Journal des débats 1994-mai-04 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member has 10 minutes to open debate, after which every recognized party in the Legislature will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate, following which Mr Phillips will have two minutes in summation.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): At the outset, I would indicate that the member for Mississauga East has indicated he would like to speak on the bill. I'd like to move unanimous consent, if I might, that he have five minutes of our party's time to speak on the bill.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent? Agreed.

Mr Phillips: Maybe I can just talk to the purpose of this bill; I think most members appreciate it. I became aware of what I now regard as a significant problem, and that is that there are a large number of people in Ontario who have been, in my opinion, quite literally tricked into providing a non-refundable deposit in expectation of getting a loan that essentially was promised to them by what I would regard as disreputable organizations, in many cases. They've given that deposit in anticipation and actually as a result of a promise of a loan forthcoming. They give the deposit, only to find perhaps one or two or three days later that there is no chance they will get the loan and that they can't get back the money they've deposited.

My experience in this area now is that in many cases these people are perhaps often the most desperate. They have an enormous need for financial assistance. They've tried many sources. Finally, they've been promised by someone that they will be able to get a loan. They often use the last money they have available to make what they regard as an advance payment. They provide that money and then never get it back.

This first came to my attention by one of my constituents, someone called Jo-ann Fried. She doesn't mind me using her name because she's been quite public on the matter. I frankly was not aware of the breadth of this problem until she raised it with me, and then actually a columnist in one of the local newspapers, someone called Linda Leatherdale, if you've followed this carefully, has kind of spearheaded this exercise. As a result of that, I have a file of literally hundreds of people who have been ripped off -- the only term you can use -- by these organizations.

The reason perhaps we haven't acted on this before is that they are a series of individuals who have been ripped off. It's not a well-organized group. Many of them frankly have been embarrassed about it all, because they feel they have been tricked. They have used their last dollar and have felt they had nowhere to turn.

My bill is I think quite straightforward; that is, to prohibit these loan brokers, purported loan brokers, from requesting a non-refundable, upfront fee.

I suspect many of us have experienced this in our own constituency offices. If you've ever looked at the letters of the people who have been ripped off by this procedure, you can understand how it happens. They are promised, when they apply for the loan, that the loan has been secured. Sometimes they sign a contract. The contract sometimes says, "You will get back 80% of your processing fee." So they assume they can get back 80% of their deposit. You've got to get right down into the fine print to find out that the processing fee is only 10% of the total down payment, so even if they can get back this 80%, it is 80% of 10%, or 8% of their deposit.

Even if you are fairly cautious -- and oftentimes, frankly, if any of us has been in a position of being quite desperate for money, we tend not to be cautious -- if we hear that somebody's going to help us out, we think, "Thank goodness this is over; I've got my $5,000 or $6,000; all I've got to do is to go and put the little down payment down," only to find that you don't get it back, and if you get any of it back, it is 80% of 10%.

Why is this important? It is important as a consumer protection measure. As I say, I have literally hundreds of letters, and these are all individuals, not well organized, often, as I say, in very desperate financial straits. So it is a significant problem and there is no question in my mind that we are dealing with firms, organizations, that are being allowed, I believe, to literally rip people off.

I appreciate that we can't protect everybody from every possible situation. I think all of us have some responsibility to be, as they say, buyer beware.

But having said that, I think there are lots of instances where we as legislators can provide reasonable consumer protection. For example, if you buy something from a door-to-door salesperson there is a cooling-off period. It's been found that this is a reasonable consumer protection. If you get a fast-talking person coming to your door who sells you something, there is consumer protection that says, "Listen, you have a cooling-off period and if, on reflection, once the person's left, you look at the contract and you decide you don't want it, you have a period of time in which you can revoke that contract."

I view this legislation in the same way. I fully appreciate that all of us have a responsibility to watch what we do and to watch the arrangements we enter into. But in this case, if you read these letters -- and many of them are very sad. There are many single parents here who have been desperate to find some way out of their financial difficulties and have been sold an absolute bill of goods by these disreputable organizations. Some people who were very cautious as they entered this arrangement. They spent a lot of time talking to them, only to be tricked. As I say, I looked at the contracts and I think almost any one of us in this Legislature could very easily, if we were desperate for finances, have made exactly the same mistake, particularly when it says you are going to get 80% of what you thought was your fee but it was only 10% of the fee. They carefully say, "Processing fee is 10% of the total fee."

1010

I now have concluded that while in the total scheme of things in Ontario this may not be the world's most important issue, for literally hundreds of people out there it is an extremely important issue. For the ones who have been ripped off, it's going to be difficult for us now to go back and fix that for them, but it is clear that by passing this piece of legislation, we can protect literally thousands for the future.

I hope I'm not putting words in the Minister of Finance's mouth, but I think he has indicated to me that he doesn't believe he has a problem with this legislation. I think he's indicated it is difficult for the government to move on this because it would have to be part of a bigger package, and with all the other things going on it's somewhat difficult, but I think he's indicated to me that the government doesn't have difficulty with the wording of the legislation. I shared it with both himself and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations two weeks ago.

My hope today is that all of us can support this bill. My hope would be that we could fairly quickly refer it to our finance and economics committee for a quick look at it to make certain that we haven't missed any wording in the bill. I would hope that we could look somehow or other to having this passed with third reading before we break for our summer recess in the latter part of June.

Just to summarize, I think it's an important bill. I think we can protect thousands of people in the future. Any reasonable organization would not object to the bill; it is just the organizations that are ripping people off. As I say, I appreciate that we cannot protect everybody from everything, but in the scheme of things, I think this is reasonable consumer protection. I would hope that we could later today receive good support from the Legislature. I would hope that we could briefly send it to our finance and economics committee and that we could then see this pass for third reading and do something for the people of Ontario by summer.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I'm pleased to rise in my place this morning and participate in this debate on Bill 152, An Act to prohibit certain types of payments to Loan Brokers. I commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing this bill forward, although I'm disappointed that he has to do this. The ministry could have stepped in and done something about it. The minister could easily have made an amendment to the Mortgage Brokers Act that is regulated by the financial institutions ministry to include loan brokers. That way, each would have to have a licence to operate and follow strict guidelines, such as supplying audited statements. That would mean that the legitimate brokers would stay in business and the others would no longer be in business.

I became aware of some of the things that are happening, as the member has indicated, and there are a lot of people who are not aware of the amount of people who are being ripped off in this province by loan brokers. There are the articles that Linda Leatherdale has had in the paper on many occasions with regard to this very issue. "Six accused of defrauding the public of $71,900; brokers were charged" is just an example of what's taking place.

The people who loan money to the ones who are in desperate need, who cannot borrow it somewhere else, indicate that they will get the funds for them with an upfront fee, and then they don't get the loan and they don't pay back the money that they had charged. The loan agency hits the helpless. The single mothers, the jobless, are often the targets of these people.

Some of the clippings: "Watch For Loan Brokers' No-Refund Fee." There are many items that have been in the papers with regard to this very issue and I'm pleased the member has brought this bill forward for debate in this House, because I hope it will make people out there more aware of what the problem is. Those people who are having a hard time to make ends meet, who want to borrow money, if you can't get it from an institution and you have to go to a loan broker, then beware, because we see what's going to happen. People such as Gerry Phillips and Linda Leatherdale have raised this issue on many occasions.

This is something I'm pleased to participate in in our private members' hour, because I do believe it will do some good. We have many discussions in this House, usually on Thursday mornings, but this week it's Wednesday, with regard to many items. I believe this is a priority item and that the minister -- I do not understand why they have not taken the lead in this. The ministry is out there charging $50 for many businesses just to have a fee to licence. Here she could be doing something that would be saving people money and really, I believe, doing some good.

The essence of this bill is:

"2(1) No loan broker shall accept a non-refundable payment, an advance payment or a deposit, or require or attempt to induce a person to make any such payment or deposit, for services to be rendered or expenses to be incurred by the loan broker or any other person.

"(2) A person who contravenes subsection (1) is guilty of an offence and on conviction is liable to a fine not exceeding $5,000."

I hope that the government members here today will give second reading to this bill, and as the member has indicated, he would like it to go to the finance committee for further discussion. I will be wholeheartedly supporting him, because if we can save some of those people out there from being ripped off, it makes sense to me.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): I'm pleased to rise to make some comments regarding Bill 152. I too have constituents who have been taken advantage of.

One gentleman was an immigrant from a European country. While he spoke some English, he didn't have a perfect command of English in terms of understanding all the terms of the contract and, of course, he did not get the mortgage. As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has indicated, these people are being taken advantage of and it is a very terrible situation.

In that regard, I want to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing this forward. Certainly, the government is aware of the problem and is concerned about unscrupulous loan brokers. Let me say, though, that the government does have some concerns about Bill 152 and how it's been presented and I'd like to outline some of those concerns.

First of all, section 1 provides a very broad definition of "loan broker" that may make the bill unworkable. For example, the definition would in effect make illegal the upfront fees that are common practice in thousands of commercial transactions arranged by lawyers, security dealers and investment bankers. This definition would make this bill conflict with the practice in these industries, which it was not intended to do. This would make it very difficult, though, to put the bill into effect. To be workable, the bill would need to more precisely define what a loan broker is.

1020

The bill would also not be effective because it does not describe how complaints would be dealt with and does not provide the authority to quickly investigate and deal with problems. If a consumer files a complaint, what would happen? How would the ministry investigate it? The bill does not provide for any investigation powers. Without these powers, the government would be limited to information given voluntarily by the consumer and the broker. If the broker doesn't cooperate, a search warrant may be needed. However, obtaining a search warrant under the Provincial Offences Act can be a cumbersome process.

To protect consumers, Bill 152 needs to provide some investigation powers to obtain access to documents. Other consumer protection laws provide this authority. Lacking this power would very clearly hamper the government's ability to gather evidence to successfully prosecute loan brokers.

To be effective, the bill also needs penalties that would deter loan brokers. The proposed $5,000 maximum fine is very low. Other consumer laws allow penalties as high as $25,000 for individuals and $50,000 for companies. In setting penalties, we have to consider that the actual fines imposed by the courts are usually a fraction of the maximum. Where the maximum is $25,000 for an individual, the courts often impose a penalty of $1,000 or $2,000. So with a maximum fine of $5,000, a loan broker may be fined as low $150 or $300. You could have cases of loan brokers who are charging fees of $500 or $600 only being fined $300.

Another deterrent lacking from the bill is providing for restitution to the consumer. Fines go to general revenue, so even after the broker is charged and fined, the consumer may still not have his or her money back.

As I said, the government is very concerned about the problem of loan brokers charging non-refundable advance fees. We support the intent of Bill 152 but we believe there are some significant weaknesses in the current draft that would not allow the strong consumer protection the member for Scarborough-Agincourt is trying to achieve. This bill, to be workable, would definitely require a great deal more work and some significant amendments. But all of us as members, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has indicated, have had constituents who have come in to us who do have some very serious concerns, who have been taken advantage of by these unscrupulous people who are, as the member said, really in effect ripping people off because they're not able to deliver on the service they're contracting, and of course the individuals do not get the refund back.

That is most unfortunate, and there's no doubt many people are losing out, many dedicated, hardworking people. As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt also indicated, these people are sometimes turned down by our regular financial institutions and become a bit desperate in terms of looking for funds and forms of financing. When you're in that situations, sometimes if people tell you they can achieve those funds for you, you forget about some of the fine print. That is extremely unfortunate.

I want to commend the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing the issue before the House and before the public. By having it debated here today, it should hopefully provide for some more awareness among the public to be very wary of these types of people who are offering these services, to read the contracts very clearly, to find out and ensure that if they're not going to be able to achieve what they said in terms of obtaining the loan, you can get a full refund.

It's good that we are debating this piece of legislation, but the government does have some concerns, particularly the Ministry of Finance, about some of the specifics, as I've highlighted in my presentation.

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): I'm very pleased to rise in the debate in support of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's bill, Bill 152. I commend the member for bringing it forward. It's very important that when we as private members get indications of abuse, of the vulnerable being exploited, we rise to defend them.

The parliamentary assistant made some comments about support of the intention but having difficulty with some provisions of the bill itself, that it needs tightening up in definitions and in penalties and other aspects. I would say that if we as members thought every bill that came before this Legislature and was introduced was perfect, we would have no need for three readings, we would have no need for committees, we would have no need for public hearings or any of that process.

There will be opportunities, if this bill is sent to committee, to strengthen it, to ensure that it does exactly what we want it to do. I hope government members will support this bill, because we are sure it can be amended in a way that will protect the vulnerable.

This issue first came to my attention, as I think it did for a number of other members, in the column by Linda Leatherdale, the business editor for the Toronto Sun, and I'd like to quote from a couple of her early columns. She's been writing about this since January of this year. I'd like to quote a couple of the things she says, because I think it highlights the problem.

She talks about the taking of non-refundable, upfront fees for the false promise of easy money for the destitute, those who are desperate, as the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has described, people who are very desperate to get a loan, perhaps to put themselves into business, to do something with their lives, to accomplish something, yet the normal ways of financing are closed to them because of their circumstances.

Linda Leatherdale says:

"What do we have in Ontario, where these loan brokers have been feasting on the down-and-out since 1990 when our economy sank into the greatest contraction since the Great Depression?

"We've had warnings from the federal government's consumer and corporate affairs department saying Canadians should be warned about the following types of scams:

-- "'Easy loans.'

-- "'No credit? Unemployed? No problem.'

-- "'Money available regardless of past credit history.'

-- "'Bankrupt? No collateral? Call us today.'

"But we're left with toothless legislation that makes it impossible for the law to clamp down, though we've seen police raid some premises and lay fraud charges.

"It also burns me that six years ago David Peterson's Liberals wrote a draft 'fair marketplace code' that would clamp down on these loan brokers, but it still waits to be passed into law.

"Two years ago, I spoke to NDP consumer minister Marilyn Churley and begged for a speedup on the code. Yesterday I phoned her office and found out, though the code has approval of a cabinet subcommittee, still there's no date for implementation....

"Our question? How many more unsuspecting people have to bleed?"

That's the issue. Are we as legislators going to protect these people who are vulnerable? As the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has pointed out, it isn't only a case of buyer beware; you have to read right down in the fine print. You practically have to be a lawyer to understand it, and all these people don't have the resources to hire a lawyer. That's why they go to these loan brokers to begin with, and then in the very bottom print, the very finest of print, it says that 10% is a fee, but it doesn't say that's just the processing fee and the rest is lost to them.

We as government, as a Legislature, have to ask ourselves the question, what is our job as government? One of our major jobs has to be to create an economic climate where we can prosper, but surely one of our other jobs is to protect the vulnerable, to protect consumers, and that's something every person in Ontario believes in: the protection of consumers. Education is important so that the buyer-beware clause can have full meaning. But there are cases such as this when that's not enough.

1030

I would be really proud of each one of us, members of all three parties, if we could stand in unanimous accord that this principle is one we support, that we support it as a Legislature. We'll work out the problems with it later. We will have strong, effective legislation, but let's give it its first chance. Let's pass this legislation and let's show the people of this province that we're standing up for them.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I have some pleasure in standing to speak to this particular issue. First, let me say that I doubt very much you're going to find too many people in this Legislature today who would oppose the basic principle of this legislation. There is faint praise, I suppose, coming from the parliamentary assistant to the Finance minister, the member for Oxford, standing up today and outlining all his concerns with the bill. It proves that, really, parliamentary assistants have about as much power as the guy who's selling the newspaper on the corner of the street downtown. He comes in here today and lists his concerns about this legislation, why this is not acceptable and that is not acceptable and so on and so forth.

I believe that if the government were truly intent on carrying forward this piece of legislation --

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: I can't hear the mutterings of the mayor of Chatham over there, but I'll listen a little closer. If this government were really intent on pursuing this kind of legislation -- he's muttering again, Mr Speaker; I can't hear him -- why did they not return to the member who introduced it weeks and weeks ago and give him the information they have brought forward today through the member for Oxford, who is the parliamentary assistant/newspaper salesman? Why could they not have brought this kind of information forward weeks ago and then drafted this up so it would be acceptable to them? Why could that not have been done?

The issue is accepted on all sides of the House. I don't think there's a member in here who will disagree with this. But now we've got problems with the legislation because the government stands up the morning of the debate and lists a series of concerns it has. I ask the member for Oxford, why couldn't you have brought these concerns to the table weeks ago -- as he busily reads the press clippings. Why could you not have done that? Why could you not have paid attention and offered up these kinds of --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Interjections are out of order. The honourable member for Etobicoke West, address the Chair, please.

Mr Stockwell: It is very difficult to come forward in private members' hour, to come forward with sincere concerns about the fact that people are being ripped off by less than honest business people out there, to bring forward a piece of legislation that calls for the kinds of changes that need to be made, to have all sides of the Legislature agree that these need to be made, and then the day the debate is taking place have the parliamentary assistant stand up and list five or six reasons why this thing can't fly.

It's frustrating to me. I don't know about the member who wrote the piece of legislation, but it's very frustrating to me. If this information was new to them, yesterday or the day before, I could understand it, but they've had this in their hands for weeks upon weeks. They could have easily brought forward some changes, and I'm sure the member from Scarborough would have been very accommodating in accepting those amendments so it could get to the floor here today, so we could all stand together and pass this kind of legislation and protect the kind of people the member for Oxford spoke about.

Is he really interested in protecting those people? Are we really interested, and are the government members very interested, in protecting people so they don't get ripped off for thousands of dollars from unscrupulous business people out there? Are we here just for bit of show and gamesmanship so we can stand before this Legislature at the very last moment and explain why this thing is drafted incorrectly and wouldn't accomplish what it was intended to accomplish, and the ministry officials have decided that this kind of thing can't fly? Who's running the show, the ministry officials or the elected officials, for heaven's sake?

All it would take, I'm sure, the member for Oxford being the powerful, going-for-it kind of politician he is in that government, is to simply attach a little letter to this that says, "Compliments of the powerful member for Oxford," and "Respond to this for me, please, Finance people." Who's taking direction? Are the bureaucrats directing him or is he directing the bureaucrats, for heaven's sake?

But no, we can't do it today because the member or the Finance minister just couldn't find enough time in the last three weeks to ask for input from the Finance people so we can be out there protecting investment and dollars of hardworking Ontario citizens from the people who are trying to rip them off.

Boy, that would have taken a lot of work, to get those kinds of comments on the record weeks ago so this kind of legislation could be shown here today, accepted by all parties and moved through the process, so we could get on with the business of governing this province rather than the business of listening to bureaucrats tell powerful newspaper salesmen from Oxford what we're supposed to do in this Legislature.

It's very frustrating. It turns this whole process into what I consider to be a bit of a sham. We sit here day after day, every Thursday morning, Wednesday morning today, and we hear good ideas coming forward from the opposition benches, good ideas that should be adopted, protecting people, and they get turned down for technicalities and lack of work on the government members' side.

If it isn't in the job description of a parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Finance to be seeking out information on this kind of thing, to be assisting private members in drafting legislation that will be accepted by all sides of the House, if it isn't in his job description to ensure that Finance bureaucrats can come forward with their problems and concerns with respect to private members' bills maybe more than two minutes before the hour starts, then what is his job? What are they supposed to be doing if they're not out there to protect the citizens of this province and to adopt legislation that is universally accepted by all sides of the House? I don't know what their jobs are. I don't know why they get paid the extra money, other than, possibly, getting coffee for the ministers. That's about the job description I can see.

Mr Randy R. Hope (Chatham-Kent): Is that what you do, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: The mayor of Chatham is mouthing again, the statesman from Chatham, because it hits home to the mayor of Chatham there, the ex-mayor of Chatham in a short time. It hits home because he knows the job description he thought he was coming down here to fill is painfully less than what he is in fact doing. Coffee and newspapers: That appears to be their goal, that appears to be their game plan. We can't even get this kind of information before this Legislature in a timely manner that would save the citizens of this province tons of money.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: Let me just finish with the member from Chatham. What is it you want to say?

Mr Hope: You don't even show up for your own private member's bill.

The Acting Speaker: Interjections are out of order. Will the member address the Chair.

Mr Stockwell: There's an insight from the member from Chatham, with no knowledge.

Mr Hope: You talk and talk, with no solution.

Mr Stockwell: There is a solution, I say to the member from Chatham, who, as some other members put it, is an overnight guest babbling away. Go ahead and keep babbling, member from Chatham. Go talk to your favourite member for Oxford and ask him why these problems couldn't have been put on the table.

Why shouldn't we be able to adopt this today? Why couldn't this get second reading? We know it won't now, because people on that side of the House simply aren't capable of doing their jobs, aren't capable of dealing with the bureaucracy, aren't capable of governing this province.

I'm very disappointed. It turns this entire private member's bill into a sham, because one minute into the debate we have the member for Oxford standing up and telling us why this can't be passed. It's been in their hands for weeks. It leaves a bad taste not only in my mouth, I'm sure, but in the mouths of the citizens of this province when we can't even get an answer from the bureaucrats, weeks in advance, about why this thing should be changed or amended. I'm completely disappointed, and you as members of the government should be disappointed in yourselves.

Mr Noel Duignan (Halton North): I'm very pleased to stand today to speak to this particular bill. Both myself and the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations appreciate the intent of Bill 152. I too have seen the hundreds of letters that have come in from people across Metro and across the province who have dealt with these loan brokers or loan sharks, whatever term you want to use. Even though I myself have not received any complaints from any of my constituents in Halton North, I know there is a problem out there.

I'm very pleased to see the member for Eglinton stand in her place and say she's going to stand up for the people of Ontario. I'll be very pleased to see her do that in the future, when she stands to defend the people of Ontario from the Tory economic policy, which I believe has the intent of foisting economic terrorism on the people of Ontario.

1040

As members are well aware, businesses of this sort have sprung up across Canada and the United States over the last number of years. During this time, the ministry began receiving an enormous number of complaints from consumers about loan brokers and, like many areas of business activity, there is no specific legislation regarding loan brokers.

The Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations has implemented an information campaign warning consumers about the potential dangers of dealing with loan brokers. This consisted of a number of consumer advisory press releases over the last number of years, and the last one was in January of this year. MCCR also has a 24-hour, toll-free information telephone system which, among many other areas of consumer interest, outlines the problems associated with dealing with loan brokers.

Media attention to this attention has also been very helpful in alerting consumers and preventing problems. The articles by Linda Leatherdale on this issue have heightened people's awareness about the whole question about loan brokers. Most times I do not agree with what Linda Leatherdale writes in the paper but in this particular instance I do agree with her.

Basically, we're telling consumers that loan brokers are offering a service that they can basically do themselves, that they'll try to get you a loan. This is usually spelled out in the contract. When a loan broker fails to get them a loan, they are not breaching that contract.

For those who decide to use a loan broker, probably the best advice we can offer consumers is to read the contract carefully and make sure they understand every last detail before signing that contract. In fact, if people could afford it, the best advice of all is to bring it to a lawyer and get a lawyer to look at it. They should also insist on getting all details of the agreement in writing. The terms and the total cost of the loan, for example, should be spelled out in that contract. If the loan broker won't answer all questions or refuses to say who the lender is, what lenders are being considered or whether the loan can be sold to a third party later on, consumers should not do business with them. Although it's agreed that there is a need to address the problems associated with loan brokers -- or what I prefer to call bloodsuckers, because that's what they are: living off the desperation of others in this province -- we are still not convinced that this bill is the most effective way of doing so. My colleague and member for Oxford has outlined some of those problems with this particular bill: in the definition of the bill, it indeed is not workable, and how a consumer files a complaint, for example. There are a number of problems that need to be dealt with in this bill.

The bottom line for this ministry and the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations is we will not support the passing of a bill that does not contain the provisions needed to make it a useful piece of legislation and for that reason we recommend to all members that this bill be referred to the committee of the whole where changes or alterations to the draft bill can be considered.

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): I rise in support of the bill that has been put forward by my colleague from Scarborough-Agincourt. I want to begin by thanking the member who has just spoken, who has indicated that the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations would support this bill going forward for examination. I think what I would put to the member is that where we really want to send it, so that it can be dealt with seriously, is to the standing committee on finance and economics, where it can be dealt with more expeditiously.

I think the point to make here -- and there are two key things that I want to underline. One is to indicate that we are having from police forces around the province more information about this kind of activity. I was in Newmarket just last night for the civic awards presentations and at that the policeman of the year is awarded. This was a gentleman who has been very much involved in issues concerning fraud. I was chatting with him after on the numbers and kinds of things that are coming up and the difficulty sometimes of dealing with certain kinds of fraud because our legislation is really not up to date. To a certain extent, some of these crimes have moved beyond our capacity to deal with them. Some of the Metro Toronto police officials who talked to Linda Leatherdale around some of her articles have also stressed this, that we need improved legislation to be able to deal with these specific kinds of issues.

So I think there is a need out there. Again, what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt was saying, what my colleague from Eglinton was saying, and what the member for Etobicoke was also saying is, "Look, in terms of this particular bill, precisely the reason one wants it to go to committee is that no one is saying it is perfect."

I think there's always a difficulty on this side of the House in developing private members' legislation, and one recognizes one doesn't necessarily have all of the information required. But I think that what is important to note here is, and again as the member for ScarboroughAgincourt said, "Look, this is not necessarily the number one issue, but it is a critical issue and it's a place where we can help honest, ordinary people out there who are seeking to get loans, who are seeking assistance."

