr Sterling: On the timing.

The Deputy Speaker: I apologize that perhaps I did not express my opinion as clearly as I should. Let me repeat it again. I've said very clearly that the first document I have received is the one I consider, and that's the one that was brought to me by the member for Huron. That is my ruling; that is my decision.

Orders of the day.

Mr Stockwell: That's not my point of order. This is nuts.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills, please, you have the floor.

Mr Elston: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would ask that you review the advice you gave this House the last time there were multiple deferral notices which were delivered to you at the chair. I think you instructed the House that there would not be any requirement for any racing of these things, that you would not be giving any particular precedence to the first received.

If you are changing that ruling, if you are changing that advice, then you owe us an explanation as to when the Chair decided that it was not necessary for us to race to your chair. Had I known the first to be received would be the only one that would be at all decided upon, I would have gone and stood right directly in front of your chair at the time you called for the bells. That means that we were led to believe we didn't have to be the first document received.

If you could, sir, review the advice that you gave to this House and explain to us when and why you changed your advice, then I would be much more content.

The Deputy Speaker: If it is agreeable to the House, I certainly will look into it and report back to the House.

Mr Elston: You will advise us.

The Deputy Speaker: I will do so. I will advise you accordingly.

We have now gone through orders of the day and I will now recognize the member for --

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Please.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I'm asking that you review the Hansard from what was requested today, because my point of order had nothing to do with the people running up and giving you a piece of paper. That's all you've ruled on. My point of order had everything to do with whether or not "after routine proceedings" was considered a specified time. That was my request on a point of order.

I've not heard your ruling. I've not heard you address my ruling. Three times I've heard you address the ruling of racing to your chair. I understand your ruling. I accept that ruling. All I'm looking for is a ruling on whether "after routine proceedings" is a specified time. I always thought a specified time was a period of time on the clock that we look up at here: 3:30, 4:30. That's a specified time. "Routine proceedings" is not specified at all.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Please let's make sure we settle this once and for all. It has been the practice in the past where it was indicated the day only. That was the practice. Obviously --

Mr Elston: Mr Speaker, on that issue, sir, it says, particular the standing order, the day has nothing to do with it. There is no obligation except that the Chair must accept a deferral no later than the following sitting day by 6. That's not the specified time that we're worried about here, sir, because the standing orders clearly govern that issue. It is "specified time," ie, on the clock, in terms of the vote. I think that you really have misinterpreted the rule in that regard.

Hon Miss Martel: Point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes, I will recognize you afterwards. I will recognize you. Please take your chair.

It says in the standing order "a specified time." It doesn't say the hour. It says "a specified time." At the request of the member for Bruce, I said that I will advise you accordingly. I will advise you as to why the Chair indicated what I just said. So we've called orders of the day. I will now ask the member for York Mills to please debate the bill.

EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPÔT PRÉLÉVÉ 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 prélévé sur les employeurs relatif aux services de santé et la Loi sur les accident du travail.

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): When I last was speaking to this bill, Bill 110, the Employer Health Tax Amendment Act, I was reflecting on the job-killing aspect of this bill.

The fundamental question that we have to ask ourselves is, how do we fund health care? That's a very problematic question, one which throughout the world many governments have struggled with, and there can be little doubt that we have a problem in Ontario. The health care system in this province is in decline. It's widely accepted that the health care system is in decline.

I want to reflect back on the last election when Mr Rae, then Leader of the Opposition, now the Premier of this province, promised nurses an increase in pay. The interesting thing was that here was one of the better promises that they made in the election.

1750

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Did they give them the money?

Mr Turnbull: Well, they gave them some of the money, but then they took their jobs away. If one were to go and ask those nurses who are out of work today, I suspect the nurses would sooner have less pay and a job than no job, but that seems to be the path of this government.

It seems that, to a great extent -- we're losing the Chair. If you want to adjourn the House and debate this point of order, perhaps you might want to do that; I'm quite amenable.

The NDP government used to make a lot of statements about how they were going to improve health care, but what have they done? They have strangled the health care system in this province. The government would have you believe that in point of fact they have done some very brave things to the health care system, but what have they done? They've closed hospital wards.

Hospitals have responded by saying there are ways we can address these problems. We recognize that the government has a fiscal problem. What about allowing us to maintain those wards in an open state and take in paying customers from the US? The government says, "No, no, you mustn't do that, because that might lead to a two-tier health care system."

The fact is that we have a two-tier health care system. The fact is that if children of members of the government fall ill, I suspect they will have access to all of the technology that is needed. Instead, when the ordinary citizens of this province have a problem, they go on endless waiting lists. People with cancer are told they have to wait for treatment.

This is while we have wards closed down and we have nurses out of work. But the government, because it is so tied to its ideology, won't allow the hospitals to open up those wards and take in paying customers from the US to somewhat help the strains on the health care system. The fact is, as I said, we have a two-tier health care system.