If we can get into the finance and economic affairs committee, those kinds of changes can be made, and quite frankly I think that can be of help in a very direct way to the government, to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, because a lot of the work had been done. I think we would be very interested in seeing what sorts of comments government members of that committee would bring to improve the legislation and to make it good.

As has been noted, my colleague from ScarboroughAgincourt did write to the Finance minister early in the winter, early in February. There has been a long period of notice. He also passed on copies of the bill to the government side. Here is his letter. It's dated February 3, 1994, to the Honourable Floyd Laughren. It's a brief letter. I'll read it:

"Dear Floyd,

"As you probably know, a constituent of mine by the name of Jo-Ann Fried has been the victim of a 'ripoff' from what clearly appears to be a disreputable 'loan broker.'

"This person is not alone, as you can see from the attached letters which have been given to me by Ms Fried.

"My question is this: What are the government's plans to deal with this? If you are not planning to move quickly on this, please let me know so I can prepare a private member's bill to deal specifically with this issue.

"Thank you for your consideration of this matter.

"Best regards,

"Gerry Phillips, MPP

"Scarborough-Agincourt."

The response from the Treasurer didn't come until April 27. So there was a long period of time, and during that time the member for Scarborough-Agincourt assumed that nothing was happening and went forward and developed his bill.

I don't have time to read all of the minister's response. He indicates clearly that the government wants to do something, but again, why the wait? Surely there was time to act. Now we do have, because of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, an actual piece of draft legislation which can move forward.

The final point I want to make is that we talk constantly here about how we can make individual members' time more valuable. I think that what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has done is he has addressed a particular problem, an issue around consumer protection that needs some action. He has brought forward a draft bill. That could go into the committee and it could be dealt with during this session. It wouldn't necessarily take weeks and weeks. The problem is fairly clear. We know there are other models that can deal with it.

So I would urge all members of the House not only to support this bill in principle but to agree that it should be sent to the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I will be in fact supporting that we proceed with this legislation, and I hope I'm not sensing any reluctance on the government's part in doing this. I note from an article some three years ago, I must say, that the minister, Marilyn Churley, is quoted as saying that she cautions consumers to read and understand the contents of any contract they sign so that they know the limits that are identified and the obligations they may face. But various people involved with the situation have indicated that the contracts we're talking about from the loan brokers are so vaguely worded that for the average person it's impossible. So it certainly is a problem that has to be addressed.

The stories are heart-rending, and obviously this is a case where all parties need to work together and come up with a solution. I guess the case from Oshawa has already been mentioned today of a single mother who paid $245, thought she was going to get a loan for $10,000 and ended up with nothing. This happened in December, just before Christmas. The money that she used to attempt to get this loan through the loan broker was to have been for the children's Christmas.

These stories come from all across Ontario. Another story from Windsor, a case where a person put down $350 and then was advised afterwards that one of the restrictions would be that he would have to have collateral equivalent to the amount of the loan, and this wasn't stipulated up front. Another person placed $350 down and was granted the loan but at 30% interest. And on and on these stories go. I see my time's running out, but Linda Leatherdale of the Toronto Sun has brought this to the attention as well and documented many cases. So we will be supporting that we proceed with this legislation.

1050

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. This completes the time allotment for the Ontario PC Party. Further debate?

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): I'm pleased to rise this morning as we debate Bill 152. Let me say from the outset that I'll be supporting the bill. There's no question in my mind that the issue of consumer protection is a very important one in our society and in this particular area there's obviously a need.

I take with interest some of the comments from the member for Eglinton in terms of, as she defined I guess, the types of individuals who need this kind of protection. It would be surprising, I think, for a lot of people to understand that the people who find themselves using loan brokers may not necessarily be stereotyped as any individual category of people in society. I used to, before I was elected, run a small business. Due to the inability of bank financing, government programs, in terms of trying to arrange operating capital, I think many people in society find themselves in a situation of desperation and have to go somewhere to either survive, put a roof over their head, or for whatever reason.

I think this is important legislation and it's the kind of legislation that should have been in place in this province for the last 50 years but isn't here. I think it's our responsibility to make sure that the legislation is put into place.

I do have a couple of concerns, though, one in particular around the maximum fine. I believe the maximum fine as set out in the bill is $5,000. My experience has been with other penalties for violations of the Consumer Protection Act, for example, by individuals or companies that the maximum fine is $25,000; the actual fine is $1,000 or $2,000, as the courts assign it. So in my view, the $5,000 fine is much too small. There should be a much heftier fine because the experience with fines under the court system is that with a $25,000 maximum, we're seeing routinely fines being assessed at $1,000. I don't think that's going to be enough of a deterrent at all.

The other problem I have is that I think the bill, through the definition of a loan broker, might be too broad. I think that issue has to be looked at because it really would cover, the way the bill is written, as I understand it, all loans made in the province, large or small, personal or commercial, secured or unsecured, unless arranged by a mortgage broker or financial institution. It might even include lawyers who obtain funds for clients on an incidental basis and transactions arranged by brokerage houses or investment dealers. So I think the definition of "loan broker" is an issue that has to be looked at. The fines have to be looked at; I think they should be much higher.

The other point I would make is that it really doesn't designate a ministry, as the bill is written, as responsible for administering this act. It provides no investigation powers and contains no enforcement provisions. My concern is that this is a major issue in today's society and without those areas being covered off, I wonder what we accomplish. To assign ministries, for example, or the government responsibility without any direct authority I think can get us into some problems as well in terms of trying to protect consumers.

But basically, there's no question in my mind, from my experience through life and talking to others, that many people get caught in this very vicious kind of a trap, if you will, and anything we can do to protect the consumer is something that certainly I take very seriously and I would assume the government bench as well as the opposition members take very seriously. It's long overdue and I'll certainly be supporting the bill.

Mr John Sola (Mississauga East): I would like to congratulate the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for coming up with this bill and also to thank him for the opportunity to speak. At the same time, I would like to thank the members of this House for giving unanimous consent, for showing that generosity of spirit, to let me speak on this matter.

However, I am perturbed by what seems to be an abrasive attitude on the part of at least some of the government members in their remarks. However, I am encouraged by the fact that they are willing to let it go, at least, to committee of the whole, if not to the committee that the member from Scarborough-Agincourt asked for, because I think the principle is what is important and not the details of this bill.

I would like to relate a situation that occurred in my constituency office not that long ago, where a constituent came in and described a situation that had happened to him. He needed a van to start a business in a vein that was similar to a job that he had lost. Because of the economy, he had gone through several jobs in a short span of time, so he could not find any financial institution that would come up with a loan. He was able to come up with a van that a friend had but he needed a loan to be able to purchase that van.

He went through the want ads in the papers and he finally came upon one that seemed like a safe bet. He made the call and he made a deal. He signed an agreement to get a certain amount of money for a specific car that he had already found. When he went to pick up the car, he found that the loan was not forthcoming. He had been forced to pay an upfront fee but somewhere in the fine print was written, not in any specific language but in a debatable type of way, that the loan was available only if he purchased the car from a specific dealership. Therefore, he would forfeit the upfront money that he had given; in other words, the deal was signed in order to extract a certain amount of money from him because he could not purchase a car that he had already made an agreement on.

He was perturbed by this for several reasons. This person was a former police officer. He knew what to look for, he knew what he was getting himself into, and yet he was still caught. He knew what to avoid, he knew the pitfalls, and yet he was still caught. When people say, "Read the fine print. Make sure you know what you're doing," here was a person who had been trained to search for these sorts of things and he was still caught.

When he came to me -- despite the hardship, he was still somehow able to get a different loan to get that van -- he was coming to me for the principle of the thing. He wanted to avoid somebody else falling prey to a similar situation and he wanted me to work on a bill similar to what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has come up with.

I want to say the following: Bill 152 sends a message. It sends a message that we as a society care, that we want to rectify the oversights of the past and that we are listening to the concerns of the most vulnerable in our society: those who have been most affected by this recession or depression, as you will. If we don't pass this bill, we will be sending the wrong message.

I congratulate the member and I would encourage everybody to support the bill.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for --

Interjection: We have 30 seconds on the clock.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable member for Middlesex has a very short time.

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Yes. I am accustomed to shortness and I thank you for this time. I realize that I have only a very few seconds, so I would like to reiterate that our government members do indeed support this enhanced need for consumer protection. We understand, all of us here, I think, the kind of desperation that some people feel out there in difficult financial times.

I must say that at no time did I hear any abrasiveness from this side. I think that members here are completely supportive of the intent of Mr Phillips's bill.

The Acting Speaker: This does complete the time allotted. The honourable member for Scarborough-Agincourt has two minutes in summation.

1100

Mr Phillips: Sometimes I despair of this place. This is a serious problem that I have attempted to solve. Back in early February I sent the Minister of Finance a letter saying: "Are you going to act on this? What's the government going to do? If you aren't going to do something about it, I'll prepare a private member's bill."

I never even got a response to that until last week. Then I said, "All right, I will try to prepare a private member's bill." People out there should appreciate that the opposition have limited resources. I prepared a private member's bill to the best of my ability. I sent it to the government, saying, "Listen, give me your recommendations and suggestions." I never heard a peep out of them until today in the Legislature. I think that's despicable, frankly. I am trying to solve a problem and I have gotten absolutely nothing out of the government.

Today what I've heard from the government, and check me if I'm wrong here, is that it doesn't plan to proceed with the bill. They are going to vote in favour of it at second reading and then put it into that's called committee of the whole. Just so everybody understands out there, when it goes to committee of the whole, they're killing it. It's just a way to stop it.

Here we are, trying to solve a significant problem for the people of Ontario. The government members mouth that it's a significant problem. They won't do anything about it. I'm sorry if I'm getting angry, but months ago I sent a letter to the government, saying: "If you're not going to act, we'll try to help. Help us along." I then sent them the bill and said, "If you can improve the wording, tell me about it." I hear nothing until we get into the Legislature today.

You can appreciate the anger that hundreds of people out there are going to feel when they find out that the government is all talk and no action. If the government stands today and refers this to committee of the whole, that essentially kills it. As we try to protect people out there, we're being thwarted and we're being stopped from doing that by the government members.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for second reading of Bill 152.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Hodgson moved private member's notice of motion number 39:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that all first-time hunters since 1960 have successfully completed the hunter education course, which includes safe firearm handling procedures, the government of Ontario should automatically grant a firearms acquisition certificate to people who have successfully completed that course and to those who have demonstrated a solid safety record through many years of shooting experience.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton will have 10 minutes to open debate, after which all recognized parties will have 15 minutes to participate in the debate, and then the honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton will have two minutes in summation.

Mr Chris Hodgson (Victoria-Haliburton): I'd like to begin by thanking Mr Harris, our party leader, for allowing me his time for this private member's resolution on a very important issue.

Why I've put this resolution forward is that during the recent by-election this was a concern of many of the people of my riding, Victoria-Haliburton, people who hunt because of lifestyle or recreation, farmers who have to use firearms for predator control and rodent control, and target shooters. We have the distinction in our riding of having an Olympic athlete, Dr Sobrian, an Olympic pistol shooter from Victoria-Haliburton, and other people who are involved in this sport and recreation.

I'd also like to thank the member for Parry Sound, Mr Eves, for his ideas and input on this resolution. I'd like to thank the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, officials at the chief provincial firearms office and also the Firearms Safety Education Service of Ontario for its input and ideas to make this a more rounded debate.

I'd just like to say that as all members of the House realize, under the Criminal Code, section 3, it's federal jurisdiction, and they brought out Bill C-17, which asked for national testing for firearms acquisition certificates. It's provincial responsibility for the administration of how that's carried out. Bill C-17 allows for grandfathering, for what we're asking in this resolution.

I'd just like to say that the stated provincial objective at the firearms office is to reduce accidental and intentional misuse of firearms. I think everyone in this House shares that concern, that we would like to see the safe use of firearms, and that we'd like to see them not in the hands of criminals. What I object to is legitimate gun owners -- hunters, farmers, target shooters and Olympic athletes -- being somehow associated with the criminal use of firearms.

We have a proud history in Ontario of teaching gun owners hunter safety courses. We've had that since 1960. The results of those lessons speak for themselves. Our accident rate in misuse of firearms in hunting-related accidents has fallen dramatically since the mid-1960s even though the number of hunters has gone up slightly.

There are existing laws in place in the province of Ontario which can address our concern and everybody's abhorrence with the criminal use of firearms that should be enforced, that are already there. If people misuse firearms, then punish them. If they fail to meet transportation, storage or use regulations, then punish them. To a legitimate firearms owner, the threat of punishment demonstrated by the enforcement of the law will make them comply. Our laws must be enforced to discourage criminal use of firearms. We have no disagreement with that.

I'd also like to see in the administration at the provincial level more record sharing between ministries so that people cannot renew licences or purchase firearms if they've broken any firearms regulation. This information is not shared at present. For example, if a person is caught poaching and loses their firearm, there's nothing stopping them from using their FAC to purchase another weapon the very next day. Minor offences should mean mandatory enrolment in the course. Major offences should result in the licence or the FAC being revoked indefinitely. We have no problem with that.

But is it fair to make people who have used firearms safely for decades sit in a classroom and take a course and exam? They have demonstrated their proficiency by their actions, by their experience, and I think it is incumbent upon us to show respect to these older people.

I agree that the ministry and the administration of firearms control should work in cooperation with hunter safety and should bring all firearm users together to promote safety and educate the public. Under this present course, we're making it mandatory that the use of a restricted weapon such as handguns be taught and licensed. I feel that's an expense not only to the instructors' time, but it's a waste of time for legitimate hunters in this province, who can't use handguns. But it is a viable thing that should be an option for target shooters or people who have use of handguns.

The implication that the restrictions are too high could discourage people from buying more guns who legitimately use them for hunting or on their farms or in their recreation of target shooting. That has an impact on our economy in Victoria-Haliburton and in most places in rural Ontario, and even in Metro. By the number of petitions that have been presented in this House, you can see that this is an issue that's of great concern to many people in the province of Ontario.

A lot of our tourist business in the off seasons is dependent on attracting people who come up and hunt for recreational purposes, and this supports our local economy. At a time when business is hurting in that field generally across Ontario, I think it's important that we don't discourage that through excessive regulations and the heavy hand of government.

We've also got wildlife management. The Ministry of Natural Resources takes into account the role of hunters in its scheme of managing the wildlife in Ontario.

I would just like to point out that the hunters have already taken this course. They've proven their record of being safe. In Sudbury last year, there was a sort of test case for the FAC examination. People who have had the course or had past practice in hunting had a 99% success rate. If they had a quick review, it went up to 100%.

I don't feel this added burden of making older people go back and sit in a classroom, pay their fees and take a course has anything to do with the safety in our streets, and therefore they should be exempted from this regulation. If they've proven in their past history that they can handle guns, they should be exempt from the law that requires them to go and sit in a classroom, write exams and then purchase another firearm.

There are opponents of the grandfathering clause. They like to quote the Canada-wide test numbers. These numbers are remarkably lower than the ones in Ontario, the ones at Sudbury, because they don't take into account what other provinces have done. In Ontario, we have a fine history of implementing safety courses for young people entering to buy a gun for target shooting, for on the farm or for hunting. Unfortunately, we don't have records of everybody who's taken a hunting course and that's not the hunters' fault; that's just the records of the Ontario government. They haven't been coordinated with the FACs.

In conclusion, I would just ask that all members of this Legislature join together to show a bit of fairness and respect for people who have demonstrated that they're law-abiding and use firearms accurately and safely, and that we can go on from here and have a consensus to tighten up on the illegal use of firearms and on criminals. But let's not lump the two groups together, people who through their business, like farmers, or people who for recreation or target shooting, and Olympic athletes, have proven time and time again that they have safe records. The number of fatalities in this province due to hunting-related accidents has dropped off dramatically. I would ask that everyone in this House support this resolution.

1110

Mr Gary Malkowski (York East): I'm very pleased to be involved in the debate today on the resolution raised by the member for Victoria-Haliburton on firearms acquisition certificates.

I think it's important at first to take a look at the historical perspective here and take a look at the Criminal Code of Canada. That legislation established standards for the responsible use of firearms in Canada. Prior to 1978, the code merely dealt with the hardware and criminal issues that pertained to the use of firearms. It was from that time onward that the federal government that administers the Criminal Code took a three-pronged approach to firearms regulations in Canada.

What the government did, the first prong, was that it addressed the screening out of individuals who had a criminal record or who had a history of violent behaviour, with the introduction of the firearms acquisition certificate back in 1979. The second prong was that the federal government imposed sanctions, which then prevented the illicit movement of firearms in our society. The third aspect was that it developed misuse laws to prevent the use of firearms in criminal acts and to avoid careless and negligent misuse by firearm owners.

Subsequent amendments to the Criminal Code strengthened these three facets of firearms legislation to ensure public safety. Also, this of course is an objective which we see as being beneficial not only to firearm owners but also to the public at large.

The most recent amendment comprised the enactment of Bill C-17 and its regulations back in December 1991. The amendments included an increase in penalties, new offence sections, new definitions for prohibited and restricted weapons, changes to the firearms acquisition certificate system and new regulations for firearms dealers. The final component of the federal gun control program under Bill C-17, the mandatory firearms safety education and training, was implemented in Ontario and was effective January 1 of this year.

I'd like to also discuss the issue of grandparenting. Like every province, Ontario has decided not to grandparent any previous firearms training as being equal to and applicable to the content of the Canadian firearms safety course, for meeting the new knowledge requirements necessary to pass the compulsory federal testing.

The resolution that is being debated today is based on the argument that the new regulations basically reinvent the wheel, that forcing people who already have training, such as the hunter education course, to get additional training is actually unnecessary, and that in fact they may even be trained in firearms they don't want.

Let me address these concerns. Hunter safety training has an enviable safety record during the sporting season. According to the federal government, this new legislation is intended to improve the safety record for everyone all year round. The fact is that death and injury by firearms occur mostly away from sporting activities and involve non-sporting members of the public. For example, more deaths and serious injuries occur each year from acts of impulse or intentional misuse of firearms than from unintentional discharge. These types of incidents can be avoided if firearms and ammunition are more safely stored. Therefore, the national course stresses both the secure storage of firearms and ammunition as well as their handling and use.

Another frequently heard argument in opposition to these new requirements is, "Why should I be trained in guns that I have no desire to use?" The reason is quite simple: A person possessing a valid FAC is entitled to possess any legal type of firearm with that FAC. For that reason the Canadian firearm safety test covers the safe handling and knowledge of a wide variety of firearms.

Public safety demands that those acquiring firearms demonstrate that they can handle and use firearms safely. Therefore, I am opposed to this resolution and support the government in its decision of not grandparenting these requirements but making the national test mandatory for both new and renewal FAC applicants. The issue here is a safety issue and one we cannot ignore.

Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I would first like to commend Mr Hodgson for bringing this motion before the House this morning. It has certainly been of great interest to my constituents and, I gather, to constituents across the province of Ontario.

I, as most members, have had the opportunity of reading petitions with literally thousands of signatures that have been presented to this Legislature over the last little while, and I'm told that aside from all the petitions we're getting from across the province, the Solicitor General, Mr Christopherson, has received in the neighbourhood of 25,000 postcards from across this province asking that this resolution be supported -- well, not actually asking that the resolution be supported, but asking that the province pay some attention to the needs of rural Ontario, to the economy of rural areas, to the recreational pursuits that have been followed by generations of Ontarians. We think, and I think, that the hunters and anglers of Ontario are making a very significant point.

This may be one of those issues that divides rural and urban members to some extent, basically because there isn't really a comprehension of what goes on out there in rural Ontario by some urbanites. In my office, I've had people from various hunters' and anglers' clubs across my riding. They've been there from Whitefish Falls, from Espanola, from the North Shore, from the Elliot Lake club and they're saying: "Yes, we have Bill C-17. Yes, we understand that greater gun control is necessary, but we're not criminals. We have demonstrated that we know how to deal with firearms. We're not the problem. We've taken the courses. We've done what it takes to be safe." They've proven that over and over again and the statistics bear that out.

I just want to point out for people that wildlife-related expenditures in this province mean people spend money to the tune of $2.2 million to fish and to hunt in this province. It is a significant part of our economy. It is not something we should be unduly restricting.

In my constituency on Manitoulin Island, I will tell you that there's a week in November that is known as a national holiday almost; it's called the deer hunt. The deer hunt is important. I think the principal of the high school has great difficulty during that time in keeping any of the people in class during that week. It is a tremendous boon not only to local people but to the people who are attracted to Manitoulin Island and spend money to pursue what has been a historic and important part of their everyday life.

1120

I also would like to bring to the attention of the House the effect this has on other people, as the Solicitor General interprets Bill C-17 for us. We've got farmers, and farmers need to have some control over pests in their areas. We have, obviously, the hunters. But something that hasn't been mentioned and has been brought to my attention as the critic for Natural Resources for the official opposition is that trappers and prospectors are having great difficulty in obtaining FAC licences and being able to do things that are necessary for their own safety in the bush.

As you know, prospectors and trappers, by the very nature of what they do, are required to carry significant equipment with them. It is very difficult for them to then carry a rifle. They have historically been able to carry pistols because it was the only weapon they could really carry. We've had some great difficulties in that area, and I want to bring that to the attention of the House.

What we are talking about today is not, in my view, a gun control measure. Bill C-17 has decided that. The problem is that the Solicitor General of this province has refused to understand the needs of rural Ontario. He's refused to understand the petitions of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. They're asking for what I believe to be a most reasonable suggestion: that people who have completed a very good hunter safety course and know about guns be allowed to obtain weapons to do what they have always done. It makes good sense to me.

I have real difficulty understanding why the Solicitor General of this province can't work with the groups out there that do know about firearms and provide a very cohesive package that protects the public and yet does not put onerous and unnecessary requirements on people who have already proved they can do what they do quite safely.

It has been brought to my attention that the expense of what the government is proposing for a new hunter is quite unreasonable. It has been suggested to me that a person who wishes to become a hunter has to take the Ontario hunter safety course, as they have for some time now. They have to acquire an FAC. They then have to pass the two tests involved. There are fees for all that. It could be as much as $400 to an individual to get a hunting licence, and that does not include the Outdoors Card and it does not include the specific hunting licence you must get.

I think what the government is attempting to do is make a sport that has been in Ontario for centuries now one for only the wealthy, only the rich. If you want to get into this new club, you're going to have to pay $400-plus. That doesn't include buying any equipment.

I'm happy that the member has brought this resolution before the House. I will be supporting it, as will my colleagues. We think it is a valuable thing for the member to have brought this before the House, and we commend him on that.

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): It's a real honour and a pleasure this morning to stand here and speak in support of our newest member and of his resolution.

The member for Victoria-Haliburton, as you know, is one of our newest members, and has recently taken over the critic's job for the Ministry of Natural Resources. I was more than pleased to hear, as I was given Energy, that he would be following up on that ministry, because I received excellent turnover material from my predecessor, the member for Simcoe East, and I know he will continue to assist, as I will, the member for Victoria-Haliburton.

This morning the member has come forward with a very important resolution, not only to the riding of Victoria-Haliburton but to the province of Ontario, and I am more than pleased to stand this morning and speak in support of his resolution.

Going back to March 17 of this year, I received a letter from the executive vice-president of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters. He says:

"Enclosed are several petitions signed by residents of your riding," speaking of the riding of Lanark-Renfrew. "They and we would appreciate your presenting these in the Legislature as soon as possible. As Ontario's largest group of conservationists and firearms owners, we are strong proponents of firearms education and responsible ownership.

"In addition, we would like you to go to bat for these people. There is great anger and unrest all over this province due to the provincial decisions" -- not federal, provincial decisions -- "relative to grandfathering, expensive fees, and requiring both the FAC and the hunter education courses and examinations.

"This must be corrected, and your help and strong action will be appreciated."

I'm pleased this morning, even as a follow-up to yesterday's news of our revolution for this province, known as The Common Sense Revolution, to see our new member coming forward with what we would consider a commonsense approach to this legislation.

It just makes common sense that these people would be grandfathered and save all this cost and frustration for people who have earned their place in this province, not only as hunters and handlers of firearms but as taxpayers and citizens.

It's important that we apply this commonsense approach to other legislation and try and get the people who are paying the taxes out of the shackles that governments over the years have gradually put us in.

I can't accept the Solicitor General's response to my question. He is trying to tell me that he can't do anything, that this is a federal issue. I will read from Hansard. He says:

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

"I would say, in conclusion, that the honourable member for Lanark-Renfrew should know that every province in this entire nation has taken the exact same position that Ontario has."

First of all, he's trying to get out from under his responsibility as the minister. He's shelving it over to the federal government again and saying it's not within his authority. It is within his authority to come through with the regulation that would allow grandfathering of this.

I just want to close, because there are other speakers here this morning, and say how pleased I am that our member for Victoria-Haliburton has brought this resolution forward.

1130

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): I take great pleasure in standing here today to speak in complete disagreement with the member from Haliburton, Mr Hodgson, and Mr Brown and Mr Jordan. I agree with Mr Jordan that what we need here is a commonsense approach to the issue. That is why the comments by Mr Malkowski, and mine, reflect a commonsense approach to this issue that I believe his constituents and their constituents agree with, except perhaps some of the hunters, or many of the hunters. But I agree on a commonsense approach to the issue.

Some have argued, and Mr Hodgson says, "Is it fair to bring them back to the classroom?" I say yes, and I believe a lot of Ontarians, when we're talking about safety, believe as well that they should be going back to the classroom, in the same way I would argue that from time to time we should make doctors go back to the classroom, that from time to time we should even make teachers go back to the classroom, even though they are in one. There is a continual need for renewal of one's knowledge around any issue, whatever the issue, on a regular basis.

Mr Hodgson is saying: "These people are good people. They know how to shoot. They've been shooting animals for years. They're okay, so let's not put them back into the classroom, because they really don't need it."

I disagree with the statement. I'm not sure it's being disrespectful to them or to some of these other older hunters to require them to take a safety course. The issue of respect for these hunters or these older hunters I don't quite understand, nor do I accept it.

They argue as well that these people are not criminals. No one is making the case that they are. To say so would be a problem. No one has said that they are criminals or that we should be treating them like criminals. We're saying they should be taking the safety course. Even though they've taken a safety course 30 years ago, they should be taking it again. Why? We're talking about new national standards, not old standards but new ones. To require them to reacquire knowledge that I need to make me feel better about their knowledge of safety is not, in my view, a very restrictive or onerous obligation we're putting on those individuals.

Mr Brown speaks of it as if somehow -- at least, I understood him later not to understand the case -- we were restricting guns or gun control. That's certainly not the issue, as he knows full well, because later on towards the end of his speech he made it quite clear that we're talking about safety, about people's renewal of knowledge they need, as opposed to restricting guns or gun control. So he knows better.

He talks about this as if somehow we're creating a new club -- interesting thought. We are not creating a new club, I don't think. What we are creating is a club of people who should be learning how to handle the guns, who should be knowledgable about the new standards being proposed. I think that is a reasonable standard that most reasonable Ontarians, including the people who have spoken from their communities and others who are about to speak, will support.

Mr Brown talks about a fee of $400. I certainly haven't seen any figure that speaks about a $400 fee that would make it inaccessible to people to have to get into this new course or this testing. The figures I've seen is that it's anywhere from $50 to $100.

Is this an onerous obligation on these hunters? Does it really destroy the economy of the north or some other areas of agricultural country? I say no. On the basis of safety, on the basis of making me feel a little safer, I say they should be required to have no exemption from Bill C-17, from the knowledge requirements.

I say this is an issue of prevention. I say this is an issue where people need the comprehensive knowledge that is required to have safety understanding. It's an issue of safety, not shooting skills, that we are arguing here, and I believe reasonable Ontarians would not support the resolution Mr Hodgson has put forth today.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I would also like to congratulate the member for Victoria-Haliburton for bringing forth this resolution.

Just following up on what the previous speaker indicated, I consider myself a reasonable person from Ontario and I certainly support the resolution.

Mr Speaker, you've been around to see the great number of petitions that have indicated exactly what's in the member's resolution. Of course, those petitions are coming from a good number of my constituents as well.

I've always seen hunters in my area -- I have some very close friends who are hunters -- as being very safe and responsible owners in terms of the use of their firearms. As stated in the petitions, they are not the criminals we are worried about in terms of gun safety and the use of firearms. It's not their firearms that are involved in crimes; it's the smuggled, illegal firearms that find their way into the criminal acts and the crimes that are committed.

At this time, I would also like to indicate that I do have a little knowledge about the safety courses that are offered. I think of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, of the Ministry of Natural Resources, and many dedicated people such as Harold Nickel from my riding, who has given this course to many of our first-time hunters, our young people, those people who require the course, especially those who are under 20 years of age. We know these efforts began back in 1957, and they've been very, very successful in terms of bringing 700,000 people into the sport of hunting on a very safe basis.

I would like to indicate again my very strong support for this resolution, and also the support of many of my colleagues from rural Ontario.

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I welcome the opportunity to rise in support of this resolution brought to our attention today by the newly elected member for Victoria-Haliburton, Mr Hodgson. I want to speak on it just briefly.

The debate that's gone on in this Legislature this morning really shows me how naïve some of the Metro members are with regard to rural Ontario. I cannot believe it. The problem we have here is that a lot of legislation is Metro-driven, Metro-oriented, and the rest of the province follows what goes on here.

This resolution notes that because "all first-time hunters since 1960 have successfully completed the hunter education course, which includes safe firearm handling procedures, the government of Ontario should automatically grant a firearms acquisition certificate to people who have successfully completed that course and to those who have demonstrated a solid safety record through many years of...experience."

I support this resolution for the following reasons: Hunters are safe and responsible owners and users of firearms; the current mandatory policy of the new federal firearms safety course requires hunters to be trained in handguns, which are weapons not used in the field by hunters; training now received by over 700,000 Ontario residents through the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and the Ministry of Natural Resources ensures the safe use of firearms by hunters; and additional government-approved training of prospective owners in the legal use of handguns is required prior to any government permission to purchase or otherwise legally acquire a handgun or other restricted firearms.

I will be supporting this resolution on behalf of all the safe and responsible owners and users of firearms in the riding of Simcoe East, safe and responsible owners and users like James Gillespie of rural route 2, Orillia, who ran into the following difficulties when he tried to renew his firearm acquisition certificate. He wrote to me, and I just received it yesterday. He's a young individual who has been involved in the use of firearms since the age of six. He tried to renew his FAC, and he tells me it has been a real difficulty:

"The following is an account of how much time I have expended so far just to renew, starting from February 16 to date (May 1)," which is three days ago, "and I still do not have my FAC.

"On February 16, I went to the Orillia detachment to get my renewal in before it expired so it would only cost $25 instead of $50. I was then told I would have to be tested on my knowledge of firearms and their safety. Now the real adventure begins. First I had to contact the only approved firearms instructor in the Orillia area, Mr Ed Bagley. Mr Bagley told me he was trying to put together enough people so that he could cover the expense of the hall rental in order to give a test. He also indicated that he still didn't have the textbooks we needed to study for the exam. Later in February, the textbooks became available at a cost of $12....Mr Bagley called and told me I would have an opportunity to take the test on March 12," which he finally ended up doing, and he passed the test, 100% written and 97% practical.

1140

"By the way, the test cost $25," which is now $50. "I also forgot to mention, the cost of the passport photos I had to supply for my renewal was approximately $10.

"Everything was going good now and I thought I had bided my time and done everything I should. I made my renewal early so I only had to pay $25, photos were $10, textbook to study the new laws and safety procedures was $25. Good thing I passed the test or I would lose all the money I spent so far and then would have to pay an additional $50 for my new FAC. Also I would have to take a course that covers gun handling, safety, the new laws etc. I have heard these courses cost anywhere from $45 to $200, as well as resubmitted photos.

"Now it gets interesting. I took my test results to the Orillia detachment and thought in 28 days or less, the time specified for a renewal to be processed, I would have my new FAC. On Monday, March 14, the firearms officer, PC Langois of the Orillia detachment, called my home and told my wife that my signature on the application wasn't in the confines of space provided and probably wouldn't be accepted. I was asked to arrange to come in and sign again.

"Well, off I went the next day and signed another box and made sure I stayed within the boundaries. I waited until April 19. Seeing that I still didn't have my FAC, I called the Orillia detachment and asked to talk to PC Langois. Unfortunately, he also had other duties and it took a couple of days to see him. Mr Langois was very polite and as helpful as he could be. He said he checked the computer files and that my FAC had been approved and should be mailed in my hands soon. Well, just a little more patience was needed on my part.

"On Monday, April 25, I called my wife from work, who then told me PC Langois had called that day. He said I had to come to the OPP station and sign another time because my signature still did not meet the requirements.

"Well, folks, that's the last straw. I have called my MP and MPP and have decided enough is enough. I have spent enough time and money to renew my FAC. Can someone say when I may have my FAC, specifically...?"

This letter indicates the problem out there. Here is an individual who, with regard to hunting all his life, tries to renew his FAC. We want it grandfathered so he doesn't have to go through this mess, costing all this money. Federal legislation does permit provinces to implement grandfathering, and grandfathering was suggested to the chief provincial firearms officer for Ontario by the federation last year.

This is a true example of big government trying to tell the people in rural Ontario how they should operate.

Mr Anthony Perruzza (Downsview): Bang, bang, you're dead. That's what this is about.

There's only one purpose to guns. The last time I checked, a gun fires a projectile and it's intended to either shatter something or kill something. Whether you're killing a duck, a rabbit, a moose, a deer, a groundhog or a person, a gun has only one purpose and that purpose is to kill.

People are dying out there. We have a resolution in front of us here today brought in by a member who was elected only a few short weeks ago. What does he do as the first order of business? He negotiates with his Conservative leader to get a time slot to introduce a resolution into this place that says --

Mr Jordan: A point of order, Mr Speaker: This member is way off topic and being unnecessarily critical of a new member.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member for Downsview.

Mr Perruzza: He introduces a resolution that says, "Give all of these guys, automatically, through the mail -- send them a gun. Give them a gun, and while you're at it, why don't you load it as well? Well, you know, if you took a course 30 years ago, you're still the same person. So we're going to arm you, we're going to load you up, we're going to give you some bullets and you're okay: You get out there and you use that gun for what it was intended to do."

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Perruzza: There are 675,000 hunters in Ontario. Automatically, give them a gun. There are roughly 400,000 other people who have owned guns, so you would presume that you automatically give them a gun and give them some bullets as well. That is absolutely such an irrational and such an absurd thing to do given the number of guns that are out there on the street. I say to you again: There is only one purpose for guns and no other purpose, and that purpose is to kill. There's only one purpose to guns unless you sit there and you shoot at a tree, and that purpose is to kill.

That is so absolutely an irrational thing. Bang, bang, you're dead.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I want to rise to support this resolution, and I do so as a member representing a large part of rural eastern Ontario. Time does not permit me to take issue with some of the comments that the previous speaker made, but I do agree with whoever said earlier that a lot of this debate ignores the reality of life in rural communities.

I represent Renfrew county. Monday night I was at one of our outdoor's sportsmen's clubs. I was meeting with a group of farmers on the weekend. It must be said that if you live in communities like Pembroke or Eganville or Moose Creek or if you go, for example, to any of these rural high schools during hunting season, you will find -- and the member for Cochrane South will know this -- a goodly number of young boys and girls aged 16, 17 and 18 who are taking time off school to go hunting because that is part of the rhythm of rural life.

I have been standing and will continue to stand in my place and argue that we must, as a provincial government, join local and national governments to do more to deal with violence and crime in our streets, in our big and small towns. But we must, I think, understand that good public policy has to address the problem that's out there. We don't want to drop a net into the water and catch all of the wrong fish.

I support the member for Victoria-Haliburton in this resolution because I think the proposal is a sensible one in so far as the community that I represent. It has to be said that in fact all we are asking for in this resolution is simply this: People, many of them older people -- I have been approached in the last few weeks by 60-, 65-, 70-year-old constituents who have taken a government-approved hunter safety and gun safety course. They have hunted safely without incident for 30, 40, and 50 years in some cases. They have had a sterling record in terms of safety. They say to me, "Why now am I being asked to spend at least $200?" I say to the member for Fort York.

I met the other day with a couple of the instructors and they have told me that in Renfrew county, the minimal cost of this requirement is going to be at least $200, and probably more. My friend waves his hand in disbelief. This is what I'm being told by instructors who are offering the course, and I believe them.

The point I want to make is that we ask only this: that people who have had a good record, people, many of them senior citizens, who have hunted for decades very well and very safely, I say to my friend from Orono, not be singled out for a substantial new requirement, unwarranted on the basis of their proven track record and unwarranted on cost grounds.

1150

Let me say again that the Liberal Party has said, my leader has said, I have repeated that we have to do more in so far as crime is concerned. I support a number of initiatives. I'd like to see tougher sentencing. We'd like to see changes to the Young Offenders Act. We'd like to see an end to plea bargaining. We would like to see a number of other initiatives in the area, for example, of tighter controls around the retail of ammunition.

Let me say, as well, that I have not always agreed with the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, but on this request it is right. On this request I support them, as I support the member who brought forward this resolution, because what we must all do as legislators is we must understand that as we move forward together to sensibly address the concern that's out there about safety and security in all our communities, we must focus our efforts on the problem and we must not alienate a lot of good, law-abiding citizens who feel that they are being unfairly targeted, a lot of good, law-abiding citizens who feel that however good the intentions, they, the good people, are being singled out by wrongheaded policy.

I want to say, on behalf of the thousands of rural constituents I am proud to represent, that they have a right to be considered as we move forward in this area. I join my colleagues from Northumberland and from Kenora and from Brant and from Manitoulin and from Bruce who have said in this debate that this is a sensible request to be made of government, that we want to get at the criminal element with a number of initiatives that I have articulated earlier.

But we do not want to unfairly and unreasonably single out all of those good hunters and good farmers who over the years and over the decades, having taken an Ontario government hunter safety and gun safety course, having passed that, having paid for that, having had a good record, those people have a reasonable right to be grandfathered as this resolution calls for.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): I'm very pleased to have been granted the opportunity to speak in support of the commonsense resolution brought forward by our member for Victoria-Haliburton. The issue of grandfathering firearms acquisition certificates is of great concern to anglers and hunters across Ontario, including those who live in my riding of Grey-Owen Sound.

My offices are inundated with letters and petitions from constituents who object to the government's decision on the FAC course and examination and who support the idea of grandfathering those who have already taken safety courses or hunted responsibly for years -- people like the Grey-Bruce Travellers Council, the Artemesia Predator Controllers, the East Grey Hunters' Association, the Sydenham Sportsmen's Association, the South Grey Hunters' Association, the Bruce Peninsula Sportsmen's Association, the Grey-Bruce Rod and Gun Club, the Blue Ridge Sportsmen's Club and the Western Ontario Fox Hunters' Association.

These are organizations in my riding composed of responsible owners and users of firearms. These people are not unsafe and they are not criminals.

The Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters sent an interesting letter and corresponding fact sheet to my office on May 2. I would like to share some of these facts and statistics with the House.

Training for hunters began in 1957. In 1960, the hunter safety training education course became mandatory for all new hunters under the age of 20. Since 1960, over 700,000 people have successfully completed this course and passed the corresponding exam. On an annual basis, volunteer instructors educate and test between 20,000 and 35,000 prospective hunters. There were 154 accidents with 36 fatalities in 1960 but since then, with more safety training, fatalities and injuries caused by firearms have fallen more than 80%. Today, firearms owners possess $2 million in public liability insurance as part of their membership in the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters, an organization which prides itself on the promotion of safety and conservation.

The OFAH and its members take safety-related issues very seriously. These are not people we need to fear. The hunters in my riding have compelled me to support this resolution. Saskatchewan already has done this. In light of these facts and based on the requests from my constituents, I see no reason why Ontario should not follow suit. As a result, on behalf of the many sportsmen's associations and hunters and farmers in my area, I intend to support this resolution, and congratulate my colleague.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): I want to make a couple of quick points. In terms of the view of the general public as well as people involved in public safety and public health who are in favour of tougher gun control in whatever form it comes, this resolution is not consistent with the opinion that is there. The decision not to grandfather is clearly consistent with the government's view that we need to have tough and national standards with regard to firearms purchase and storage.

In terms of our government, the Ministry of the Solicitor General, through the provincial firearms office, has been working quite closely with stakeholders in the communities to ensure that a regulation is drafted that is consistent with both our needs and theirs.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted to the government bench. The member for Wellington.

Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): I'm very pleased to rise and indicate that I intend to support the member for Victoria-Haliburton, who has been here for less than two months and has brought forward a very, very important resolution with respect to his riding in Victoria-Haliburton, with respect to all of rural Ontario. We see another case where a policy written in urban Ontario does not fit in rural Ontario. Without question, the individuals who have demonstrated safety -- I'm talking about farmers, I'm talking about hunters in Wellington county -- shouldn't have to go through another safety training course.

I hope that all members of the House will give favourable consideration to this commonsense resolution put forward today. I want to commend once again our new member for Victoria-Haliburton for bringing it forward.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted. The honourable member for Victoria-Haliburton has some time in which he may want to sum up.

Mr Hodgson: I'd like to thank all the members who participated in this debate this morning, in particular the member for Lanark-Renfrew, Mr Jordan, the member for Simcoe East, Mr McLean, the member for Grey-Owen Sound, Mr Murdoch, the member for Wellington, Mr Arnott, also the member for Algoma-Manitoulin, Mr Brown, the member from Kenora, Mr Miclash, and the member from Renfrew North, Mr Conway.

I would like to point out and just use an analogy. It's obvious to me that there are some members on the government side who reside in Metro ridings, and I think I made it very clear that we're not disagreeing with the safe use of firearms or the punishment of criminals or those who misuse firearms. What we are talking about is some common sense.

If I can be permitted to use an analogy, we have a problem with automobile safety in this province, and a number of years ago we recognized that we needed seatbelts and we made it so it's mandatory for seatbelts. We grandfathered that into the new driver safety tests for this province. We made it so that new drivers coming on stream had to have a course that taught them how to use the new rules and regulations. Older drivers who demonstrated a safe driving record weren't forced back into the classroom right across Ontario, and similarly with gun ownership.

We have farmers and hunters who have hunted for generations. It's part of the rural lifestyle that's been mentioned here, and it's unfair to force them back in on their time and their money to take a course, which we don't do in any other field of safety in this province. We grandfather it in. If the member from Downsview's residents had to go back and all take a driving course because there have been accidents with automobiles and improvements to technology to buy a new car, he'd be the first one to scream. It's the same in rural Ontario. We're talking about our lifestyle.

The Acting Speaker: This completes the time allotted for ballot item number 54.

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

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now revert back to ballot item number 53, second reading of Bill 152, An Act to prohibit certain types of payments to Loan Brokers.

If any members are opposed to a vote on this motion, please rise. Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the House that Mr Phillips's motion carry? Carried.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Refer this to the finance and economics committee.

The Acting Speaker: We will be looking for a majority or a consensus.

All those in favour of the finance committee, please rise.

All those opposed, please rise.

The majority is not in favour. Therefore, the motion will be referred to committee of the whole.

FIREARMS SAFETY

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): We will now deal with ballot item number 54, in the name of Mr Hodgson. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour of Mr Hodgson's motion, please say "aye."

All those opposed, please say "nay."

In my opinion, the nays have it.

Call in the members; a five-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1202 to 1207.

The Acting Speaker: All those in favour of Mr Hodgson's motion, please rise and remain standing until named by the clerk.

Ayes

Arnott, Beer, Bisson, Brown, Callahan, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Cunningham, Daigeler, Duignan, Eddy, Elston, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Hansen, Hodgson, Jackson, Johnson (Don Mills), Johnson (Prince-Edward, Lennox, South Hastings), Jordan, Klopp, Kormos, Marland, McLean, Miclash, Morrow, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Murphy, O'Connor, Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Pilkey, Runciman, Sola, Sterling, Stockwell, Turnbull, Waters, White, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Simcoe West), Wiseman, Wood.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Mr Hodgson's motion, please rise and remain standing until named by the clerk.

Nays

Akande, Boyd, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Murdock (Sudbury), Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pouliot, Sutherland, Ward, Wessenger.

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 45; the nays are 30. I declare the motion carried.

It now being past 12 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 pm.

The House recessed from 1211 to 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr John C. Cleary (Cornwall): Last Friday, Ontario's municipalities were informed by the Ministry of Transportation that road subsidies were flat-lined for the year 1994. Rumours have been circulating since then that the minister is playing a shell game with road subsidies.

Yesterday I learned from the engineer of the united counties of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry that subsidies for upper-tier municipalities have in fact declined by 6%. In SD&G, for example, funding has been cut by 10.68% from last year. In Leeds-Grenville, municipal officials will grapple with an 8.5% reduction in subsidies, and in Frontenac county a 10.5% cutback.

The people of Ontario deserve well-maintained roads. Construction will create the needed jobs. I've heard complaints about the potholes and ridges on Highway 401 in the Long Sault area and on Highway 2 in my riding.

This year's funding is not the first time that the united counties have received reduced funding for roads. In SD&G they've lost more than $1.5 million of their budget over the past three years of the NDP's government mandate.

The township of Lancaster showed its dissatisfaction with funding levels by passing a resolution which reads, in part, "The council of the township of Lancaster hereby wishes to record its total disbelief and disgust with the manner in which the present government of Ontario has been treating local municipalities in the past few years."

This government not only is incapable of managing its own finances but is creating havoc at the municipal level as well.

GEORGIAN BAY '94 MARINE HERITAGE FESTIVAL

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): This summer the residents of Penetanguishene and Midland will showcase their communities and put Georgian Bay on the international map. The kickoff is on May 18 and 19.

Visitors to the Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival can attend more than 40 events celebrating Georgian Bay's extremely rich marine heritage and be treated to our unique small-town hospitality.

On July 23 and 24, the Georgian Bay Powerboat Grand Prix will roar into Penetanguishene Bay to thrill spectators with the power and excitement of 130-mile-per-hour boats. More than 16 tall ships and a dozen other historic and modern boats will participate in a Parade of Sail into Midland Bay on July 29.

These ships will be open daily to the public from July 29 to August 2 at the Midland town dock, the Penetanguishene town dock and Discovery Harbour, formerly known as the Historic Naval and Military Establishments. More than 400 performers will take part in military re-enactments and musical entertainment, to be capped by a magnificent fireworks display.

More than 250 young people from more than 10 countries will compete in Atlantic Challenge '94 from August 2 to 10. They will participate in a cultural exchange and compete in rowing, sailing and seamanship events.

Come and welcome our international guests from Russia, France, Denmark, the United States, the United Kingdom, Norway, Ireland and Canada at the Discovery Harbour's international village. Come and be piped aboard as history is made at Georgian Bay '94 Marine Heritage Festival.

NATIONAL GARDEN MONTH

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): The month of May is designated as National Garden Month. It is a time when, after a long winter, we appreciate certainly the beauty of the natural world.

I want to invite everyone to the beautiful gardens of Niagara. Drive the Niagara Parkway from Niagara-on-the-Lake to Queenston and on to Queen Victoria Park. Don't forget to stop at my favourite spot, which is the horticultural school. Come and enjoy spring and also Mother's Day this weekend. I want to remind everyone that the blossoms of the fruit trees are opening now and the Blossom Festival Parade is in Niagara Falls on Saturday, May 14.

More and more Ontarians are discovering the joy of a beautiful garden. Ontario's nursery and turf industries contribute $174 million in farm-gate sales. Plants are certainly an economic benefit to Ontario and a flourishing business across the Niagara Peninsula, as my colleague from Lincoln will attest. Nursery plants also provide beauty, improve our air and water quality and probably help our state of mind. That's why I brought these into the Legislature.

During National Garden Month, I encourage all members and their constituents to support Ontario's nursery and landscape businesses by buying and growing Ontario nursery products.

ENVIRONMENTAL POSTER CONTEST

Mr Charles Beer (York-Mackenzie): Last month, grade 3 students in the township of King at three schools prepared posters to set out why they were so opposed to the government's policy of building a huge megadump near King City and near Maple.

There were three winners selected in the poster contest. Those posters were then put on to T-shirts, one of which I'm wearing and two of which I'm going to hold up. I want to commend the young students in grade 3, and there was tremendous participation from all of the schools. The pink shirt that I'm wearing, which says "Be A Litter Quitter," was done by Margaret Misiak of Holy Name School. This green shirt, which was done by Alexandra Begg of Country Day School, says, "Save Our Earth/Save King." Finally, there is Mikki Hoteri from the Eva L. Dennis School, whose T-shirt says, "No Dump."

I think what was clear from all of the students who participated in this was that they wanted to send a very clear message to the Minister of Environment and Energy, to the Premier and to the former Minister of the Environment that going about our waste disposal by creating yet another megadump near Maple and near King City was not going to resolve the problem. I told them that I would help in taking their message directly to the government and directly to the Minister of Environment and Energy: Minister, eliminate the IWA. Let's get rid of that old, funny Bill 143.

ALGONQUIN COLLEGE

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): This statement is for the Minister of Education and Training.

Algonquin College is planning to move a job training school from Renfrew to Pembroke. I would like to inform the minister that withdrawing these facilities will seriously impair Renfrew's ability to create and sustain jobs. I quote the mayor of Renfrew, Howard Haramis, who wrote to me and said this move "will definitely place the identity of the skills centre in jeopardy. It will be a great loss for Renfrew."

Renfrew's corporate citizens have devoted a tremendous amount of time and energy, in cooperation with educators, to training people with the skills they need to be viable in the local economy. I cite as an example Times Fiber Canada Ltd of Renfrew, who are gearing up to expand their operation and workforce. I quote from a letter by Mr Hugh Edwards, general manager: "We wish to most emphatically voice our strong objections to their seemingly firmed-up" but unfounded "plans to move out.... How can they simply remove a facility that is top-notch and which has developed in conjunction with the town of Renfrew?"

Algonquin College is spending $600,000 on this move. I implore the minister to direct the college to use common sense. Save the expenditure on bricks and mortar and use it for teachers and classrooms in the existing facilities in Renfrew.

1340

CANCER TREATMENT

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): Last Saturday afternoon, I sat at a table in the Oshawa Mall along with volunteers who form the Cancer Centre for Oshawa team. We were speaking to people who came to the table to sign a card urging the Minister of Health to support full radiation therapy at Oshawa General Hospital.

We were joined there by one Philip McCorkell, a member of Rebounders of Canada. This organization's membership comprises children who have survived cancer against all odds. The presence of Philip at the table that Saturday gave all of us a lift in our efforts.