Affluent residents from Ontario who need perhaps a magnetic resonance imaging procedure, who cannot get into a program in Ontario, go to the US. Meanwhile, we have the machines standing doing nothing late at night, in the early morning and overnight. The interesting thing is that we now have a situation in this province that vets go to hospitals and use their equipment on animals in those off hours. The government won't allow paying customers to use that equipment. Oh, that would be bad.

It's fine to let a dog in and to do the procedures in the hospitals using equipment the taxpayers have paid for, that's fine; and it's fine that the affluent residents of this province can go to the US and use the magnetic resonance equipment in the US, which they can have access to in a matter of a couple of days, but don't you dare allow hospitals to charge people to have access to those machines.

It is absolutely incomprehensible and it is just a perfect example of a government that is populated with people who have never managed anything in their lives. The problems are manifesting themselves everywhere in the economy, but particularly in the health care system.

The taxpayers of this province are willing to help. In fact, during the summer of 1993, in my regular newsletter to constituents, I asked a series of questions. One of the questions I asked was: "Would you accept user fees for health services, for example, a $10 charge for a visit to an emergency ward of a hospital?" Guess what? Seventy-four per cent of the respondents said yes. Only 25% said no and there was 1% undecided.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): How many were there?

Mr Turnbull: I hear heckling from across the floor. The question is, how many responded? A very large number of people responded. I had some 600-odd responses, which is an unusually large response to a mailout survey.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order. The member for Chatham, please.

Mr Turnbull: The problem is that when we talk about what the people of Ontario are telling us, the government doesn't like it. We have warned over and over again as to the serious nature of the employer health tax in terms of being a job killer.

I just refer back to a news release, and this is dated December 14, 1989. It was put out by Andy Brandt, the interim leader of the Conservative Party. They had done a survey at the time with respect to the health tax. It reads, "'Over 63% of employers who responded to a survey on the employer health tax agreed this new payroll tax would hinder and impair job creation in Ontario,' says Andy Brandt, leader of the Ontario Progressive Party."

It goes on to say: "'Given that our economy is slowing down, I find it incredible that the Liberal government can go ahead with a new payroll tax that its own officials warn will cost jobs in this province,' Brandt says. 'With that kind of lack of awareness of our economic situation, this government is risking pushing Ontario into a recession instead of an economic slowdown.'"

Indeed, we have seen the results, partly as a result of the world recession, partly as a result of actions taken by this government and partly as a result of the employer health tax put forward by the Liberal government at the time.

In a presentation made by Ted Mallett, who is a senior economist with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, in February 1994, he stated: "Payroll taxes have become a common method of source" -- I guess he meant common source -- "of government revenues during the past number of years. Governments wishing to avoid public anger when searching for revenues have relied on payroll taxes to put more of the burden on business operators. The burden of payroll taxes tends to fall most heavily on labour-intensive businesses or those operating at low or negative profit margins. Considering that small and developing companies tend to fit these descriptions, payroll taxes are acting as a brake on business development and job creation." That is the fundamental problem.

We know that we have to revitalize the way that we fund health care and we know that in fact this present government has been strangling many aspects of health care.

In a survey that my party has just put out in connection with the Mike Harris task force on creating jobs in the small business sector, we had a survey of 19,500 businesses --

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is a quorum present?

The Deputy Speaker: It is 6 of the clock, but if you want to bear with me for a minute, please.

Mr Turnbull: It being 6 of the clock, I'll adjourn debate, and it means that, I believe, I still have some seven minutes left on the clock when we continue.

The Deputy Speaker: I have reviewed the case that you brought to my attention, and I must point out that the letter that was brought to me by the member for Huron was signed by the member for Huron and should've been signed by the whip.

Interjection: He is a whip.

The Deputy Speaker: It should've been signed by the chief whip. Therefore, I have no other alternative than to recognize the notice that was brought to me by the member for Bruce.

It being 6 of the clock --

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I might have a copy of the motion that was put forward. It was my understanding, not only in this case but in others when the governing party has put forward the notice for deferral, that these have been signed by the acting whip for the day in the assembly. In this case, the member for Huron was acting in the capacity of whip on behalf of the whip and, as such, he has signed his name to this. I suspect, if the table were to look at other motions that have been put forward by the government and accepted by the Speaker, they will see that this has been similar practice to what we have done in the past. I would ask the Speaker if he would have the table review this matter, review the other motions that have been put forward by acting whips and get back to this House tomorrow on the ruling.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The rules are very clear, though, and the rules state that the motion for deferral of a vote must be signed by the whip. It can't be signed by anyone else, not the deputy whip or anyone else, so I would ask you, Mr Speaker, to --

The Deputy Speaker: Please, I just want to let you know that I will look at it again. Please. This is a complex issue. Obviously, there is a problem --

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order --

The Deputy Speaker: No more points of order, please. It's past 6 of the clock.

It being past 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1802.

26 avril 1994