This year's drive for support follows on the heels of last year's drive when 15,000 people signed the petition that I presented to the Legislature. During April, Cancer Month, the table in the Oshawa Mall has been attended each Saturday from 9:30 am to 6 pm. Over 4,000 people have indicated their desire to see radiation therapy at the Oshawa General Hospital. They all said, and I echo their words, "We need it now."

I stand in my place today to salute the members of the Citizens for a Cancer Centre and to all those -- the CAW, local business, the Oshawa Shopping Centre owners, the press, radio, television stations and many unnamed volunteers -- who gave freely of their time, their talent, their money to bring to the front our community's need for radiation therapy now.

I hope the Minister of Health somewhere -- she's not in the House -- is watching and listening.

HEALTH CARDS

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): The Tory Health critic sanctimoniously talks about Liberal health card fraud. Well, I have some factual information for him.

Twenty-six million, that's the number of OHIP cards that were floating around in Tory Ontario in 1985; 26 million at a time when the population of Ontario was 9.5 million. Yet today's Progressive Conservative Party seems to have a case of amnesia about those old Tory days. They accuse the Liberals of giving out too many cards. In 1990 the Liberal government had actually decreased the number of health cards by 14.5 million to clean up Tory mismanagement. The Tories refer to fraud in the health card system under the Liberals but want us, the people of Ontario, to forget the runaway fraud during those 42 years under the Tories. There were no procedures, no accountability in place to track fraud, so they could not even have known about it or done anything about it.

Last year Tory leader Mike Harris stated that he had leaked a government document stating that the health fraud in Ontario amounted to $1.2 billion a year. When his research staff finally got around to checking their figures, they discovered that he'd made a half-billion-dollar, a $500-million, mistake.

The Tories have continued to claim that millions of dollars of health fraud exists; just don't ask them where their numbers come from.

Mr Charles Harnick (Willowdale): Why are they changing those red-and-white cards?

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

Mrs Caplan: All they're doing is engaging in a alarming rhetoric: 26 million cards, no accountability. That's the Tory legacy, and no one in the province of Ontario will forget.

SENIOR CITIZENS' HOUSING

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): Yesterday Conservative leader Mike Harris announced our party's Common Sense Revolution to address the economic challenges for our party and our province. Included are several announcements to protect quality living standards for Ontario seniors. However, since 1990 the NDP government has been imposing a series of revolutionary cuts to services for seniors.

On March 15 of this year, the Housing ministry announced it will encourage providers of seniors' housing to rent to non-seniors in cases where there are ongoing vacancies. This disturbing directive strongly suggests the NDP will no longer ensure that the current stock of non-profit seniors' housing will continue to be age-specific.

The Housing minister should be aware that age-specific housing provides an important social network for seniors. This affords the needed supportive and reassuring environment for seniors, the majority of whom prefer it over age-integrated housing. Studies also demonstrate that age-integrated housing has a negative impact on the general health and wellbeing of seniors.

The number of seniors and their housing needs continue to rise. Halton region has 394 seniors on a housing waiting list, with 170 seniors in Burlington alone, but in March a total of only five seniors found accommodation.

This is yet another NDP slight against seniors that decreases the current base of seniors' housing in the face of rising demand. It is also a blatant contradiction of the thrust of long-term care reform. The minister must review her policy to protect age-specific housing for Ontario's aging population which ensures the kind of care that seniors need and so richly deserve in Ontario.

NEWSPAPER CARTOON

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): Today in a Toronto tabloid there was an editorial cartoon that in this month of sexual assault awareness is absolutely reprehensible and the lowest form of journalism.

If Mr Donato's intent was to spur conversation, then he's certainly succeeded. However, I am not giving him credit for having that much subtlety or foresight. As far as I am concerned, the type of cartoon that was shown today goes beyond anything in terms of good taste. Even the politically incorrect of this province would find it unacceptable.

I point out that when I was in law school and took a course called Women and the Law, one of the sections was on sexual assault, and I was astounded to learn that the youngest person ever to be sexually assaulted was two months old and the oldest was 93. So the implication of this cartoon, that sexual assault is due to appearances or dress or any other kind of thing, is totally reprehensible and it should be reported immediately to the press council. I am going to move in that direction.

ORAL QUESTIONS

JOB CREATION

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My first question the day before our budget is to be presented is to the Minister of Finance.

Minister, tomorrow you and your government will be presenting your fourth budget. I remember that before your first budget, you said that your priority was jobs; I remember that before your second budget, you said that your priority was jobs; and before your third budget, you said your priority was jobs. And now this year again, you are saying your top priority is jobs.

So the day before the budget is presented, I ask the Finance minister to look at the record. There are 235,000 fewer jobs in Ontario than when you took office. Over the past year alone, we have seen 4,000 fewer jobs in the first quarter of this year than in the first quarter of 1993. With jobs as your supposed top priority year after year after year, there are still 580,000 Ontarians out of work. Clearly, in each of the past three budgets you have failed to meet your top priority of putting people back to work.

Minister, what will your target for jobs be in tomorrow's budget? Will we still be looking at unemployment levels of 9% and 10%, which is a completely unacceptable target?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Minister of Finance): I would say to the leader of the official opposition that last year, the province -- and I'm not standing up here, representing the government and saying we take credit for everything that's good that happens, any more than you would blame us for everything bad that happens, I'm sure -- but simply to say that in 1993, there were about 80,000 jobs created as we pulled out of the recession.

Now, there was a disturbing blip on the scope in January 1994, but since then there has been positive job creation. We believe that is going to continue this year, and independent, objective observers of the economic scene are saying the same thing. As a matter of fact, virtually everyone out there is now on the recovery bandwagon, so why don't you pull out of your depression tailspin and get on the bandwagon with everybody else?

Mrs McLeod: My answer to the minister's answer to my question is that we are very much concerned that tomorrow's budget will not take the necessary steps to really get this economy going again, to get people back to work, to build on that recovery that is beginning and that we all want to see strengthened. That's what we're looking for from the Treasurer and the government when they present their budget tomorrow.

We're concerned that tomorrow's budget will simply continue the legacy of financial mismanagement that this province has seen for three and a half years -- three and a half years that have completely destroyed confidence in this province's economy.

The evidence of that is the fact that this government's mismanagement has resulted in our credit rating being downgraded from AAA to AA-, which has cost the taxpayers of this province billions in higher interest. In tomorrow's budget we are likely to see that the interest we pay on our debt is now equal to the deficit.

Minister, can you assure the people of Ontario that tomorrow's budget will not further erode confidence in the economy of this province and in the financial management of this province and will not lead to another credit downrating?

1350

Hon Mr Laughren: If I could pick up where the leader of the official opposition left off, yes, I can assure the leader of the official opposition that the budget tomorrow will, I believe, instil a great degree of confidence in the economy of this province as a place to invest, a place to work.

It seems to me that to receive a lecture from the Liberal Party of Ontario on managing the economy is completely beyond the pale. I would remind you of what your government, of which you were a cabinet minister, did in the best of possible times. In the best of possible times, you raised taxes and you increased the deficit by 33%, in a boom period. That's what you did. You left us a mess and we had to straighten it out. We had the courage to tackle that problem, which you never did. So you don't need to come on to me with your sanctimony about how to manage the economy, because you folks never learned how in the first place.

Mrs McLeod: I will confess very frankly that I rather liked being in a position where we had an AAA credit rating year after year. I rather liked the fact that the Provincial Auditor gave our books an unqualified approval rather than the qualified approval this government got for the first time in this province's history. No wonder we have become concerned about this government's legacy of financial mismanagement.

Mr Speaker, surely you can understand how concerned we all are when we hear the Premier of this province saying that tomorrow's budget will keep Ontario on track. I don't think anybody wants Ontario to stay on the kind of track we have been on for the last three and a half years, a track where we have 10% unemployment, a track where there are 580,000 people out of work. It's a track where our interest payments are now equal to the size of our deficit, which has skyrocketed in three and a half years. It's a track on which we are likely to see continuing erosion of confidence in this province's economy.

Minister, is this the kind of track you and your government and your Premier want to keep Ontario on?

Hon Mr Laughren: I would say that what the Premier is referring to, I suspect, when he talks about staying on track is that we continue to put the emphasis on supporting and creating jobs in this province, secondly, that we continue to keep the deficit going down, and thirdly, that we promise to maintain the essential services of the province. That is what we mean by staying on track and we will do that. The budget will show that to you tomorrow.

Secondly, it doesn't take a modicum of good government to solve all the problems that come to government by simply throwing money at it in good times. That's exactly what the Liberals did. You should take no credit whatsoever for having an AAA credit rating when the money was flowing in and you increased the deficit by 33% in five years. Don't give me any lecture, because all you did when you found a problem was simply throw money at it. What we've done is tackle the difficult problems. We've had the courage to do that; you never did.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): New question.

Mrs McLeod: I certainly hope that the government's track record in meeting its targets is infinitely better after budget number four than it has been after the first three.

PUBLIC SAFETY

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): My second question will be to the Solicitor General. It is now a month since I asked for the government to refer the issue of crime to the justice committee on an urgent basis. I did it because we believed and we continue to believe that urgent action is required. We believed that we all needed to focus our attention on this issue. We believed that government had to and has to address the growing fear and concern that exists among the public. Unfortunately, the government seems to think this is some kind of political game we're playing.

I was shocked to hear again yesterday that the Attorney General would not answer questions and referred them for some inexplicable reason to the House leader, who clearly has no direct responsibility for taking action on these issues. But the House leader did tell us that the Attorney General and the Solicitor General would be making statements regarding government initiatives to respond to violent crime.

Solicitor General, as a minister who does have direct responsibility in this area, I ask you today if you will tell us what those initiatives might be and will we see the initiatives that you are apparently addressing in tomorrow's budget?

Hon David Christopherson (Solicitor General): Let me answer the last question first. With regard to what's in the budget, you were talking to the right minister the first time around. I'm not in a position to comment on that at all.

With regard to the process of the discussion with the House leaders, I continue to be absolutely amazed at the ability of the Liberals -- and the Tories; although they haven't been doing it of late, they started it -- in pushing and pulling on this issue at the same time. On the one hand, they continue having the discussions, saying they're interested in seeing some conclusion to the deliberations and have some agreement, and on the other hand, they keep popping up in the House and asking, "Why isn't this thing resolved?"

It's an equal partnership. That was how they requested that. The three parties were to sit down and see if we could agree on an agenda. We said at the time, "That's unusual, we don't normally do business that way, but listen, if we can approach this issue in that way, yes, we think that would be an appropriate way to respond to this particular issue," and that's what we've been endeavouring to do. Any suggestion on the part of the opposition members that the fact that we haven't reached a conclusion is part of a concerted effort on the part of the government is absolutely, in my opinion, misrepresenting what is happening.

I believe all three parties and all three House leaders are sitting together trying to find a common agenda that they can agree on, and if they don't, then we will of course assume our responsibilities as the government and continue to address the issue of violent crime in our society.

Mrs McLeod: We have been urging this government for a month now to take action. That's why we wanted the committee to meet, so we could talk about taking action on an urgent basis.

Yesterday, the House leader at least said that somebody was working on government initiatives and that there would soon be announcements. We simply wonder, if the government has initiatives, what it's waiting for. Everybody is waiting for this government to take some action.

Yesterday, we couldn't get an answer from the Attorney General on the concerns we had about increasing problems of youth gangs. A recent federal report showed that violent offence charges for young people between the ages of 12 and 17 increased by over 100% between 1986 and 1991. The report shows that the presence of guns is becoming widespread in our schools and that extortion and drug-dealing are becoming a routine part of the school day in a number of communities.

Yesterday, we simply wanted to know whether, in the face of the evidence of this report and the stories that we hear on our daily newscasts, this government had any strategy to deal with the overall problem of youth crime.

Can I ask the minister, is this one of the initiatives he's working on, is it one of the announcements that the House leader was alluding to yesterday and can we expect to see some news of this in tomorrow's budget?

Hon Mr Christopherson: Let me also refer to something that our government House leader said yesterday in the time spent during the late show, and that was that last year, long before the Liberals decided this issue was the flavour of the month -- to their credit, at least the Tories have been talking about this consistently for some time. You very much got here after it started to become headlines.

My ministry and this government have been working on this issue and these types of issues since we came to power. Last year, my ministry initiated the public safety and violent crime project wherein we identified a number of critical police standards that we would be developing within a two-year time frame that respond to a whole host of issues, including the Yeo recommendations, the Stephenson recommendations, other inquest recommendations and, yes, also youth crime and youth gangs. We're on track with those standards. In terms of announcements, I've already announced, earlier this year, two of the standards that are out there. I intend to continue to announce those standards as we develop them.

Regardless of what other kinds of shenanigans continue to take place around that legislative committee, this government remains committed to dealing with the issue of violent crime in our society and we will not waiver from that course.

Mrs McLeod: We have been committed since we were in government and we continue to be committed to important issues like community policing, and that is one of the issues this government refuses to even talk about in committee, which is why we have had a month of stalling on being able to even discuss the issues that matter in committee.

I am personally committed and deeply concerned on issues related to violence against women and children. Over and over in this House, we have raised our concerns and urged action to deal with anything which contributes to violence against women and children. I resent the suggestions of this minister that this caucus and this leader have not been raising these issues over and over again and are more than justified in demanding action from this government.

1400

We have also raised another issue which is an important part of the underlying causes of unrest and indeed of violence. Yesterday my colleague the member for Renfrew North reminded this House that today is the second anniversary of the riots on Yonge Street. The Premier's response at the time of that occurrence was to recognize that indeed the high levels of unemployment among our young people contributed to the unrest we saw in the streets that summer.

He committed to implementing a comprehensive strategy to deal with the root causes of youth unemployment, but all we see today is continuing high levels of unemployment among young people. The reported level of unemployment was 19% in 1992. It's still 19% in 1994. We believe the real number is closer to 30%. We saw no action in last year's budget to deal with youth unemployment. There has been no indication that you are --

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

Mrs McLeod: -- prepared to do anything for youth unemployment as we approach a summer of even higher unemployment. Can we expect to see anything in this budget which even begins to address the tragedy of youth unemployment?

Hon Mr Christopherson: I again advise that the Minister of Finance is the only person capable of responding to issues around the budget as we approach budget day. But let me say very directly to the issues, because I don't for a minute suggest that the honourable member doesn't care about the issues, that what I was making the point on was that it suddenly became the lead question for you and you suddenly started demanding well after there were headlines, not beforehand, and I was pointing out that we've been on top of this issue since we came into government.

With regard to youth employment, the parliamentary assistant to the Premier has been working almost exclusively on that issue and has been finding, I think, a number of results we can point to that are very positive in that area. Recently, the Minister of Education and Training announced that there was a new program, or adding an enhancement to a program, that would again deal with the issue of youth employment, and we continue to consider all issues of employment to be a priority of the government.

With regard to the Lewis initiatives, let me say that as it pertains to my ministry a number of the key recommendations, the big-picture stuff, are under way. The use-of-force regulations are in place.

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

Hon Mr Christopherson: They're now part of the law, and the first year of those training regulations being in effect will conclude in June and we expect to be on target with everyone having gone through it. The Race Relations and Policing Monitoring Audit Board: We have the chair-designate working on that. In the next few months, we should have that up and running. The list goes on and on and on. No government in the history of Ontario --

The Speaker: Could the minister please conclude his response.

Hon Mr Christopherson: -- has dealt with the issues of race relations, of youth employment and concerns for youth in major urban areas than this government, and we're prepared to --

The Speaker: The question has been answered.

CORPORATION FILING PROGRAM

Mr Ernie L. Eves (Parry Sound): I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Minister, I have a copy of a memo from your ministry to Ready Mold Designs Inc of London, dated April 25 of this year. This memo notifies Ready Mold that they will be dissolved as of June 11, 1994, if they don't pay your corporate filing fee. This is in spite of the fact that you told this Legislature last October 26, "Nobody is taking away their status."

Minister, beginning June 11 of this year, do you really intend to dissolve tens of thousands of corporations in this province that haven't paid --

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance): Tens of thousands?

Mr Eves: Yes, tens of thousands -- your government's annual filing fee?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Since we began sending letters out -- I think about 30,000 have gone out and possibly more to follow -- to remind people, we have really gone out of our way to give people information and to remind people that they have to pay this fee and update their files. It's a $50 charge. It makes sure that the records are kept up to date.

What we have found in sending these letters out and asking people to comply -- in fact, it's proven what we already thought, that there are an awful lot of companies out there that are no longer functioning, and that's one of the problems we have in keeping the public record up to date. We certainly don't want to dissolve any companies, and we are going out of our way to inform them that they need to pay that fee and that they need to keep their records up to date.

Mr Eves: Our staff called the ministry's so-called help line this morning, and after being put on hold for half an hour, we were informed that not only businesses but charitable and non-profit corporations that have not paid this ridiculous annual fee will also be dissolved: non-profit organizations like Big Sisters of Newcastle, Oshawa and Whitby, Capability Services Enterprises for the Physically Handicapped, the Elizabeth Fry House, the Greater Toronto Chinese Christian Churches Council, the Lake St Peter Native Alliance, the Lions Club of Malton Airport, People Helping People Inc, the Rotary Club of Windsor Foundation Fund, Simcoe Alcohol and Drug Education Services, Westwood Pre-School Centre.

Minister, are you and the Treasurer so desperate for cash that you intend to dissolve these worthwhile organizations and thousands others like them just to get the money in your pocket?

Hon Ms Churley: The member still doesn't get the point.

Mr Eves: Yes, I do get the point.

Hon Ms Churley: The issue here is not to get the money.

Mr Eves: The point is that there are thousands of non-profit organizations that you're terminating. That's the point.

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

Hon Ms Churley: The issue here is -- let me say it again -- that all other jurisdictions in Canada, including the federal government, have this kind of program in place. Because your government in the past -- and perhaps at the time it thought it was doing the right thing; it didn't work. People have not been keeping their files up to date and it is a problem.

We don't think we will be dissolving any of these companies. Let's get real here. It's $25 a year for non-profits. As I said, we have been taking extraordinary steps to make sure that everybody is aware that they do have to keep their records up to date.

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): The point is that the minister is threatening baseball organizations, Rotary clubs, skating clubs, with dissolution. That is really the point.

My question is with regard to the business community. You will know that the Progressive Conservative Party has a task force on small business. What we have heard across the province of Ontario is that the business community is sick and tired of the taxes, the fees, the red tape, the regulations. These are the things that are strangling our competitiveness in the province of Ontario. Is it any wonder, Minister, that we have fewer jobs, that we have high unemployment, that we have a stagnant economy?

My question to you is with regard to the annual corporate filing and with regard to the fee. Most businesses file the same information year after year. Why do they have to pay year after year if it's the same information?

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

Mr David Johnson: The Progressive Conservative Party has called for an end to the corporate filing fee. Minister, will you withdraw the threat to dissolve corporations, to dissolve the community organizations, and in the budget tomorrow will you withdraw this corporate filing fee?

Hon Ms Churley: I certainly dispute some of the comments that were made by the member about the record of this government and the performance level in this province. I think he's wrong.

But to get to the point of the question, I'll say again that it was the Tory government, in my view, that caused this problem in the first place. I think it took a politically irresponsible solution to a situation, which didn't work. Dropping that filing fee and dropping the legal requirement that corporations file new information on a yearly basis caused the database to be in total disarray. This record is searched by thousands of people every year, and the information that's available is incorrect. This can cause real problems for corporations and the public, who are looking for reliable data and information which the government is required to provide to the public.

Let me say again that most corporations are paying this fee, which is --

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

Hon Ms Churley: It's $25 a year for non-profits and $50 a year for corporations. I think that is affordable, and it makes sense to keep these records in order.

The Speaker: New question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: It would be most helpful if members on both sides of the House would refrain from using intemperate language. I asked for the second question. The honourable member for Dufferin-Peel.

1410

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Minister of Environment and Energy. I've received today confirmation that you have exempted the Windsor casino project from an environmental assessment. For the benefit of all, would you explain your rationale in waiving the requirement of an environmental assessment in the city of Windsor for the casino project?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): I'm not quite certain of the wording of the member's question. The basis of the decision was twofold. First, a number of the issues that were raised by those who requested an environmental assessment will be dealt with through the normal process. For instance, I understand the city of Windsor has done a traffic study, and if there were a need for --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Wildman: No, let me finish. If there is a need for an expansion of the road system, that would be subject to the class EA process. Also, if there were the need to expand the water and sewer hard services, that would be subject to a class environmental assessment process. So on that basis, the project would already be subject to the class EA process.

On the other matter, of the proponent as a private sector proponent, there is the question too of whether they would be subject to a full EA normally, and normally they would not be.

Mr Tilson: Well, it was that question and that response I was concerned with, Minister, because that's a statement you did make in your letter dated Monday. You stated in this letter that as a private sector development, the proposed casino complex was not subject to the requirements of the act.

I must say, I find that very strange, particularly because when we went through Bill 8 -- and Bill 8 made it quite clear that the casino experiment was a partnership with the province of Ontario and the Ontario Casino Corp -- the member for Windsor-Riverside called the experiment a partnership with the Ontario Casino Corp and the city of Windsor.

You have stated in your letter, as has the former employee for the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations, Mr Alfieri, who now darn near runs this casino corporation -- he has stated that the Minister of Economic Development and Trade will be responsible for running a casino, which is not exempt, as you know, under the legislation.

Ontario taxpayers have paid for the renovations to the interim casino, have paid for a whole slew of things. The member for Parry Sound has spent a great deal of time in this House talking about the money that's been spent by the province of Ontario. The city of Windsor is paying for the parking lot and the expropriation. My question, Minister --

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

Mr Tilson: Yes, Mr Speaker. I'm coming to that.

There is an awful lot of public money in the project that you're calling private. How can you justify the rationale that this is a private development to exempt it, when all these public funds are used to finance and set up the project?

Hon Mr Wildman: The proponent is the casino consortium, which is a private consortium made up of, I believe, Circus Circus, Hilton Hotels and Caesars World, and those are private corporations. The casino corporation is an agency of Her Majesty, which is responsible for the regulation of gaming in the province and is not, as such, a proponent.

Mr Tilson: This is great stuff we're hearing today. You know, it wasn't long ago that we heard the Premier of the province saying casinos were bad and environmental assessments are good.

Minister, this decision to exempt the environmental assessment from the casino project was exercised in your sole discretion. You've made that quite clear today. You've made it quite clear in your letter. You've made it quite clear in the media.

We don't trust you with respect to that decision and other decisions you're making on environmental assessments throughout this province. We don't trust you when you say you're going to exempt the Windsor casino and when you say you're not going to exempt the Interim Waste Authority when the heat gets turned up in Caledon and Vaughan and York. The Liberals, you recall, were prepared to put a dump at Whitevale without an environmental assessment. How can we trust that you won't do the same thing with the casino project in Windsor, with the three dumps in Caledon, York and Durham?

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): You're misleading the House. That's not true.

The Speaker: Order, the member for St Catharines.

Hon Mr Wildman: With respect, the question is a little convoluted. I would indicate to the member, as I said in my first answer, that there are many aspects of this project, and the concerns raised by those who requested environmental assessment, those concerns I considered, are already subject to the class environmental assessment process: questions of traffic, roads, hard services and noise; air quality is being monitored; an advisory committee is being set up to deal with social issues that are related to impacts of the casino --

Mr Tilson: A full environmental assessment, not the study of the roads.

Hon Mr Wildman: I don't think the member, although he is the environmental critic, understands the class environmental assessment process. It's unfortunate, because it is a very thorough process and it is one that is dealt with throughout the province by municipalities and other proponents for projects, and it has made it possible for us to deal with many, many proposals.

I would point out that while the member indicates he does not have a great regard for me or does not trust me, I hold him in the highest regard.

HEALTH CARE

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): In the absence of the Minister of Health and the junior minister of Health, I'll direct my question to the Deputy Premier. It will concern the whole question that the Minister of Health and I were debating yesterday, namely, the provision and the maintenance of an adequate number of doctors across Ontario.

The minister reported in her answer yesterday that she was not able, to date, to conclude successfully the negotiations with the Ontario Medical Association to ensure a new underserviced area program.

As I speak today, Red Lake in northwestern Ontario and Newbury in southwestern Ontario are two places where emergency departments cannot be open on a 24-hour basis because those communities and their hospitals cannot provide an adequate number of doctors to staff those facilities. What does the Deputy Premier's government have to say to people in communities like Red Lake and Newbury, which are faced with that reality today, and Barry's Bay in my part of Ontario, which will soon be in exactly the same position? What are you saying to those communities as to what your government will do to ensure --

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

Mr Conway: -- an adequate number of physicians so that the public needs are going to be met there?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Deputy Premier): I do appreciate the question. As someone who represents a northern constituency, I am very familiar with the problem of trying to convince doctors to come to northern Ontario and to other small communities.

Quite frankly, I've never understood why the Ontario Medical Association has not taken it upon itself to make assurance that this would never be a problem. I've never understood that. In the end, at some point, governments will end up taking arbitrary actions, which I think is not what we want to do. I always say to the physicians when I meet with them, "Why do you not solve this problem yourself?" -- almost a paraphrase of, "Physician, heal thyself."

We've got a problem here. I don't think the deputy leader of the official opposition is saying that the government should pass legislation requiring that doctors go to these small communities. I don't think he's saying that. He may be saying what his leader says, and that is, "Throw more money at the problem." If he's saying that, I wish he'd say that when he builds in his supplementary.

1420

Mr Conway: What I want to remind my colleague the Deputy Premier of is simply this: ten months ago your colleague the Minister of Health said she had a plan. My colleague the member for Kenora has said in this House that the people of Red Lake are waiting because they do not today have a fully staffed emergency department. Yesterday, the member for Elgin reported to the House that as of today Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury will not have a fully served emergency department.

It's not just the small towns. Peterborough is reporting that it has a serious shortage of family physicians. In the city of Belleville, in the city of Pembroke, health care professionals and communities are saying to the government, "We have a real ongoing deficit with specialists." In the case of Peterborough, it's family physicians. In Belleville and in Pembroke, to name two more examples, it's a chronic shortage of psychiatrists.

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

Mr Conway: The people in these communities want to know, having regard to the Minister of Health's solemn promise last summer, what is your plan and what are you doing now to ensure that the real and pressing needs of people in these large and small centres, north, south, east and west, are going to be met?

Hon Mr Laughren: I know it's the responsibility of government to answer questions, not ask them. I appreciate that fact, having spent a few years on the other side. However, I do think it would be helpful if from time to time members of this assembly would indicate where they stand on solutions to these very nagging problems.

Interjection: Where do you stand?

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm telling you where I stand and where this government stands.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you will let me answer, I can tell you that our plan is to negotiate an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association to resolve this very difficult problem. I don't believe we should have to throw more money at doctors to convince them to come to small communities. I don't think that's the right solution. Second, I don't believe it's right that we should have to pass legislation that says, "You have to go there to practise medicine." I don't like that idea either.

Therefore, it seems to me that leaves a third alternative, which is to negotiate an agreement with the Ontario Medical Association. I must say, I remain puzzled as to why that has not happened on the part of the Ontario Medical Association.

PUBLIC HOUSING

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): My question is for the Minister of Housing. This spring we have had one non-profit housing scandal after another. First we had Cityhome running $1 million over budget on one project. Next we had gross financial irregularities at Houselink. Then we learned that this NDP government wrote off $16 million in loans to the Supportive Housing Coalition. Now we discover that public housing, government-owned and -operated housing, also seems to be in trouble. Police anti-corruption investigators are probing, guess what? The Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. Apparently, they are also looking into tendering irregularities.

Minister, I am not asking you to comment on a police investigation. However, I would like to know what you will do to ensure that MTHA is responsibly managed and fully accountable to the taxpayers of Ontario.

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): In a very short period of time it's very hard to outline all the steps this government has undertaken to ensure that the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority is up to date in terms of being a modern manager of housing that provides assistance to some of the neediest individuals and families in this area. It has a very large portfolio, and, as the member from Mississauga knows, it has not had an easy past. I know she was in this Legislature during the time when the Conservatives were in government, and the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority was not then an organization of which she would have been proud. Indeed, the difficulties it has experienced as it has attempted to deal with and provide housing for some of the neediest people in this very large urban area has been a very large task.

We have undertaken a series of changes, including the participation of some residents of the communities included in the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority portfolio, which are going to move that authority to a different outlook on its future --

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

Hon Ms Gigantes: -- and how it comes to grips with the very strenuous kinds of problems it has faced over the last several years.

Mrs Marland: Minister, I'm actually younger than I look. I was in the government for only six weeks in 1985.

Business continues at MTHA during the police investigation, tendering continues, acquisitions continue. An agency with a $250-million budget must have a proper and accountable tendering process. MTHA's board members must also be very concerned about the implications of the investigation for them, since they are legally responsible for MTHA's operations. The board members represent the community. Some are MTHA tenants. Some have no significant business or legal background. If there is anything happening at MTHA which could compromise them, it must stop now.

Minister, will you ask the Provincial Auditor to conduct an independent audit of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority, and will your government broaden the scope of the public accounts committee's review to handle and to include the MTHA?

Hon Ms Gigantes: There are questions which need to be resolved around the need for changes in management at the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. That has been clear to members of this House for many a year, including the young member for Mississauga South. But to say that change is going to happen overnight is to pretend. We know it's going to take hard work by the many serious people who have taken on responsibility at the board, and a renewal of the morale of the organization, which I think the member herself will recognize has been very low for many a year.

The previous government had attempted to usher in a renewal process for MTHA. This government has picked up that effort and moved forward. We very much regret that there has had to be police involvement in a case at MTHA. Certainly the Provincial Auditor, as the member well knows, is perfectly free at any time to suggest what kinds of reports he wants to make on what kinds of government arrangements, contracts and agencies. The public accounts committee can do the same.

RAIL SERVICE

Ms Sharon Murdock (Sudbury): My question is for the Minister of Transportation. As many in this House know, CN North America and the CP Rail system have approached the federal minister, Doug Young, with a proposal to merge their operations east of Winnipeg.

This has, as you can well imagine, raised serious concerns in northern Ontario, and other communities as well, but northern Ontario especially. If this merger is allowed, only one of two major rail lines will be left in the north to handle the vast body that makes up northern Ontario. We rely on that, as you may well imagine, in terms of getting around. It's not like where we have GO Transit in southern Ontario.

I would like to know from the minister what actions the Ministry of Transportation has taken to force the federal government to relook at this issue and consider its responsibilities to northern communities. I would also like to know how his ministry intends to work with northern communities in terms of getting our point across to the federal ministry.

1430

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): The member is right: When we refer to the fabric, the way of life, the tradition in our special part of Ontario, rail immediately comes to mind, be it CN or CP. It goes back to Confederation, an important element in communications east-west.

Let's get one thing straight: CNR is owned by the federal government. The chairman of the board of Canadian National Railways is Jean Chrétien. If they propose to rip off the rail, to rip off the heart of the community, it is their responsibility, and they shall do so at their own peril.

What we've done at MTO, in conjunction with the Minister of Northern Development and Mines, is commission a study to look at the impact. I have written to my federal counterpart, Doug Young, the federal Minister of Transport. We are concerned about the workers. We're concerned about the social fabric. We're concerned about natural resources. We're concerned about transporting goods and people from point A to point B and therefore about our future. We're doing everything we can in a restricted environment.

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): I have a supplementary for the Minister of Transportation. The intended merger between federally owned CN and CP rail systems is going to be a tragedy in communities in my riding if it is not stopped. Jobs will be lost and communities economically will be hurt, like Hornepayne, for example. The railway is a vital infrastructure of the link between south and north.

I understand our NDP government opposes a merger between CN and CP, and I wholeheartedly agree with this position. Minister, will you approach the federal government to petition for intervenor funding to help communities in the north fight to keep the rail lines open?

Hon Mr Pouliot: The question is very timely. The responsibility is to open the books. When we talked about public necessity and public convenience, the taxpayers of Ontario and the taxpayers of Canada have a direct say, or should have. I've asked Doug Young to come clean, allow intervenor funding, allow participant funding so that the decision-making process, since it impacts everyone who lives in northern Ontario, should go to the municipalities, the users, the beneficiaries, all of us who live in the north. Let's make it a democratic process, and for a few dollars we can have our say and we can intervene, if need be, where we feel public necessity and convenience is not being addressed. Then we shall be there.

GOVERNMENT SURVEY

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): To the Chair of Management Board: On Monday, my office received a client survey that was distributed by the Management Board secretariat. The survey asked for comments on the operation of the Queen's Park central switchboard. "Your comments on our operation," the survey states, "will assist us in evaluating our operations."

I say to the minister, I believe the survey is an excellent idea. To continually try and improve the services is an important objective, and you have to ask the users for advice and suggestions on how to do that. I support that.

I do have one problem, and it concerns government waste. We have yet another example of a good idea tarnished by wasteful expenditure.

This survey was distributed with a metered, prepaid, stamped envelope at a cost of 43 cents each. My question to you is, why was this survey distributed in a prepaid, stamped return envelope when the survey could have been returned through the intergovernmental mail system?

Hon Brian A. Charlton (Chair of the Management Board of Cabinet): Well, it's an interesting question and a good one. I thank the member for raising it.

The answer to the question is fairly simple. The survey to which she refers is a survey of clientele who use the ministry phone lines. So the survey was sent to a number of internal users as well as a number of external users who have been identified as fairly major users of our communications systems. As a result, some of them have to use the federal mail system, the Canada Post system, so we've in fact sent them a stamped, self-addressed envelope. Anybody, though, who returns the questionnaire in the internal government mail, in spite of the fact that it has a metered stamp, will be dealt with by the internal mail, but in order to deal with all of the clients, most of whom are external, we've had to in fact use a stamp.

Mrs Caplan: In fact, the minister is quite incorrect. The survey was sent out -- because we checked this out -- primarily to internal users, approximately 150 staff within government, all MPPs and constituency offices.

Secondly, if your intent was for external users to send it in, a mark that says, "Prepaid postage" or "Postage will be paid" doesn't cost you anything if you print that on the envelope. You then only have to pay for the ones that are actually returned. When you do this, Minister, you have to pay for each and every envelope whether it's used or not and you lose the opportunity to allow people to use the intergovernmental mail office.

Your answer is unacceptable. It shows a lack of thinking about how to operate both more effectively and efficiently. I ask, sir, will you take this back to your people and ask them to look at good, best practices in business to start operating government in a way that's going to save taxpayers' dollars?

Hon Mr Charlton: I'm certainly prepared to look at the specific list that the questionnaire was sent out to, but the member tipped her own hand in her second question. She mentioned that there were 150 or 180 -- I've forgotten the number now -- that were sent out. I recall believing there are 130 members right here in this House. One of the groups she mentioned was constituency offices, and one of the realities for constituency offices is that they happen to be spread right across this province and don't have access to government mail.

ONTARIO HYDRO RATES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): My question is for the Minister of Environment and Energy. Yesterday our leader launched our plan to restore hope and prosperity in this province.

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order. Would the member take his seat.

I would ask the member for Durham East to please come to order. The member for Guelph is out of order.

The member for Lanark-Renfrew with his question.

Mr Jordan: Minister, under this plan, The Common Sense Revolution, we are going to freeze Ontario Hydro rates for five years. I ask, would you today make the same statement to the people of Ontario and make it effective today?

Hon Bud Wildman (Minister of Environment and Energy): The member knows full well that this matter has been referred by the government to the Ontario Energy Board for hearings which will be completed in August. He also knows that Ontario Hydro has made a commitment to freeze rates for 1994 and to maintain rates at or below the rate of inflation for the rest of the decade.

In my view, that is a real, commonsense revolution and indeed a revolution when compared to how both these parties operated with regard to Ontario Hydro when they were in power.

Mr Jordan: I think the minister knows very well that they only review Hydro increases; they do not review the freezing of the rates.

I'm asking you again, Minister, are you satisfied with the status quo at Hydro or are you willing to send out a signal to industry and all Hydro customers across this province that you're willing to give stability to this province on the subject of energy by freezing those rates for five years?

Hon Mr Wildman: The member knows that if I were in favour of the status quo at Ontario Hydro, we would have continued the increases which led to a 30% increase, cumulative, over three years previous to 1993-94.

1440

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): That's too convenient.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Wildman: Further, if I were satisfied with the status quo, I would have continued doing what that party did when they were in power, and that is to commit Ontario Hydro, ever and ever again, to more and more megaprojects like Darlington, which required us to meet debt charges which are escalating at enormous rates and which caused the rate increases about which the member himself is complaining.

DRIVER EXAMINATIONS

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): My question is to the Minister of Transportation. I have been receiving a number of complaints from constituents --

Interjections.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Order.

Ms Haeck: As I started to say, my question is for the Minister of Transportation, and it relates to a number of complaints that my office has received with regard to the booking of road test exams. The constituents have complained that they've had difficulty getting through on the phone lines even to talk to somebody to book an exam. When they get through, they are told they will have to wait as long as five months.

Officials at MTO, I truly believe, have been overwhelmed with calls since the introduction of graduated licensing. While that volume of clients has increased, I would obviously bring to the minister's attention that the staff at the centre have not been able to deal with this.

What action are you and your ministry going to be taking to assure the constituents of St Catharines, St Catharines-Brock, St Catharines Lincoln, that they can have access to this basic licensing service?

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): A more legitimate question you shall not find. The average in the St Catharines region is approximately nine weeks.

We have a problem. Let's admit it; we do have a problem. Some 250,000 Ontarians enter the system each and every year. We have a backlog. Fully 50% of the applicants fail the test, so people have to be tested twice, sometimes three, at times four times. We've added two additional testers for St Catharines. One will start on, I believe it's May 16, and the second one shortly thereafter.

We're monitoring compliance. The system is improving. We're on the right track and very, very much aware indeed, and thanking the member for the question.

Ms Haeck: To follow up on this, not only do we have the car drivers to consider but it has been brought to my attention that there is a problem with truck driving licences, and these are licences that people need for employment. They are being told to book an appointment out of town in places like Kitchener, at exam centres where they may likely receive speedier services, and I believe, and it's quite true, that it has to be costly. So you may be aware that the Transitions program and WCB are sending local trainees to Guelph for up to six weeks, which we pay for by tax dollars.

The Speaker: Would the member place the question, please.

Ms Haeck: Mr Speaker and Mr Minister, the backlog problem must be addressed, and I'm asking you and the minister how this is going to be resolved.

Hon Mr Pouliot: The problem is being managed. It's being controlled. But the focus is if you're a bus driver, if you're a truck driver, if you make a living and you need a licence, common sense prevails that you should be given priority. It only makes common sense. We're improving the system throughout the province. Graduated licences will save lives, but it does put, for a certain time in the interim, some extraordinary pressure on the system. We're coping with it and we welcome the question again from the member -- very timely.

PETITIONS

KETTLE ISLAND BRIDGE

Mr Gilles E. Morin (Carleton East): I have a petition from my constituents. It's addressed to the Parliament of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has representation on JACPAT (Joint Administrative Committee on Planning and Transportation for the National Capital Region); and

"Whereas JACPAT has received a consultants' report recommending a new bridge across the Ottawa River at Kettle Island, which would link up to Highway 417, a provincial highway; and

"Whereas the city and regional councils of Ottawa, representing the wishes of citizens in the Ottawa region, have passed motions rejecting any bridge within the city of Ottawa because such a bridge and its access roads would provide no benefits to Ottawa but would instead destroy existing neighbourhoods,

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

"To reject the designation of a new bridge corridor at Kettle Island or at any other location within the city of Ottawa core."

I affix my signature to this petition.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a petition addressed to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario from a number of constituents in my riding of Dufferin-Peel.

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

"Section 3 of Bill 45 seeks to amend the definition of 'marital status' by striking out 'of the opposite sex.' This will redefine the family as we know it as a heterosexual union upon which the family is built." And they've quoted Judge Ormrod of 1970.

"This bill has not been fully examined for financial and societal implications and we believe that there may be an enormous negative impact on our society both morally and economically over the long term if this bill passes.

"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 therefore could include sadomasochism, paedophilia, bestiality etc, and morally neutral characteristics of race, religion, age and sex, we believe all references to sexual orientation in Bill 45 should be removed.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

I have signed this petition.

FIREARMS SAFETY

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): I have a petition sponsored by the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters and signed by many of my constituents from places like Napanee, Roblin, Selby, Bath and Hay Bay.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas, we, the undersigned, strenuously object to the Ministry of 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."

1450

TOBACCO PACKAGING

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario in support of plain packaging of tobacco products:

"Whereas more than 13,000 Ontarians die each year from tobacco use; and

"Whereas Bill 119, Ontario's tobacco strategy legislation, is currently being considered by the Legislative Assembly of Ontario; and

"Whereas Bill 119 contains the provision that the government of Ontario reserves the right to regulate the labelling, colouring, lettering, script, size of writing or markings and other decorative elements of cigarette packaging; and

"Whereas independent studies have proven that tobacco packaging is a contributing factor leading to the use of tobacco products by young people; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has expressed its desire to work multilaterally with the federal government and the other provinces, rather than act on its own, to implement plain packaging of tobacco products; and

"Whereas the free flow of goods across interprovincial boundaries makes a national plain packaging strategy the most efficient method of protecting the Canadian public;

"Therefore we, the undersigned, hereby petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"That the government of Ontario continue to work with and pressure the government of Canada to introduce and enforce legislation calling for plain packaging of tobacco products at the national level."

I will affix my signature to this petition.

JUNIOR KINDERGARTEN

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

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

"Whereas the provincial NDP government is continuing the Liberal policy of requiring school boards in Ontario to phase in junior kindergarten; and

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

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

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

"Whereas taxes in Ontario are already far too high;

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

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

I am very supportive of this petition and I have endorsed it.

CASINO GAMBLING

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): I am presenting a petition signed by 100 constituents from the Niagara area. It relates to casino gambling. Basically, the final statement says:

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

"We who are opposed to casino gambling request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario not allow the city of Niagara Falls to become a candidate for a gambling casino unless there is broad-based public support for such a facility, which we are requesting to be determined through a referendum vote by the citizens of Niagara Falls."

I have affixed my signature appropriately and I in turn have signed this petition in agreement with its tenet.

SALE OF AMMUNITION

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a different petition. This is 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 am signing this petition, as I am in agreement with it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): This petition is signed by people from Port Perry, Kingston, Mississauga and North York:

"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 administration of justice and is being readied for passage in the Legislature; and

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

"We, the undersigned, petition the Ontario Legislature to stop this bill and to consider its impact on families in Ontario."

I have affixed my name in support of this petition.

LAND-LEASE COMMUNITIES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): Once again I have a petition about a very serious matter in the riding of Middlesex. It's on behalf of the constituents of Twin Elms in Strathroy. They petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

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

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

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

"We, the undersigned" -- and that includes many seniors -- "petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

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

I have most certainly signed my name to this worthy petition.

GAMBLING

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I have a petition on casino gambling. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the government of Ontario has traditionally had a commitment to family life and quality of life for all the citizens of Ontario; and

"Whereas families are made more emotionally and economically vulnerable by the operation of various gaming and gambling ventures; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has had a historical concern for the poor in society who are particularly at risk each time the practice of gambling is expanded; and

"Whereas the government of Ontario has in the past vociferously opposed the raising of moneys for the state through gambling; and

"Whereas the citizens of Ontario have not been consulted regarding the introduction of legalized gambling casinos despite the fact that such a decision is a significant change of government policy and was never part of the mandate given to the government by the people of Ontario;

"Therefore, we, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly as follows:

"That the government of Ontario immediately cease all moves to establish gambling casinos by regulation and that appropriate legislation be introduced into the assembly along with a process which includes significant opportunities for public consultation and full public hearings as a means of allowing the citizens of Ontario to express themselves on this new and questionable initiative."

I affix my signature to this as I agree with it.

SEXUAL ORIENTATION

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): I have a petition that has come to me from Martha Mackenzie in Waterloo:

"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 therefore could 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 references to sexual orientation should be removed from the Ontario Human Rights Code and Bill 45.

"Therefore, we request that the House refrain from passing Bill 45."

This has been signed by approximately 30 people.

EMERGENCY SERVICES

Mrs Irene Mathyssen (Middlesex): I have another petition, this time from Middlesex constituents who utilize emergency services at Four Counties General Hospital in Newbury. These approximately 16,000 people dependent upon the services of Four Counties General Hospital petition the Legislative Assembly to call upon the Ministry of Health and the Ontario Medical Association to resolve the issue of emergency medical coverage in rural emergency departments and ensure that the rural residents of Ontario have the adequate emergency care to which they are entitled.

I have signed my name to this petition.

1500

POST-POLIO SYNDROME

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

"Whereas post-polio is a new phenomenon to attack survivors of polio;

"Whereas the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association has been formed to help survivors of polio;

"Whereas most family practitioners do not have the specialized knowledge to treat post-polio symptoms effectively;

"Whereas we, the members and friends of the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association, wish to emphasize to the Ontario government the need to fund a post-polio clinic in Ottawa;

"Whereas a formal request was presented by the Ottawa and District Post-Polio Association to the Ottawa-Carleton Regional District Health Council in May 1988 and received a top priority at that time;

"Whereas the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton has presented a proposal to the Ministry of Health for funds to establish a post-polio clinic;

"Whereas there are at least 1,000 known polio survivors in the catchment area of the Rehabilitation Centre who need the immediate services of a clinic;

"Whereas there are at least 5,000 polio survivors in Ontario;

"Whereas there is only one formally constituted post-polio clinic, which is in Toronto and which has a lengthy waiting list;

"Whereas the cost and difficulties of several trips to the Toronto clinic and staying overnight each time are often insurmountable for a disabled person;

"Whereas polio survivors who had no paralysis from the initial attack of polio are not immune from developing post-polio symptoms of varying severity;

"Whereas research indicates that 80% of polio survivors may develop post-polio symptoms anywhere from seven to 71 years after the attack;

"Whereas post-polio symptoms are not related to the aging process;

"Whereas, because of immigration, the post-polio population will not diminish,

"We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to establish a post-polio clinic in the Rehabilitation Centre of Ottawa-Carleton for the diagnosis, treatment and follow-up of patients and to disseminate information so that the estimated 1,000 known polio survivors in the centre's catchment area can receive adequate treatment, and that the medical profession be educated regarding the post-polio syndrome."

I affix my signature to this petition.

REPORTS BY COMMITTEES

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

Mrs Marland from the standing committee on government agencies presented the committee's 21st report.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Do you wish to make a brief statement?

Mrs Margaret Marland (Mississauga South): I have no comment, thank you, Mr Speaker.

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

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ADOPTION DISCLOSURE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LA DIVULGATION DE RENSEIGNEMENTS SUR LES ADOPTIONS

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

Bill 158, An Act to amend the Vital Statistics Act and the Child and Family Services Act in respect of Adoption Disclosure / Projet de loi 158, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les statistiques de l'état civil et la Loi sur les services à l'enfance et à la famille en ce qui concerne la divulgation de renseignements sur les adoptions.

HAMILTON COMMUNITY FOUNDATION ACT, 1994

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

Bill Pr114, An Act respecting Hamilton Community Foundation.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

COURTS OF JUSTICE STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1993 / LOI DE 1993 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LES TRIBUNAUX JUDICIAIRES

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act / Projet de loi 136, Loi modifiant la Loi sur les tribunaux judiciaires et apportant des modifications corrélatives à la Loi sur l'accès à l'information et la protection de la vie privée et à la Loi sur les juges de paix.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe Mr Curling was the last one to debate the issue. Further debate?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): I'm very pleased to rise on this bill today, Bill 146. First of all, I will start out by just reading some comments from today's Globe and Mail.

The headlines of today's Globe and Mail story: "Ontario Braces for Bad News in Budget: Deficit, Interest Burden Likely to Exceed $8 Billion Each, Analysts Say." For the first time in recent memory, the province's deficit and interest bill on more than $80 billion --

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): Speaker, I believe we were to do 136.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We are doing Bill 136, not 146.

Mr Turnbull: Sorry.

The Deputy Speaker: That's okay. Further debate?

Hon Marion Boyd (Attorney General): I want to begin this afternoon by thanking my colleagues in the Legislature, first, for their stated intention to support Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and, second, for their many expressions of concern and interest in the matters which are contained in that bill. I assure my colleagues that their comments on the bill will indeed be taken into account, and I too look forward to a thorough discussion of the bill when it goes before the justice committee.

However, some of my colleagues raised matters which ranged well beyond Bill 136, seeming to think that all the possible issues under the justice banner should be able to be resolved with these amendments. Members suggested changes to a variety of bills, the Family Support Plan Act, the Law Society Act, the legal aid plan and a number of other acts, including those under federal jurisdiction such as the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act. Although these issues raised under other pieces of legislation are of course important and in some cases even urgent, they are not the subject of the present debate. Instead, we are faced here with deciding upon legislation which is designed to improve the administration of justice.

I'd like to organize my comments this afternoon under four general headings which I think will respond to some of the comments of my colleagues.

The first area is the area of accountability and independence because this is the major aspect of this bill which is so important. We are faced in this province, as in other jurisdictions, with a situation where the general population is expressing concern about the accountability of the justice system. There are those who are highly critical of the judiciary and of the rest of the justice system, and who need to have some reassurance that there is accountability within the system and that this accountability in no way infringes upon the independence of the judiciary.

1510

The independence of the judiciary is a hallmark of democracy, and it is extremely important that we all reaffirm, whenever we deal with the administration of justice, the principle of independence. It is not appropriate for the judiciary to feel pressured by any area of society. Political pressure, whether it comes from legislatures, whether it comes from the general population, is not to be tolerated.

Judges must be free to make decisions based on the facts which come before them in their courts. It is extremely important that nothing we do in this Legislature in any way infringes upon that independence. Some of my colleagues expressed some concern that some of the issues within the courts of justice bill might do exactly that, and it is important for us to establish that we do not believe that is the case and that in our very extensive consultation with the judiciary we do not have any sense that they are fearful of that.

The purpose of this bill is indeed to set out in very clear ways how our judiciary is to be chosen in the province of Ontario, what the standards are under which they operate, how we can expect them to interact with the other parts of the justice system through such mechanisms as the various rules committees that exist, how they can operate in a management way within the reformed court system of the province of Ontario. It is extremely important that these issues be public, that they be available to people, so that there is a better understanding of how the courts of justice actually operate.

One of the issues that's dealt with in this bill is the appointment of judges. It's important to understand that the appointment of judges through the mechanism of an appointments advisory committee, which was first piloted under the previous Liberal government, is in this bill being put into place in a permanent way and under a set of guidelines and rules that help us to understand the importance of public participation in such an appointments advisory committee.

Because the appointment of judges in the bill is clearly referred to as needing to represent the diversity of the population, there was some concern on the part of my colleagues that there might be some possibility that merit would not be the first issue in the choosing of judges. That is absolutely not the case. This problem people have of assuming that when we are asking for diversity we are not insisting on merit is really based on some of the systemic discrimination that has existed in our society, where assumptions that people who belong to a different group than we may belong to or than the dominant group somehow may not be able to meet the test of meritoriousness. That is not at all the case. It is very clear that merit is the first issue, that excellence is the first criterion that has been set by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, and we want to reassure anyone who has concerns about that.

One of our colleagues talked about being afraid of conflict of interest on the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, and obviously that is of great concern. He did make an error in that he suggested that a political candidate continued as the chair of the appointments advisory committee, and that was not the case. The candidate in question withdrew from that position and has not yet resumed that position subsequent to the election. So that concern, also, we need to be very clear about.

The committee itself is very clear that it wants to remain free from any suggestion that it is operating from any particular point of view. I think this assembly would agree that there are many fine people who are able to act impartially and that we should have a very clear understanding that the Judicial Advisory Appointments Committee is to operate in that way.

The whole issue of the Judicial Council is very important. One of the members opposite suggested that the reconstitution of the Judicial Council, the disciplinary processes and the allowed penalties therein are not very important because very few complaints come forward.

I would remind this assembly that we do have a very fine justice system. We don't expect complaints to be coming in at a fast and furious pace, because we have very fine people on our bench and we certainly expect that complaints would not be numerous. But when they do occur, we need to have the trust and faith of the population that indeed complaints are viewed seriously, that they are looked at by a group of people they can be assured of judging such issues impartially, and that there is a range of possible outcomes when there is a complaint.

I would suggest that one of the reasons there are very few complaints is that those who know about the Judicial Council in the first place and the complaints procedure also know there is only a limited range of possibilities. One is removal from the bench and the other is to remain on the bench without a blemish upon the character. Frankly, many of the issues people would like to bring forward are issues that would not be resolved by either of those two matters.

The Judicial Council will have lay input, as will the Judicial Appointments Advisory Committee, and those who act as lay representatives will have the benefit of the support that is necessary to enable them to act in an appropriate way, and the bill sets that out.

One of the issues that was raised was the whole issue around judicial management, how the management of the judicial system to ensure the efficient and effective use of the justice system would be done. It's really important for this Legislature to realize that our government has entered into the first formal arrangement ever with a chief judge and chief justices to give them both budget and personnel responsibility over their offices. This is very important to judicial independence and it is very important to them in terms of their accountable management of the system.

We believe we are working together with them in a very effective way to reach mutually satisfactory arrangements for accountability and authority in other areas. This is an evolving relationship which we believe is leading us into a very good partnership that will see the administration of justice work very well.

One member, the member for York Centre, tried to claim that this bill was only about the setting of judicial salaries and denigrated the bill on that account. While indeed the mechanism to set judicial salaries is set out, this is by no means the hallmark of this bill. But it is important for us to recognize in this place that a mechanism to set judicial salaries that is apart from government, that operates in a set way, is an extraordinarily important element to judicial independence. It is one we support and that this bill supports.

Many of the members, particularly the member for Willowdale, expressed very strong concerns about the provisions in the bill around the disciplinary process for deputy judges. The member made very clear points, as did some of his other colleagues, about the nature of the Small Claims Court, the nature of the commitment of lawyers within our community who work in small claims courts at very low daily honorariums and who dispense justice to a large number of people.

I don't think there's enough recognition of the importance of Small Claims Court within our judicial system, particularly with the increased jurisdiction of small claims courts. They dispense justice to a large number of complainants within the province of Ontario.

We are indeed recognizing of and very grateful for the participation of very fine senior counsel in sitting as Small Claims Court judges, and we take very seriously the complaint that has been made by those individuals -- frankly, by our regional courts management committee, our Ontario courts management committee and many of the judiciary -- that the process set out in the act is far too ponderous and that it is unnecessary, given the nature of the Small Claims Court situation and the appointment by regional senior judges of Small Claims Court judges.

1520

I want to assure the members that we are right now working very hard with the office of the Chief Justice to alter and to find a compromise around this. I know the members also want Small Claims Court judges to be accountable. This is very important, particularly given that they do dispense justice in a way that is not in many cases able to be appealable, and that is an extremely important thing. But the accountability mechanism we originally came out with may indeed lead to a very ponderous situation.

We are looking at a process currently, which we will want to discuss before the justice committee, that would operate locally, that would be much more informal, that would have an initial screening out of those complaints that are clearly unfounded or are beyond the jurisdiction of the discipline function. The member for Willowdale is quite right: Most of the common complaints that are received are that people didn't like the decision, and frankly, that has nothing to do with discipline.

The wording of the section certainly seems imposing, and it is important for us all to recognize that the purpose is to have any investigation of complaints be very low-key and very private, and at the same time allow the public to have a recognized avenue where they can bring forward complaints, because we also must recognize that once in a while there may be a serious and justifiable complaint where misconduct has indeed happened. When that happens, all of us want to be able to take effective action to ensure that the public is not endangered by that behaviour.

We have had great cooperation from the judiciary and from the regional courts management committees in looking at this, and I expect that in committee we will hear some of the solutions and we will be able to come to a consensus on how to deal with this particular issue. I want to thank the members who brought forward those concerns and I do expect we will be able to meet those.

One of the situations we all face in these days is how we can ensure that there is real access to justice in our province. Members of the opposition pointed out very clearly that one of the issues in access to justice is the issue of the overclogging of our courts, the backlogs that have existed over a long period of time and never seem to get whittled down properly. We faced that in a very serious way with the Askov crisis in the early part of our term and were able to act fairly decisively to deal with the criminal backlog in a way that met the Supreme Court test. But as a result, the civil backlog became even worse, particularly in the family side and in some of the corporate side. We have found that has led to real concern, not just within the legal community but all over the province, with what that means to access of justice.

There are a number of different things we are trying to do to resolve that, many of which do not require legislative change. In fact, one of the major things we have found in this exercise is that under the general kind of authority the Chief Judge and chief justices have under existing legislation, as long as we are working cooperatively with the courts administration staff and with the bar, there is a great deal we can do.

I'll give you an example: the simplified rules. The subcommittee of the civil rules committee will soon be going out to consult on proposed rule changes, changes which would lower the cost to clients of civil cases that go up to $40,000 in the General Division. That consultation is important because it means people will look at the whole situation of the cost of the court as well as its relation to the backlog.

We talked a bit in the debate about the alternative disputes resolution mechanism. It is important for us to recognize that there are alternatives to the adversarial model which has grown up in our courts, and that where those are available they often help to speed the process, to take some of the animosity out of the kinds of disputes we see. It is being embraced very enthusiastically as one -- only one -- of the many ways in which we can work together to try and speed the process of justice.

But alternative dispute resolution works best, and I would suggest works only, where it is supported by all the players in the system. It is important for us to proceed with that support and to build that support, and we believe the way to do that is where there are willing courts and where there are willing bars to set in place pilot projects which can demonstrate how this works to the benefit of the system and to the benefit of the individuals within the system.

The Civil Justice Review announced a few weeks ago by the Chief Justice and myself will work towards increasing both the visibility and the acceptability of alternative dispute resolution. It is important for people to understand that parties to a dispute and their lawyers are free now to use mediation or arbitration or any other form of alternative dispute resolution, and there is nothing that prevents them from doing that except unfamiliarity with the way in which it works and with the kind of support those alternative means have.

Alternative dispute resolution is already built into the civil case management rules that are being tested in Windsor, in the Sault, in Hamilton in the Unified Family Court, and in Toronto. It's important for this House to know that the case management model which was piloted by a few of the judges in the family court on Jarvis Street has now been extended to cover all of those working in that court. That has been a gradual process of winning support for a system which frankly was looked upon sceptically by some people, with the fear not that it wouldn't speed matters but that it might in fact speed them to the point where people were not in a position to accept the resolution at that point in time.

I believe very strongly that as we become more familiar with non-adversarial ways of resolving disputes we will have a much greater comfort about those. We will know how to safeguard the rights of those who are involved in those situations to ensure that there is a true balance of power between the parties when they are in a mediation situation, and we will see a great deal of change in terms of the load on the court when we are more effective in doing that.

I would also say, with respect to access to justice, issues around legal aid were mentioned, issues around cost were mentioned. Those are questions we all must deal with. They don't belong under this particular act, except in that if we're not managing the courts properly, the process drags out and of course legal aid costs get higher and higher, and that then puts a drain on our legal aid system, which does make it more difficult for people to receive the legal assistance they need.

It is important, therefore, for us to take the opportunity of looking at this act, to know there is a great deal we need to do in addition to the kinds of management processes and legislative processes we have set up to ensure that access, and that we need to do that at a time when there are increasingly strong pressures on the resources and strong pressures on the eligibility requirements and the availability of legal aid for different offences within this province as compared to other provinces. That is an issue we continue to deal with.

The other major issue we need to discuss under this bill is the whole issue of the Unified Family Court. I want my colleagues to know how much I appreciate their enthusiastic support for the expansion of the Unified Family Court. It is indeed pleasing to see such unanimity around the value and the importance of expanding the Unified Family Court.

It is also important, though, for us to recognize that it can't be done in one fell swoop, without the kind of negotiation that must go on between the federal and provincial governments around how the court is to be supported, the number of judges that might be appointed to that. They will be federal section 96 judges and therefore the federal government will have some say in how fast and to what extent the court is able to expand.

1530

Some of the members expressed great disappointment that we were talking about a gradual expansion of the Unified Family Court. One of the things I would say to them is that I would appreciate their assistance in negotiating with the federal government an expansion that can occur as quickly as it is able to appoint new judges.

Some of the speakers were very concerned about the infrastructure that's required for a Unified Family Court to be effective. I should say to you that this is certainly our concern as well. Unified family courts only work if they do have the support services that are needed.

But it is important to know that the Hamilton Unified Family Court has a great deal in the way of social services, but very few of those exist by virtue of the sections in the Courts of Justice Act. Section 63, the existing section, simply says, "A conciliation service may be established, maintained and operated as part of the Unified Family Court." In this bill, we modernize the language in section 21.15, plus we add two sections to create resources committees -- that's section 21.14 -- and liaison committees.

I should say that we have made an undertaking to the Department of Justice in Ottawa that if the province experiences savings through the appointment of provincial court judges to the Unified Family Court, we would expect to use those resources to support the Unified Family Court. We have an implementation team that's hard at work on the infrastructure. The target date for our readiness to open new sites is this fall. I should say that the work that has been done to determine what sites might be appropriate has been ongoing for some time and has had the input of many communities. As I said in my speech when I introduced second reading of the bill, it is very important that people be reassured that every possible site in Ontario is being considered.

Obviously, the kind of community resources that are available, the willingness of the bar to participate with the Unified Family Court, the willingness of the judiciary to participate to the extent that it is now in family matters, will be extremely important. We will be canvassing the local bar and the local judiciary as to the support for the location of a Unified Family Court in any particular location.

One of the members was complaining to some extent that the member for London South was suggesting that London is a good location. I should tell the House that I have had probably more lobbying on this issue of what community would be best to host a Unified Family Court than on almost anything else. We have had some expression of interest in most locations in the province. It will be important for that selection to go on in a way that recognizes the need and the ability of communities to support a Unified Family Court, because, of course, we want to build on the success of the Unified Family Court in Hamilton. We want to continue to do that.

We do believe that, given the resources that we have, it is possible for us to support those courts. We are in regular discussions with the General Division, the Chief Justice, the senior Unified Family Court judge and the provincial judiciary who work in the provincial family courts on all of these issues.

We are very concerned, as was one of the members, I believe again the member for Willowdale, about the cost of legal aid, the cost of court action within the Unified Family Court. The tradition indeed has been, as he pointed out, that when you move from one level of court to another, the cost of legal help becomes higher. However, we did a little bit of work after he spoke to us to determine whether that was true in the Hamilton Unified Family Court. Our accounting, of legal aid at any rate, shows that the level is about the same as cases in other parts of the province, and I would hope that would remain the same.

I know that the member will express some concern about legal aid average costs being different from the costs that the middle-income groups and the higher-income groups would pay. I can assure him that we would be wanting to look at that, because that is a very serious issue and members of our community who need to go to Family Court need to be reassured about that.

The rules of procedure which are now in place in the Unified Family Court and in the Provincial Division around the province are to emphasize informality, to try and use a more user-friendly, if you like, approach to those who are approaching the Unified Family Court and to try to do everything possible to assist in an early settlement, because we know how painful and difficult these cases are. I would assume that we will be successful if we set these courts up in a way that has the support of their communities, both the social services and the justice community, in achieving the goals of justice in the Unified Family Court.

In closing, I would like to say again how much I look forward to the ongoing debate within the justice committee. I believe that we have taken some important steps forward in bringing forward this bill. I should say that our bill is being looked at very favourably by other jurisdictions that are struggling with many of the same issues, particularly around accountability and independence, and that we can be very proud in this province that we have taken a leadership role and that we are moving ahead in terms of the administration of justice.

I thank the Legislature for its attention in these matters and look forward to a referral of this bill to the justice committee.

The Deputy Speaker: The Attorney General has moved second reading of Bill 136, An Act to amend the Courts of Justice Act and to make related amendments to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and the Justices of the Peace Act. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry? Carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading?

Hon Mrs Boyd: Mr Speaker, to the justice committee.

The Deputy Speaker: Shall the bill be addressed to the justice committee? Agreed. Therefore, it will be addressed to the justice committee.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1994 / LOI DE 1994 MODIFIANT LA LOI SUR L'IMPOSITION DES CORPORATIONS

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 146, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act / Projet de loi 146, Loi modifiant la Loi sur l'imposition des corporations.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): I believe when we debated this issue the last time, it was Mr Offer who had about 20 minutes left. Mr Offer is not here, so I will ask the question, further debate? The member for York Mills.

Mr Derek Fletcher (Guelph): Is this part of the revolution?

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Yes, this is part of the revolution.

I'd like to quote from today's Globe and Mail. There's an article by Martin Mittelstaedt. The title of it is "Ontario Braces for Bad News in Budget," and the subheadline is "Deficit, Interest Burden Likely to Exceed $8 Billion Each, Analysts Say." If I could just read in a couple of small clips from this:

"When Finance Minister Floyd Laughren presents his new budget tomorrow, the people of Ontario will get another glimpse at just how near their once-mighty province is to a debt trap.

"For decades, Ontario was a blue-chip stock, with an impeccable triple A credit rating and the country's most vibrant economy.

"But over the past three years, deficits have averaged more than $10 billion, and Mr Laughren is set to predict yet another huge shortfall, widely expected to be more than $8 billion for the fiscal year that began on April 1."

There are a couple of other clips in there, but I want to skip ahead to one interesting comment that is made in this article: "Most analysts don't blame the NDP entirely. Much of the problem has been caused by the steep recession and the previous Liberal government." I think that's a very fair statement.

1540

Just a few other comments which are germane to this debate today, "And for the first time in recent memory, the province's deficit and the interest bill on the more than $80 billion the government owes creditors will be roughly equal." That's a very, very serious problem.

"This is the so-called death trap that is the nightmare of everyone who owes a lot of money, where the proceeds from new borrowings merely cover the rising tally of interest on the previous borrowings.

"That's the 'black magic of compound interest,' observed Bill Robinson, economist at the C.D. Howe Institute, a business-oriented research organization. 'We're borrowing to pay interest, and that's unsustainable.'

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): Why?

Mr Turnbull: I hear one of the members from the government benches shouting that this is lies. The fact is that we have a government which has now taken the debt up to $80 billion --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills has the floor. I ask your cooperation. There is a period which is called questions and comments afterwards. If you want to participate, feel free to do so. The member for York Mills.

Mr Kimble Sutherland (Oxford): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for York Mills had implied that one of the members had used the word "lies," and they hadn't used that word, so I just want to have that clarified.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for York Mills.

Mr Turnbull: The $80-billion debt that we now have is going to be probably around $90 billion by next year. If any government in the future is to govern this province effectively and manage that debt down, which is an essential element, there are going to have to be some revolutionary changes. That is what my party is talking about: revolution. It's no longer time for political parties to fiddle around on the edges and think that we can solve the problems by waiting for some marvellous pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

We had the Liberals in power for five years. There was one year that they managed to balance the budget, and it was pure fluke, because they didn't budget it. They predicted that they would have a $550-million deficit that year and there was an $888-million unusual transfer from the federal government which bailed them out and gave them a $90-million surplus.

The fact is that we have debts that nobody in this chamber from our generation will possibly pay off; it will be our children and our children's children, and I have said this over and over again in this Legislature. The fact is that we have to change the way we do government, we have to have less government involvement, we have to make sure that we spend less money, because we have hit the debt wall.

The fact is that we now have a government in Ontario that does not recognize that job creation will not occur unless it creates an environment which is friendly to business. They have gone in the opposite direction.

There are many governments in the world that in fact have recognized that high taxes are a serious drag on the economy, starting with, for example, the state of Mexico. I'd like to just quote briefly from an address given by President Salinas on the state of the nation on November 4, 1993. I'm just flipping through some of his remarks. He says:

"The tax system reforms have sought to create a more just and efficient treatment and at the same time increase tax collection. The minimum income tax rate for private individuals was lowered from 50% in 1988 to 35% at present. In addition, the enterprise income tax rate was lowered from 40% in 1988 to 35% at present. This created a suitable climate for investment." Read "investment" as jobs.

"The value added tax was lowered from 20% and 15% in 1988 to 10% in the last months of 1991."

Let's just look at what the net impact of those reductions was, and I flip ahead to a page out of the latest budget documents from the Mexican government. It shows tax revenue in the year 1987 prior to these tax deductions of 29.362 million pesos, and it rose in 1990 to the provisional number of 88.965 million pesos, a dramatic increase in revenue, and that can be to no small extent attributed to the fact that the government recognized that the tax system was driving so much of their economy underground as to have a significant avoidance, and they have now been able to lower the tax avoidance and get compliance.

Turning to the other side of the world, let's look at that old socialist bastion Sweden, and an article from the Christian Science Monitor dated December 27, 1988. The text reads: "Sweden has joined the global push, spanning ideological barriers to cut tax rates in order to stimulate individual productivity, curb inflation and bolster economic growth. Notorious for having the world's highest taxes, Sweden recently announced that it would slash personal income tax by as much as 50% for large numbers of Swedes." This was approved by the ruling Social Democratic Party.

This socialist party that we have governing Ontario has not learned the lesson yet, but perhaps if they look at some examples of socialist governments in the world doing the right thing, they might be prepared to consider it.

The finance minister at the time said: "Our tax system is crumbling." He called the system "perverse." He noted that high taxes had led to "rampant tax evasion, lower savings and increased borrowing.

"This is a reversal of traditional Social Democratic tax politics, says Carl Bild, leader of the opposition Conservative Party, who applauds the move but warns against increases in other areas of taxation."

We have all sorts of examples around the world. We have New Jersey, which has had tax reductions; we've had Britain; we've had New Zealand. All different kinds of political parties have done this, but the fact is they've understood that if you want to stimulate business, you have to have a tax-friendly environment.

Nobody in this Legislature would oppose, hopefully, a fair tax system, but we've got to understand that when we're looking at the corporate tax amendment which is introducing a corporate minimum tax, there is ample evidence to suggest that this is the wrong way to go.

I'd like to quote from the Ontario Fair Tax Commission, which was set up by this current socialist government. From page 58, I quote under "Corporate Minimum Tax":

"Although we have considerable sympathy with the aim of this tax in attempting to deal with the problem of non-taxpaying and low-taxpaying profitable corporations, we are convinced that explicit recognition and a vigorous assessment of tax expenditures would address this issue more efficiently than the application of further corporate tax."

That's what this government's own Fair Tax Commission had to say on this issue.

You spent many millions of dollars arriving at this document, and like so many documents that have been prepared by governments of every political persuasion, they go for the royal commissions, they spend millions of dollars, and then they lie on the shelf, never to be seen again unless there happens to be something where the current government says, "Oh, yes, they're supporting what we've been saying in the past." It doesn't work. The fact is that we need tax reductions in this province.

1550

When we examine the reason you have profitable corporations that don't pay taxes in a given year, we must understand that, overwhelmingly, it is as a result of the fact that those corporations have ordered their affairs in such a way as to be in compliance with the tax legislation put in place by both the federal and provincial governments, which seek to induce companies to do certain things, namely, to invest in plant and equipment and R&D.

Whether you like those programs or not, the fact is that the government has put them in place, and if a company is in compliance with the spirit of that act, why are you punishing it? You're going back and you're saying, "Okay, it doesn't matter what we told you in the past; we're going to change the ground rules."

We have such deductions in our present tax system, such as depreciation. We have only 75% of capital gains included for tax purposes. We have the so-called super-allowance, which is a tax credit for R&D, and we have the Ontario current cost adjustment, the OCCA. All of these are measures which were put in place by the government of the day and continued under this government, and they are to induce a certain conduct of behaviour by those businesses to invest, supposedly, in job creation.

But instead, this government is saying, "It doesn't matter. We're stilling going to go after you for corporate minimum tax." The reason that companies don't pay taxes is that either they're in compliance with the rules or, alternatively, they haven't paid taxes because they haven't made any money.

I am sure that there are some companies that avoid taxes illegally, but there are other avenues to go after it, and that's what the Fair Tax Commission said: by strict adherence to the present rules rather than creating a new tax.

The interesting thing is that this tax is not going to raise a great deal of revenue, and more than anything else, it's a sop to the supporters of this present government who've listened for years to the baloney about corporate welfare bums. Do you all remember that? Your rallying cry, "corporate welfare bums," because they were using the tax system the way it was built.

Now what have we got? We've got the absolutely unusual spectre of a government, this socialist government in Ontario, that sauntered off to the Bahamas a few weeks ago to close a deal to sell rolling stock which the taxpayers of Ontario had already paid for. They have sold that rolling stock to a company set up in the Bahamas. Why did they close it in the Bahamas? I'll tell you quite explicitly: Because it was part of the deal that it would be closed in the Bahamas so that they could avoid taxes. Now we have the spectre of this socialist Ontario government complying with tax dodgers so that people can avoid taxes. Is this the same NDP we used to know? Is it possible that we're talking about the same party?

I remember the rallying cry of "corporate welfare bums." I always thought how hypocritical that was because the people who were saying it had enough sense, by and large, to know that the corporations were complying with the tax laws that were in place at the time, and now we have a government that is bending over backwards to make sure that corporations can avoid taxes.

The company, for your information, just in case some of the backbenchers don't know it, that bought the GO rolling stock and then sold it back on a so-called sale and sale-back -- which is a totally new vehicle; most people know sale and lease-back -- the company that you sold it to includes one of the Ontario chartered banks, one of the five big banks. They are a partner in that consortium.

You are helping that bank to avoid the withholding tax that is applicable to this transaction. This government, this NDP government, applied to the federal government and asked -- and I see my friend the from Oxford wandering around nodding his head. Challenge me in questions afterwards on any single point that I am saying, as to the validity of it. Please, I ask you to because these are the facts.

The facts are that this government went to the Bahamas to close a deal so that the people buying the GO rolling stock from the taxpayers of Ontario -- so that you could make your bottom line look a little bit better than it really is. You did it in the Bahamas so that they could avoid taxes, and one of them is one of the big chartered banks of Canada, the ones you like to revile, and this is how you consort with them.

I hate hypocrisy. I just detest it. If the government of the day doesn't agree with me, big deal. That's fair enough. They ran on a platform. But when we see a government which has had rhetoric for years about corporate welfare bums and they are in fact doing everything in their power to allow corporations to avoid taxation in Canada, it stinks, and it stinks of hypocrisy.

We have a government that spent money in its early days on such things as giving $50,000 to the unions to create a new union song. What an incredible waste of taxpayers' money, that they spent $50,000 from the taxpayer to create a new union song. Why not let the unions pay for it themselves?

Almost better still is the example of this government giving a $25,000 grant of taxpayers' hard-earned money for a group of union leaders to go to a humour school. What on earth are we doing? I cannot believe that I can look across at the government benches and you don't hang your heads in shame at spending $25,000 of taxpayers' money on a humour school for union leaders. Why don't they pay for it themselves if they want to?

We've got a government which has spent money in every conceivable way. They have spent money on supposedly holding jobs in Ontario, but at what cost? The cost is absolutely enormous. The cost of maintaining each job at de Havilland in Toronto is well over $100,000. Wouldn't it be better to have lower tax rates so that entrepreneurs could create jobs? Every study, every single study that both this government and every other government has done in North America in the last few years clearly indicates that in fact it's the small and the medium-sized companies that create jobs and maintain jobs.

That is where our job growth will come from and we desperately need job growth. We need job growth because the people of Ontario are suffering. They are suffering so much because they say that they want to work, that they want to be productive, and the drag this government has been on the economy is enormous. That is why Ontario is doing relatively worse than the other provinces during this recession. Fortunately, it does appear that we have turned a corner and the projections are that we will do better in terms of attracting some investment here.

Let's just look at what the Ontario Chamber of Commerce had to say in its pre-budget submission delivered here on April 21, 1994. They said: "Over 80% of respondents to a survey by Ontario's largest business organization want government to deal with the underground economy by tackling spending and reducing taxes. Fiscal problems should be corrected on the expenditure side, not attacked through higher revenue measures."

1600

That's exactly what my party is talking about in its latest document, the Common Sense Revolution, and anybody who wants to call 1-800-903-MIKE can receive a copy of this document.

We're talking about a revolution because we're not going to tinker around on the edges. We're going to make major changes. These major changes will not suit everybody, but the trouble is that most politicians today haven't got the message that you can't suit everybody. You are going to have to make dramatic changes if we're to get this country and this province back on the tracks.

The key elements of our program are a 30% reduction in personal income taxes, half of which will be achieved in the first year of a Conservative government and the balance over the next two years; over the same period, we will reduce non-essential, non-priority government spending by 20%.

The areas we will not touch: health care -- the envelope of health care will not be touched. Any savings that are achieved in health care will be reinvested in the system to ensure that we get back to the state of excellence that health care had in Ontario the last time the government was a Conservative government. We will ensure that the law enforcement budget is not touched and we will not touch the in-classroom funding of education.

These are essential elements to ensure that we have the right kind of support system which will make Ontario attractive for businesses to expand and create jobs and bring prosperity back to this province.

We will freeze Ontario Hydro rates for a five-year period, we will abolish the employer health tax for all corporations that have payrolls of $400,000 a year or less, and we will make a 5% reduction to WCB contributions. All these measures are aimed specifically at small companies to ensure that Ontario is an attractive place to invest.

We will insist that there are sunset clauses in all future legislation. As well, the legislation that is already on the books which doesn't have sunset clauses will be reviewed in the same way.

We will be creating a fact-finding commission to look at the areas of government that are spending money unwisely.

We will be reducing the number of MPPs from the present 130 to 99, to bring it in line with the federal boundaries. Why on earth are we spending money twice over to create different boundary lines? It just reflects the commonsense approach that Mike Harris brings to government. The fact is that we are spending money to create different boundaries when we could ride on the federal boundary commission boundaries. Either we would administer it or the federal government would administer it, but we wouldn't have duplication. I realize that might put a few of your buddies out of a job, but we will achieve those savings.

We will have a balanced budget by the year 1999.

All of these plans are aimed at creating a minimum of 725,000 jobs. We know this is a reliable plan because these plans have been put through a very vigorous test of an econometric model. One of the leading economists of Canada has verified that indeed this is a doable scheme. His comment is: "This plan will work. The Mike Harris plan to cut personal income tax rates by 30% and non-priority services spending by 20% will give Ontario a balanced budget within four years and create more than 725,000 new jobs."

These new jobs that we're counting are the ones from the economic stimulation of the economy. We have already factored into that the reduction in government spending.

As well as that, we have completely ignored the natural effect of job creation just as a result of getting rid of Bob Rae and his cronies, because undoubtedly Ontario will do better when we get rid of this government. But we haven't even factored that in because that, as the Treasurer likes to say, would be voodoo economics. These are strictly numbers that can be quantified from an econometric model of the effect on tax reductions.

The effect has been measured, as I said before, in many countries of the world with varying hues of political flavour. We've seen it in Sweden, we've seen it in Mexico, we've seen it in Britain, we've seen it in New Jersey and we've seen it in New Zealand. These people have achieved greater revenues after they have reduced taxes. We've hit the tax wall.

The spending by this government is definitely out of control. But in fairness, I think they have started to understand the problem a little bit better. When they first came into power they spent like drunken sailors and they took over a very wobbly province from the Liberals because the Liberals weren't a solid government; they weren't good managers. I think they had their heart in the right place but they really squandered money, and there is general agreement among the economic community of Ontario that they were bad business managers.

The NDP inherited that situation and made it worse by giving huge pay increases to the staff in the first year, and that's why at the end of that first year we found that the actual payroll for the Ontario civil service had gone up by over 14% at a time that inflation was less than 2%, I believe; a 14% increase in wages, this on top of a Liberal government that had increased the civil service by 9,000 people.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): At the demand of the people.

Mr Turnbull: I hear one of my colleagues from the Liberal benches shouting, "At the demand of the people." You must understand, sir, that what has happened is that large corporations around the world have had to learn to be more efficient and they have downsized, medium-sized companies have become more streamlined and governments have become progressively more bloated. At the time that companies were downsizing, the Liberal government was in fact increasing the size of the civil service. Did we get efficiencies for it? Of course we didn't. I've no doubt my good friend the member for St Catharines will jump up and tell me how wrong I am. I look forward to his comments.

I've enjoyed joining this debate. I hope some of the lessons of some other countries, including some socialist countries, might filter through to the government that this is the wrong way to go.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Hans Daigeler): I thank the member for York Mills for his contribution to the debate. We have two-minute questions and comments.

Mr Sutherland: I want to respond to the member for York Mills and some of his comments. First of all, I would remind him to look at Hansard for the answer the Minister of Finance gave regarding the GO rolling stock, because I believe he answered that very thoroughly.

The member talked about this revolution, this Common Sense Revolution. Let's be very clear what we're talking about. This is no revolution they're putting forward. This is a clear regression. It's based on the 1776 treatise of Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations: Let everything come out.

We're in 1994. We need a modern economy. We need to have an economy that looks at the very successful countries, that looks at Japan, at Germany. How do they do it? They develop partnerships. They develop partnerships between government, the private sector and labour. What have we been doing for the last few years here in Ontario? We've been doing those types of things. We have been developing partnerships etc.

Let me say too, though, that a couple of the proposals in this so-called Common Sense Revolution really concern me. Non-priority spending areas: The member made reference to some grants given out by the arts council. We know the arts are going to be gone: arts and culture funding, 20% across the board because that's not identified as a priority. There's no mention of agriculture. What about all of rural Ontario? The Tories ignore it. They don't care. They don't think anything happens in rural Ontario. They don't know what's going on. I'm shocked at the member for S-D-G & East Grenville. Where's his presence in this document? It's not felt; they've shut him out. They don't care about rural Ontario. They don't care about the farmers and the agricultural community.

This is not a Common Sense Revolution. This is some type of 17th-century, 18th-century document that is totally out of date with the realities of today.

1610

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I was listening to some of the comments from the member for York Mills, and a number of his comments alluded to the previous government's record. While everyone can always become better, it is important to remind the member of the record of the previous Liberal government and also take a look at some of the record of the Progressive Conservatives when they last were in government. If we take a look at some of those actual numbers, I think we'll find that things aren't actually the way they're sometimes made out to be.

In the five years the Conservatives last were in power, from 1981 to 1985, the unemployment rate was in the area of 8.7%, and they created something in the area of 64,800 jobs. When the Liberals were in government, they created 112,000 jobs, and the NDP, in three years, have lost something in the area of 40,000 jobs.

When we take a look at the average deficit -- and the average deficit is something which the member for York Mills is acutely aware of -- we see that the average deficit for the Conservatives was $2.7 billion. The Liberals reduced that to $1.9 billion, and the NDP took that up to $11.14 billion. These are the actual numbers.

We must also remember the words of the Provincial Auditor, who has said that the last year the Liberals were in total control of the budget was the first surplus in the budget in the previous 15 years.

I think the records of governments and the numbers speak for themselves.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): I want to talk about what the plans are for the future, rather than talking about the history of the parties. We could end up with a huge debate about who did what etc, but I think we all agree that this government has been a disaster and that the two other parties are going to be fighting each other to see who's going to form the next government. That's a given. What I want to talk about are the plans and programs and initiatives we're putting forward today.

Mr Sutherland: What arrogance is creeping in. You get more and more arrogant every day.

Mr Stockwell: If the member wants to classify tax reduction and spending reduction as some kind of 18th-century backwater logic, he can. But my gosh, when I travel this province, people are asking me about taxes. They want them reduced. They're talking to me about spending reductions. They're saying government employs too many people. They say government spends too much money. If anybody's out of touch, it's got to be the member for Oxford, because he still believes that his government's popular. That's what I can't understand. You're not popular and your policies aren't popular. Your approval rating is clear.

What we have offered is a timely document that deals with taxes, deals with spending and deals with the need. Yes, we talked about a 20% reduction across the board. We said this was important, excluding health care and in-classroom money and law and order.

You want to talk about Agriculture and the other ministries, I say to the member for Oxford? Yes, we're going to reduce them, but you can't continue operating at double-digit deficits and taxes higher than any jurisdiction in this country. You can classify that any way you want as 18th-century thinking, but, my friend, when you go on the campaign trial you're going to be shocked, because those 18th-century thoughts are the ones Ontarians are talking about, not your half-baked socialist ideology.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and answers?

Mr David Johnson (Don Mills): I'd like to congratulate you, Mr Speaker, for assuming your new and lofty position.

I think the member for Etobicoke West and the member for York Mills are correct to focus on the future. The future is the problem that we must address together. I'm very appalled by what I'm seeing. We're being dragged back to the past, dragged back to commenting on the Liberal spending being twice the rate of inflation and that sort of thing, but we really should comment on the future.

The member for York Mills has focused on that, his concern for the deficit this year, which will probably be reflected tomorrow at between $8 billion and $9 billion, thereby incurring a debt by the end of this fiscal year of almost $90 billion in the province of Ontario.

Already the people of the province pay over 16 cents of every dollar of revenue just for interest on the debt of the province. That debt doesn't count the debt of Ontario Hydro, it doesn't count the unfunded liability of workers' compensation, it doesn't count the unfunded liability in the teachers' pension fund and the pension fund of the employees of the province of Ontario, nor does it count liabilities assumed by crown agencies. When you throw them all together, our provincial debt is probably more in the vicinity of $140 billion. It is a great cause for concern.

The member for York Mills has said that the way to get the deficit under control in the future is the plan that's been put forward in The Common Sense Revolution. I hope the members of this House are listening, because I know the people are listening: cut spending, cut taxes, encourage the economy to grow, encourage job creation. Those are the steps we need to be taking, those are the steps laid out in The Common Sense Revolution, and that's what the member for York Mills is speaking to.

The Acting Speaker: The member for York Mills has two minutes in reply.

Mr Turnbull: I'm pleased that a couple of my colleagues commented on the fact that we're not being very wise in looking backwards. What we have to do is solve the problems of today. These are not 18th-century solutions. These are solutions -- reducing taxes -- that have been used around the world in the last few years, sometimes even by socialist governments, and they have worked. The fact is, we've hit the tax wall.

Interjection.

Mr Turnbull: For all the heckling we get from the member for Oxford, the fact is that he probably hasn't read The Common Sense Revolution. I would say to anybody watching this debate that what they should do is form their own judgement, not my opinion, not the member for Oxford's. They should phone our 1-800 number, 1-800-903-MIKE, and get their copy of The Common Sense Revolution. Go through it and comment on it. Tell us what you believe. I'm sure not everybody who reads it will agree with us. You know something? That's life in the big city. If you try to be all things to all people, you'll be nothing to everybody.

1620

The fact is that we have burdened our young people with tremendous debt, and we must make Ontario attractive again so there will be jobs, so our young people are not driven out of this province to go to other provinces and to US states. We want to keep them here and we want them to be able to grow up in the healthy, marvellous environment Ontario has traditionally offered. We want to have a strong health care system again, and we want to have an environment where hard work is rewarded, not the kind of environment where the government is doing crafty little deals in the Bahamas to chisel the federal government out of tax revenue.

The Acting Speaker (Ms Margaret H. Harrington): The member's time has expired. Further debate?

Mr Bradley: Thank you, Madam Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in yet another debate on yet another tax bill. I should mention, for the people who may be watching, that this is the last budget we're talking about, where this was a matter of some concern. This has nothing to do with the present budget.

I want to deal primarily with the future. I listen in this House from day to day, particularly as we get closer to that event called a provincial election, and I hear people across the floor and in the third party, even in this party, talk a bit about the past. It's important that we dwell on what we're going to do in the future in our province, in the present and into the future, to deal with the challenges that confront us.

The members of the Conservative Party almost always try to wrap something into the speech that has something to do with the previous Liberal administration. I have had people say to me as I encounter them, "You would almost think you're still in power." Here it is four years into office for the NDP government and the Conservative Party is still talking about the Liberal Party as though it were in power. Now, it may be that they're yearning for the good old days when we had unparalleled prosperity in Ontario between 1985 and 1990 -- maybe that's what the Conservatives are harking back to -- but somehow I don't think their speakers are really doing that.

I could go back, because I've been in this House since 1977, to remember tax increase after tax increase after tax increase brought forward by one Conservative finance minister after another. I could talk about the fact that there were some rather frivolous expenditures that took place in that period of time. One of them that comes to mind immediately, and members of the House who were here would recall, and others perhaps through the news media, is that the government of the day under Premier Davis was going to buy a new jet for the comfort and convenience of the cabinet, the Premier and senior government officials. Indeed, I'm convinced that in his heart of hearts the present Premier, and perhaps previous Premiers, would like to have seen that go through, because the Ontario delegation often flies in commercial airlines or in the Ministry of Natural Resources turboprop.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I don't think we have a quorum.

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

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

The Acting Speaker: Call in the members. This is a five-minute bell.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

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

The Acting Speaker: The member for St Catharines may resume the debate.

Mr Bradley: I thank the member for Etobicoke West for ensuring that there's a larger group of people in the House to listen to the speech than I might have anticipated. He's very helpful in that regard.

At the time, I was talking about the jet and how the Conservative government of the day was going to purchase this jet, something not many people had in those days. We were in the midst of an economic crisis, about 1982 or 1983, in the midst of a recession, with the highest deficit in Ontario history at that time, a very high rate of unemployment, and the Conservative government of the day wanted to purchase a jet for the comfort and convenience of the cabinet.

Mr Stockwell: I thought you were going to talk to the future.

Mr Bradley: I'm not going to dwell on that for any length of time because I don't think we should necessarily dwell on that, or I could talk about the 37.5% increase in OHIP premiums that was brought in by W. Darcy McKeough, the former member for Chatham-Kent, Progressive Conservative, that had to be rolled back eventually on the pressure of the Liberal opposition of the day.

I look as well at the sales tax that I think, in this province, was introduced by a Progressive Conservative government; 7% of it belongs to the Progressive Conservative government. I think there was an additional one percentage point that came on under a subsequent government, but the Progressive Conservative government had the 7% sales tax in this province. There were tax increases after tax increases, and people in the opposition opposed those tax increases of the day. But I guess the government felt that in order to finance the programs that the people of the province desired that day, it had to increase those taxes. So, if I could count them up, there were probably well over 100 tax increases within the Davis administration, those days.

I don't want to dwell on the past, because I think it's important to look to the future, and that I'm going to do. I believe that in this province we're in different circumstances -- I guess we're always in different circumstances -- from what we were in 1974 or 1984; now in 1994 we're in different circumstances. We're in much tougher competition today for investment, and a lot of that is because the world has changed substantially. Some countries which were once considered to be Third World countries, countries which had not been developed -- they were developing countries, I guess we would call them -- are indeed today, for want of a better word, First World, or developed countries, industrial countries. They are providing some very stiff competition for us. South of the border, they are scrambling for every investment dollar that they can get. So when you're trying to look at your tax regime, you have to take into account what the atmosphere is of the day, what the circumstances are of the day.

What the government presents in this bill -- there are parts of it that are certainly supportable; that which calls for some decreases in certain sectors is certainly supportable. But even some of the other measures in certain circumstances probably would have been accepted. In a boom economy I don't think people could complain about it, or in times many years ago when we didn't have tough competition for the investment dollar I think you could have justified some tax increases of this kind. My concern today is that with that very tough competition -- and I don't like it; I wish it didn't exist -- it's hard to be introducing new taxes that are going to in some way discourage people (a) from keeping their investment here in Ontario, and (b) from bringing investment to Ontario.

I'm encouraged every time I see any new investment come despite what has happened. Unlike some who may say, in opposition, of course, "People always believe that you hope for the worst," I don't for our province. I think that every time we can attract a new business -- and I encourage anybody from other countries or from other provinces or within this province to invest in our province, because I think ultimately we'll have a good future -- while I do that, I know that they are deterred to a certain extent by sometimes uncertainty and sometimes by tax measures of this kind.

The NDP put the whole issue to a commission. They call it the Fair Tax Commission. I call it the NDP tax commission, because I never use those words like "fair" or "social contract," things of that nature; I use what they really are. But the commission, which has some people who don't speak for the government line, some people who certainly don't because they're left of the government line these days and some who are right of the government line, had a difficulty in coming to a conclusion that we should have a corporate minimum tax.

If I went down my street and knocked on doors and said to people, "Do you think there should be a minimum tax that all corporations pay that make a profit?" I bet you everybody would say yes. At first glance they would say yes. If you said, "There's a fairly good possibility that this might discourage investment, that there are better ways of closing loopholes that might more fairly get this money from a sector that perhaps should be paying in some circumstances, I would suspect if they looked at it in detail they might not be so enthusiastic about this bill and this tax.

1630

They look at examples of government waste when taxes have to be paid. This is, the government would like to say, arm's length. When you're in government, Hydro is always arm's length; when you're in opposition, Hydro is part of the government. That is a political reality of the day. But even the government members, I'm sure -- and I'm going to say this again because I continue to get some calls from people -- are annoyed with the advertising that Hydro is doing today, saying, "The new Ontario Hydro." They don't really have much competition in Ontario; a few places compete with them, but not much competition. To see a-new-Ontario-Hydro type of advertising going out is rather annoying when they have increased rates in years gone by and are trying to hold the line.

I am opposed to that. I can't think of anybody in this House who would be in favour of that. I guess the people in the management end of Hydro are because they want to portray Hydro -- and it has had an interesting history in Ontario. It's provided some good things for this province. It's cost us a lot of money at the same time.

But I wanted to get on record what I consider to be a squandering of money, and that is the advertising by Hydro. If they said, "Here's something specific you can do which would cut back on the amount of energy you use," that's of some benefit; there's something specific that they can do. But if they're simply saying, "We're doing a good job; we're different," that is not much use to anybody.

We in the opposition have suggested that over the next three or four years, or five years perhaps, we should try in this province to reduce taxes by somewhere around 5%. I would really love to be able to stand up in this House with a straight face and say 30%, but there isn't anybody who is going to believe me if I said that. I don't think it can be attained. It's catchy, it's attractive, and when it's done the day after I have to fill out my income tax, I'll tell you, it certainly makes it appear to be an attractive proposition.

When we sat down and did a lot of calculations as an official opposition and came forward with a proposal for a 5% cut, even there I thought there would be some people who would say, "Gosh, that's going to be hard to achieve if circumstances stay the same." But when I heard 30%, I'd be tempted to vote for that if I didn't know what circumstances are facing our province, if I didn't know that senior citizens at Linhaven Home in St Catharines would as a result have services reduced.

As everybody here knows, the government has been in a cutting mode. Those of us in opposition can suggest some other ways where government can cut, but I'll tell you that the government has had to do a lot of cutting. I can't think of a New Democrat sitting on the government benches who, with any pleasure, sees the Treasurer and the chair of treasury board making the kind of cuts that he has had to make. I don't think anybody wanted to see that. I didn't want to see it either, but it's a reality of the day. In specific cases some of us in opposition will oppose that, I think with some justification.

But if you want to talk about further cuts, I'll tell you that a lot of the further cuts could come in the field of social services. When I hear, "We're going to exempt education in the classroom," when I hear, "We're going to exempt health, we're going to exempt crime," and so on, "and we're still going to get $4.5 billion out," by gosh, that's a miracle to be able to do that.

I think we owe it to the electorate, to the people we represent, to come forward with some realistic proposals looking at the actual circumstances in Ontario and not simply trying to outmanoeuvre an extreme right-wing party or trying to attract people to something that sounds, in a very simple sense, very attractive. I think people have to be responsible going to the folks out there, and I don't think you can fool people with that. I think people know we're in tough circumstances.

I want to know, when I see a tax measure brought in -- and this is hard for government to calculate, but it's becoming a bit easier -- what the real return is going to be. Look at the number of times that all governments have raised taxes, the sin taxes: cigarettes and alcohol and anything else people consider to be frivolous or non-essential.

It was always an attractive area, because they were not particularly beneficial to society directly when people consumed either tobacco products or alcoholic products. But we reached a point -- and I guess it's really tough to know when that is -- where there was a diminishing return. I remember when the present Treasurer, Mr Laughren from Nickel Belt, raised a number of taxes and he put his target out there -- "I want to raise $2 billion," or something of that nature -- and it fell significantly short.

There's not a simple reason for that, but one of the reasons is that it isn't necessarily going to raise new funds when you put new taxes on. People start to avoid those taxes or people quit purchasing. Which one of us in this House, except in exceptional cases, spends more money today than we used to, when we don't have to? I mean discretionary spending. People are spending less today.

In this case, in this House, it's because the members have had their pay frozen for six years and have had a pay cut of 5.5%, we all say proudly. Many people out there, then, don't have as much discretionary spending, so they're much more careful in how they're going to spend. You don't always get the anticipated recovery of taxes when you raise them, whether it's income taxes or whether it's sales taxes or any other kind of levy.

Where the government has moved very extensively is into the field of specific charges. You don't see this until you have to pay that charge. In some cases, I think there'd be a consensus out there that some of those charges are justified. Let's not say they're all not justified. When they're raised in a very modest way, there are others who would say: "That's a service government provides. Perhaps all the taxpayers shouldn't pay for that." There's some consensus behind that. But when governments pick areas where it simply is gouging, that's what gets people resisting.

I met a person who's in the car repair business, for instance, who has new forms to fill out. There were all kinds of new, additional costs to go with these forms, with nothing new to be gained. Carman McClelland, the member for Brampton North, who is the critic for the Liberal Party in the field of Consumer and Commercial Relations, brought out the issue of the corporate filing each year that everybody has to file. All the members are getting mail on that that's annoying. Again, I suspect, for the amount of money it brings in it's not worth it.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Treasurer, just as under opposition pressure he withdrew part of the tax on auto workers, which I called the gas guzzler tax -- he modified that under pressure from the Liberal opposition and others, including Bob White. We may see a change in this as well. We saw it on the brew pubs as well, the you-brew circumstances, where they withdrew there. That made sense. I congratulate governments that are prepared to admit they're wrong and make those changes when the opposition has clearly pointed out where they're wrong. I'm not totally negative today at all; I'm complimenting the Treasurer when he admits he's wrong and does the right thing.

I'm concerned about something else happening out there, and I hope the government members are as well, and that's the use of pension funds today in a way that I think could be detrimental down the line. We encountered a situation while we were the Liberal government where the funds going into the teachers' superannuation funds were determined by three different actuaries to be insufficient. There was a great campaign, particularly by the Ontario Secondary School Teachers' Federation, the Ontario Teachers' Federation, which pointed out that the government didn't have to worry about it; that this was a problem that could be easily solved.

The easiest way to solve a problem is to avoid it, so we could have simply said: "Oh, don't worry, it's fine. Don't worry about that tax fund. It doesn't matter that in the year 2007 it will go broke because it hasn't been appropriately funded over the years when it was indexed by the Bill Davis government. That it's going to go broke, that's fine, because we probably won't be around then." The group of politicians wouldn't be around then. That's one course of action that could have been adopted.

1640

Don't think again that politically it wasn't attractive. It was a very attractive route to take, but the government couldn't in all conscience do that and therefore required an increase of 1% on the part of the teachers in the province, many of whom are very good friends of mine, and the taxpayers of this province, represented by the government, would also have to add 1%. The amount of money going into the teachers' superannuation fund was larger than the amount of money going into the Ministry of the Environment. It was getting huge increases in those days. Today it's getting cutbacks, but it was getting huge increases in those days. Yet there was a lot of fire directed at the government.

I think the same thing might happen -- I hope it doesn't -- with what the government is doing with all these pension funds now. They're borrowing from them now to ease the pain and to make the deficit look better. While in the short run that may serve its political purpose -- it may even serve a non-political purpose as well -- I think it's a dangerous course upon which to embark. My friend Gerry Phillips, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, has spoken at some length on this and I think one should go back and read his speeches and look at the cautions he puts out there.

I don't pretend there are easy economic answers, but I think the government should tread very carefully when it starts borrowing from these pension funds. We may find that there's not sufficient money. There may be for some of the people who are just about to retire, but well down the line, I don't know if there will be sufficient funds to look after the pensions of others, so I caution the government on that.

I want to say, while I have this opportunity on a tax bill, which allows a certain degree of flexibility in the discussion, that the Lincoln County Board of Education has not been amused by the Minister of Education's edict coming down on the amount of money it's going to receive, nor has the Catholic school board in our area, the Lincoln county Catholic board. The reason is that they did not anticipate they would be getting so much less money from the government.

We all recognize first of all that it's a very complicated funding formula. I suspect even the Minister of Education doesn't understand the funding formula. If he does, he's somewhat of a genius, because there are so many complicating factors to it, weighting factors and so on, that it's difficult to understand. But one thing the people of St Catharines and other parts of Lincoln county will understand is that they're going to have to pay more taxes this year or see even further cutbacks in education, because just this past month they heard they'd be getting $2 million less than they had anticipated from the provincial government. I know they will not be happy. They've already expressed this. They've used words like they're "astounded" by this.

What happens is that it's because the assessment has gone down in some other areas, apparently. Market value assessment has brought down the assessment in other areas, and it's come up in the Niagara region. Anybody who looks at the news at all knows -- Madam Chair, you're from Niagara Falls, so you know this -- the Niagara region has faced really difficult economic times. To suggest that we haven't felt the impact, which the funding formula does, is unrealistic.

I notice the St Catharines Standard -- I don't have the editorial in front of me -- wrote an editorial, or at least Paul Forsyth, who is a writer, did an analysis piece which dealt with this. He in effect said that it is unrealistic -- certainly I contributed to that article by agreeing with those who had said the problem is that the formula -- I'm not saying the minister's trying to be mean to the Niagara region. He's not, nor is the government, but the formula doesn't take into account the fact that we've had so much unemployment that so many people are simply unable to pay their property taxes, and it's extremely onerous on the Niagara region.

We need yet another weighting factor in the Niagara region to provide the kind of funds that we need to operate a good education system, and that must take into account --

Hon David S. Cooke (Minister of Education and Training): Why didn't you do it?

Mr Bradley: The Minister of Education intervenes and says, "Why didn't you do it?" Of course, in those days, things were booming and the board of education was not complaining. They were getting 7% and 8% in those days and they were not being cut back as much and they were providing service to students who needed special education services. They were able to do that. But today they recognize that when they face such tough economic times, what they need -- I'm sure Niagara Falls would say the same -- is more consideration from the government because of the fact that we've encountered economic difficulty in our part of the province.

I certainly hope the minister listens to that and encourages the Treasurer to do that, because we wouldn't want to see this government downloading. They point fingers at the federal government many times about downloading, but of course the federal government must have learned this from the provincial government, which has been downloading to municipalities at least over the last three and a half years, probably not before that but certainly over the last three and a half years.

Mr Stockwell: Courthouse security.

Mr Bradley: On courthouses, the government has put some money into that. I want to say something about that, because when we're looking at revenues to the government and expenditures, one interesting fact that the Premier never brings up, when he rails on in his new campaign to blame everybody else but himself, is he never points out that the largest portion of infrastructure money coming from the federal government comes to -- guess which province?

Mr Stockwell: Ontari-ari-ari-o.

Mr Bradley: The member for Etobicoke West, out of his seat, still knows it's to Ontario: the largest amount of money.

Now, I saw the Premier. The Premier was here yesterday, large as life. Large as life, the Premier was here yesterday, signing an agreement with Premier Daniel Johnson. We all know the Premier when he plays his game of let's bash the feds, which is a popular game over the years -- popular game as he gets close to election -- bash the feds, bash the opposition, bash previous governments, bash the banks, take no responsibility for his own jurisdiction.

While he was doing this, I didn't hear -- maybe no one asked. Did anyone ask him to use the example of Shawinigan and Hamilton with the Premier of Quebec sitting there, our national-thinking Premier? No, he didn't use that, and I don't know why, because he uses it here, and when he goes into the union halls of the province to bash the federal government, he uses it there. He uses it in a way that the Tories, who were well known for the dog-whistles of the old days, the code words of the old days, used to bash Quebec, because it's good politics to bash Quebec. It's good politics to bash the federal government and Quebec.

I remember when Stephen Lewis, the silver-tongued orator of the NDP, the person who many people said should have been the national leader of the NDP, used to in his most sombre tones chastise the government of the day for using that cheap political trick of bashing Quebec. He would use it all the time.

You notice the Premier doesn't use British Columbia. You notice the Premier doesn't use Alberta. You notice he doesn't use Saskatchewan or Manitoba or Newfoundland or New Brunswick or Nova Scotia. He uses Quebec all the time. That's great politics, and if a person wants to be a great street-fighting politician, that's good politics. Whether he comes to St Catharines or he's in York South or he's in Moosonee, I'll tell you something, that's good, smart politics.

But it's not the Bob Rae I knew. It's not the Bob Rae I knew in this House, it's not the Bob Rae I read about in his days as a dynamic student at the University of Toronto, it's not the Bob Rae who was praised by Stephen Lewis and others, it's not the Bob Rae who attended federal-provincial conferences and played a very constructive role, and it's not the Bob Rae who I heard make some extremely eloquent speeches in this House, with a national flavour. It's a different Bob Rae.

1650

I was surprised there were no questions directed yesterday as the agreement was signed with Premier Daniel Johnson. I think some member of the government mentioned, in a certain bill he's bringing forward, that what the people want to see is governments working together, and I suspect that's the case.

I'm not one, although I made the case on behalf of the Lincoln County Board of Education and the Lincoln County Roman Catholic Separate School Board to the minister, who encourages local levels of government to bash the province. I don't do that because I think they're tough economic times and the people I have out there want them to work together. I made a pretty parochial appeal to the minister, an admittedly parochial appeal, because I think it's justified, but in general I don't encourage that because I think the public doesn't want local levels of government to simply dump on the provincial government constantly, and I don't think they want it to work between the federal and provincial governments either.

As for this piece of legislation, it's probably ill-timed. There are some parts of it that are good and supportable and some parts that are not. Unfortunately, that's what compels opposition parties to vote against legislation when there are parts with which they cannot agree.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Sutherland: I'm pleased to respond. I was a little disappointed that the member for St Catharines is now being the apologist for the federal Liberal caucus from Ontario in terms of why it's not standing up. From my sense of what I'm observing, what the Premier is doing is simply standing up for the interests of the province of Ontario.

He cites why we mention Quebec, and I think it needs to be on record that its population is closest to ours, the size of its economy is closest to ours. In terms of what the federal government is providing for that province and seeming to be listening to their concerns, why isn't it also listening to ours?

I also want to talk about the minimum corporate tax. In commenting on some of the contents of the so-called Common Sense Revolution by the third party, the member for St Catharines didn't make any comment as to the fact that while the third party is opposed to this bill, nowhere is it mentioned in the Common Sense Revolution that it's going to remove the corporate minimum tax.

Maybe that's because they recognize the fact that this corporate minimum tax really impacts less than 3% of the businesses in the province of Ontario, and some of the rhetoric we've heard opposed to it, that it's going to kill small business or that it's somehow going to stop investment from coming into this province, just isn't quite the case. In reality, what it's saying is, that yes, while there are other incentives there for corporations to invest and create jobs, there still is a responsibility for them to pay some taxes, and that's how you help to develop a very fair taxation.

I'd be interested if the member for St Catharines could comment, and see whether he feels that's why the third party, in its Common Sense Revolution, has decided that this is a good piece of legislation, that it does relate to fair taxation, and that that's why they've made no mention of it in their document.

Mr Hans Daigeler (Nepean): I must say, I always enjoy listening to the member for St Catharines because he has a lot of wisdom acquired over the years, being first elected in 1975 --

Hon Elmer Buchanan (Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs): It was 1977.

Mr Daigeler: I stand corrected, almost 1975. What he does so well is combine the concerns of his riding with the larger concerns across the province. I think he does that very well at every step, and he did it today again.

I must say that I also admire his restraint with regard to matters of environment, because I can certainly tell you that the member for St Catharines might have been in favour of this bill that we have in front of us if the government had said, "We're going to put these taxes we're collecting towards environmental improvements."

I certainly remember the member for St Catharines, when he was the Minister of the Environment, being under constant attack from the NDP for not doing more on the environment. If there was a minister who was doing more than any minister in Canada with regard to the environment, it was the member for St Catharines, and he must be really biting his tongue when he sees the environment being given such short shrift by this current government, and even by the Tories in their famous new document. As I say to people in my own riding, while this may not be as popular, it will come back, and I'm sure the member for St Catharines will continue to lead on that. He will speak out on those things and he will make sure that some of the money that is being collected through this bill will be dedicated and oriented towards his lifelong love, the environment.

Mr Stockwell: I have one quick comment about the previous speaker. Does the tire tax ever come to mind?

I want to talk about just one aspect of the minimum corporate tax, and maybe the member can comment. It seems to me that if you're interested in introducing a minimum corporate tax, there are a couple of prerequisites you must hurdle before introducing the bill. You must ask yourself, are the people in business today in Ontario undertaxed, evenly taxed, or overtaxed? If the answer is evenly or over, there is probably not a lot of need for this bill. The second question you've got to ask yourself is, will this bill enhance opportunities for employment, maintain the same levels, or detract? If the argument can be made that it could detract, the argument must be put forward that maybe there's no need for this bill.

I submit to this House that a minimum corporate tax levied today on businesses in Ontario -- those businesses are already taxed to what I consider the limit. Therefore, it shouldn't be here. Second, I don't believe this tax will do anything to produce a better environment to create jobs. Therefore, I would suggest, it will do things not to create jobs. By paying more taxes to the government, it takes money out of businesses' hands that they can use to employ more people, reinvest or expand.

It's a very simple argument, I believe. This particular piece of legislation will take more money out of the private sector, take more money out of private citizens' hands, and put it into government hands. I fundamentally believe the private sector is a far wiser and better user of its money than government, and I will vote against this bill solely for those two reasons.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): I agree with my colleague from Nepean that the former Minister of the Environment was a very special minister. I sat in cabinet with him for four years, and I can tell you that he didn't approve of the tire tax. He didn't like it, I'll be very honest with you, because it wasn't dedicated to improve the environment, and Mr Bradley was the first one to speak against it.

Mr Stockwell: That's a cabinet secret.

Mr Grandmaître: Not exactly. We're out of government now so we're an open government. We don't have any secrets. Now the secrets belong to the members of the real government.

Any time we talk about a tax bill, it's a painful matter to all parties, for the simple reason that people feel they're overtaxed in the province of Ontario. I think we have reached the point of no return. We have to re-examine the way we budget in the province. I realize we have serious needs in education, social services and health care, all of these great things, but I don't think we can continue to tax people and have the government spend 25% more than it takes in.

It's only wise advice from our side to tell the government that 25% in excess of our revenues is unacceptable. We have to find ways to work together and find solutions to our problem, but what the government is doing at present is finding more obstacles to create more problems, which is unacceptable to all taxpayers.

The Acting Speaker: The member's time has expired. Now the member for St Catharines has two minutes to respond.

1700

Mr Bradley: I am overwhelmed by the compliments that have been forthcoming from members of the House today. It doesn't happen all that often.

We probably wouldn't need increases in taxes if we were better able to manage the whole system. The Minister of Community and Social Services is here. He'll be interested to know that he and I and the leader of the Conservative Party were all chastised, in a guest column which appeared in the St Catharines Standard a couple of weeks ago, for welfare-bashing, it was called. What people will have to recognize -- and the minister has recognized because he has to wrestle with a major problem. What everybody is looking for today is to target the social spending to those who are most in need of that social spending. That's not what people would like to do; we would like to make it much more generous. When I hear people attack the Minister of Community and Social Services for that, I think the people are being unfair and are being inaccurate when they do so.

One of the things that would mean we wouldn't have to have taxes of this kind would be a better targeting of the spending resources that are out there to people, trying to get them back to work as our main goal, and also better trying to help those who are genuinely in need.

As to the member for Oxford, he's a very gregarious individual. What is sad to see, I must say, is a bright, intelligent, outgoing individual having to bring forward the government line on every occasion. It's a function of being a government backbencher, but it is sad to see it, because he's probably got some good ideas there and he probably feels that some of the things the government is doing are not quite right. I hope time will change that individual.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. The member's time has expired. We are now further debating Bill 146.

Mr Stockwell: Being a tax bill, this does allow for some wide-ranging debate, and I'd like to pick up on a comment made by the member for St Catharines.

I can agree with a lot of things the member says. In most issues, I find his logic sound and relevant. Where I tend to move off the track in terms of most of the elected officials in this House -- not my party but across the floor and in the opposition -- is the thought prevailing out there, particularly federally and again I hear it provincially, that if we can spend a little smarter and we can allot the money a little more carefully, we can somehow put our fiscal and financial house in order.

I'd like to explain here today, in no uncertain terms, that won't work. Anybody who tries to tell the general public that we can somehow spend differently, spend smarter, take the money we spend and spend it more efficiently and thereby create a saving and create fiscal stability, is wrong. They're dead wrong.

We are long since past the stage where tinkering will work, long since past the stage where financial voodoo is going to carry the day. That's why we came out with this report yesterday. I myself am very happy and proud of the fact that we came forth with what I consider to be a controversial document but a document that sets down our priorities. I understand that across the floor they are not going to embrace these. I understand it. It's not part of their political philosophy to embrace what we are bringing forward.

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Can you explain it, Chris?

Mr Stockwell: I will. There are going to be some dramatic cuts in government.

Hon Mr Buchanan: How many rabbits are in the hat?

Mr Stockwell: I say very carefully to the Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs, and I will say very clearly to him, the cuts that are going to be made are going to be difficult, they're going to be burdening, and it's going to be tough. It's going to be tough on the government of the day and it's going to be tough on those people receiving the cuts. When you make the kinds of cuts that are included in this thing in welfare, welfare recipient cuts, there will be pain. I don't deny it. People are going to have to figure out a new, innovative way of dealing with their financial concerns.

When you talk about laying off, through attrition, straight layoffs or contractual agreements, some 13,000 employees, that will be painful. It will be painful to the people getting laid off, it will be painful to their coworkers and it will be painful for the government.

I hearken back to the first point I made. The point I made was, tinkering won't work. The idea that you can somehow spend smarter isn't going to work. The leader of the Liberal Party standing up in the House, as the Minister of Education so aptly put it one day, having a policy that says, "We believe in a better education system," can't cut it any more.

We have an accrued debt in this province of $140 billion. I'm certain across the floor and out to the broader audience, they don't understand how much money that is. If they do, then I take it back. I'm saying all members. But the broader audience has no idea what that means. I don't believe they can comprehend dollars that large, numbers that big. What they're going to have to understand is that if we ever hope to achieve some kind of fiscal sanity, if we ever hope to achieve a day again where our payments for borrowing don't exceed every budget item except two, we're going to have to do something about it.

Mr Bisson: Can you explain it, though, Chris, in detail?

Mr Stockwell: I'll try. That's why I'm going through it.

That's why bringing forward this budget report, the Common Sense Revolution, whatever you want to call it, is so timely and important. I say not just to the government benches, I say to the Liberal benches as well, if you don't think it can be done or you think it goes too far, then bring forward your recommendations. We challenge you.

I say to the government members, I know you don't like it, but this is our policy and this is what we believe in. We don't believe we can continue going $10 billion in the hole every year and maintain any kind of fiscal stability. It's virtually impossible. You get caught in the debt spiral and you can't get out. This government can't get out.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: The biggest mistake this government ever made, of any issue it dealt with, of anything it did, was its first budget. They institutionalized double-digit debt, and the double digit is billions. They've spent the last three years trying to figure out a way to get that money back that they gave away in their first budget.

The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Rural Affairs will tell you. Minister upon minister will tell you. My goodness, the Minister of Natural Resources made an announcement yesterday that he's closing six provincial parks, for heaven's sake, that spend $300,000. That has got to be a spit in the ocean.

Interjection.

Mr Stockwell: It's $700,000, $800,000? If that's not a spit in the ocean to the debt, what is? That's what they've gone to, an $800,000 cut in provincial park campsites.

The Minister of Health, who talks about people travelling outside this province, already having reduced the cost per day to $400, is now cutting again to $100. That's what this government's been reduced to.

Hon Mr Buchanan: That's fair.

Mr Stockwell: I say to the Minister of Agriculture, it may be fair, but it was never part of your party politics. It was never part of your party policies. The reality of the fiscal situation we're in today has created a whole new game. It's created a whole new field from which we can start debating.

In this platform, in this program, we as Conservatives are talking about reducing welfare payments to 10% above the national average. That's a big cut and it's going to affect a lot of people who are receiving welfare payments today.

We talk about a 13,000 reduction in the payroll. That's going to affect a lot of people today.

Mr Bisson: Reduce 13,000 what?

Mr Stockwell: Jobs.

Mrs Haslam: Is this the bill we're debating?

Mr Stockwell: Yes, through the commercial concentration tax.

We talk about tax savings, and this is the most important part of this document, I believe. We talk about a dramatic cut in income tax.

Mr Bisson: A 30% cut?

Mr Stockwell: A 30% cut in personal income tax.

Mr Bisson: To the taxpayer?

Mr Stockwell: Well, personal income tax, of course, is the taxpayer, PIT.

Mr Bisson: Is that 30% of 51%?

Mr Stockwell: It's 30% of 58%, taken from 58%. It's a 20% cut in provincial income tax, from 58% to 38%.

1710

Mr David Johnson: Twenty percentage points.

Mr Stockwell: Twenty percentage points or 34% grossed up. A 20 percentage point cut from 58% to 38%. When you gross it up, it's 34%.

Now, where does this plan take us as opposed to what the government offers? The government offers what I think has got to be -- although catchy. I will admit it is catchy to talk about a minimum corporate tax. It is a catchy thing because they did campaign heartily on this issue and they think there's some mileage still in talking about a minimum corporate tax.

A minimum corporate tax right now, in my opinion, is absolutely the worst thing you could do. You know what? You say you want alternatives; I'll give you alternatives to the minimum corporate tax. You have right now two methods of dealing with corporations. The two methods are this: You give them a tax incentive and then you tax back, so you end up with two separate bureaucracies.

If you wanted to get more money out of the corporations, my suggestion would be, rather than creating a minimum corporate tax and a whole new wave of bureaucrats, take away one of the incentives. If you really believe that they're avoiding taxes by reinvesting in hard equipment or reinvesting in expansion -- and this is the theory, I assume, behind minimum corporate tax. You must think that through some tax loophole they're avoiding paying taxes; then withdraw that. If you really believe that carrying losses forward is wrong, then eliminate loss carry-forward provisions. That way you don't have two separate bureaucracies set up: one to give credit for capital expansion, one for loss carry-forward provisions and a whole different set going forward and saying you have a minimum corporate tax. This, then, would make it a simpler tax program and it would do away with your need for a minimum corporate tax.

I only ask the government, if you don't think corporations are avoiding taxes, why are you implementing this piece of legislation? That has got to be the motivation, I assume.

Mr Paul Klopp (Huron): It's a corporate tax on profits.

Mr Stockwell: I understand it's a corporate tax. You don't pay tax on anything but profit. So I'm asking you, if they're not avoiding taxes, why are we introducing this piece of legislation? You have to believe fundamentally that somehow, through some process, they're not paying what they rightfully should. If they were paying what they rightfully should, you wouldn't be introducing a minimum corporate tax. So I say to the government, rather than introducing a minimum corporate tax, fix the tax structure so they pay what you think is a reasonable thing to pay.

Mr Klopp: That's what we're doing. It's a reasonable thing to have other --

Mr Stockwell: This is the point that I think business wants to make to this government. They think it's a reasonable thing to pay. What business is saying is this: "Look, minimum corporate tax is just another angle that's saying, 'We can't seem to get the money out of you the conventional way, we can't seem to get the money out of you with the standard methods we've been using for the last 100 years, so if perchance you somehow can file your taxes and have profit and pay not too much tax, even though you've lived by the rules, lived by the law, we reserve the right to slap a tax on you so you don't get away with paying minimum amounts of tax.'"

Hon Mr Cooke: Even Ronald Reagan brought in a minimum corporate tax.

Mr Stockwell: Ronald Reagan did a lot of things that I didn't agree with.

So I think this: The minimum corporate tax to me is just an angle that a government uses because it can't seem to get its books straight to figure out exactly what it wants to tax and what it doesn't want to tax. A minimum corporate tax is a broad brush that they paint over all businesses and they say, "You pay this amount, period, case closed, even if you've met all the other requirements for operating in this province."

What are the ramifications of that? I don't know why it is that this government can't seem to understand, but it doesn't seem to understand this: Businesses investigate when opening plants or locating plants, and when they do investigations, one of the most important things they investigate is, "If we are lucky enough or smart enough or managerially quick enough to make a profit, how much of the money at the end of the day do we get to keep?" That's really important: retained earnings after taxes.

If corporations come into Ontario and see the vast array of taxes they have to live within and at the end of the day they figure they can still make money but they're faced with a minimum corporate tax and they go elsewhere where minimum corporate tax is not applicable, along with labour laws and other interesting things that they want to talk about, what incentive is there for a business to locate in this province? Members opposite, I ask you that: Where is the incentive?

You can talk about all the great programs you're running, you can talk about all the programs you're --

Mr Klopp: Good roads, good labour.

Mr Stockwell: I say to the member for Huron, good roads, good labour, I don't argue that. There are some good roads and there's a lot of good labour, but it doesn't seem to be working, because a lot of this job creation is happening elsewhere.

The numbers speak very clearly. Some 9,000 jobs were created in this province last year. Tens of thousands of jobs were created elsewhere: in British Columbia significantly more jobs; 50,000, 60,000, 70,000 in Quebec; Alberta.

Something is amiss, something's wrong, and as a long as you continue to say, "No, nothing's wrong," as long as you continue to say, "They don't understand," it's going to continue to wreak havoc in the private sector because the proof is in the pudding. How many jobs did we create? Last year we collectively -- we are the Legislature -- created 9,000 jobs. With all due respect to the members opposite, that was a bad month in previous governments.

I will say that I do not blame the recession on you, I do not blame all these economic crises that we've dealt with on you, but the fact remains: Apparently this recession is over and it's been over. We're slowly climbing our way back up, but it seems to me that if you look at the numbers and look at the statistics, we are climbing. The question that must be asked is, what is the difference between Ontario and BC and Alberta and Quebec? What is so different that we are performing so badly compared to those provinces?

What we're doing in this province is we're cutting our own throats. We're cutting our own throats by introducing tax measures.

Hon Mr Cooke: Show us what you mean.

Mr Stockwell: You want to know how come we're cutting our own throats and why it's so obvious to me? It's so obvious because we have a Treasurer who introduces new tax measures and he generates, with those tax increases, less money than he did the year before. Doesn't that strike you as unbelievable? He hiked taxes $2 billion in his budget and he generated less revenue than he did before with those tax hikes built in.

We created 9,000 jobs in this province when other provinces were creating 50,000, 60,000 and 70,000. Doesn't that strike you as kind of odd? Doesn't it strike you as kind of odd that the tax implications in this province, as compared to the other jurisdictions, are significantly more onerous? Doesn't it strike you that this could possibly be one of the reasons why the other jurisdictions seem to be growing at a far greater and more rapid pace than we are?

If that's not the case, if the tax issue is not the case, if the red tape isn't the case, if the government isn't the case, I ask members opposite, what is it? Why is it we aren't performing? Why are we creating 9,000 jobs when they're creating 60,000 and 70,000? What is it that we're doing so wrong and they're doing so right that it's created this major, major problem? I've not heard an answer.

Mr Stephen Owens (Scarborough Centre): Welfare rates are falling for the first time in a number of years.

Mr Stockwell: I say to the members opposite that I understand what you're saying, but I say to the member from Scarborough who talks about welfare rates dropping, "Congratulations, I'm glad they're dropping," but all I can measure you on is the performance and indicators produced by the government opposite.

Mr Klopp: The free trade deal.

Interjections.

Mr Stockwell: I hear them say the free trade deal. If it's the free trade deal's fault that we are not performing as well as other provinces, fine, but I can't find anyone other than the few members opposite who are saying that Alberta and BC and Quebec aren't in the same boat, that they're not dealing with the same free trade issue. We are. We are dealing with the same free trade.

Mr Klopp: Because they didn't have all the branch plants here. We had all the manufacturing plants.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Noble Villeneuve): Order, please.

Mr Stockwell: The next point that needs to be made is that they're talking about how we had the manufacturing jobs. I agree with them and maybe an argument can be made that we lost significantly more jobs because of it. Yes, that argument can be made. I don't necessarily think it's true completely. I think there is some truth in it, but I don't think it's total.

1720

But the question still stands, and it relates back to the minimum corporate tax. I'm not talking about job losses; I'm talking about the creation of work, and the manufacturing sector, through the free trade agreement, has no impact in Ontario as it does in BC, Alberta and Quebec -- none. So my position is, what is the problem? I will say, the problem begins in this room.

Mr Klopp: Hold up the picture. The problem begins with that picture.

Mr Stockwell: The problems, in my mind, are very clear.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's true.

Mr Stockwell: I can take the heckling across the floor. I understand why they're heckling: because they haven't got any solid evidence to back up any of the facts and figures they put out.

I ask, what's the problem? Why are we only creating 9,000 jobs? We're retraining people, apparently, for what? Retraining for nothing. Retraining so they can get involved in the next retraining program. So I ask, what is it? I am not opposed to retraining people, but I say to my friend across the floor from York-Durham, I agree, retrain them, but after you've finished retraining them, you've got to have a job for them, and by creating 9,000 jobs last year, you're retraining them for unemployment insurance. What's the point?

I want to get the point that I wanted to make.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The member for Etobicoke West has the floor.

Mr Stockwell: This is what I get. They talk about job creation. They say welfare rates are dropping. They talk about retraining programs. Talk about job creation, for heaven's sake, let's talk about job creation.

Hon Mr Cooke: Look at the numbers now, Chris. Look at last month.

Mr Stockwell: I'll be happy to. You have numbers that are more up to date? I ask the Minister of Education to send them over. I'll be happy to review them.

I say there's a problem that we have in this province that has been taking place for the last 15 years and I blame a Conservative government, followed by a Liberal government, followed by an NDP government. The problem is, we've gone --

Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): What's left?

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Order.

Mr Owens: This is a guy who has no loyalties.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Stockwell: I know they say the Reform. I'll say this about the Reform Party. They got more seats than we got last federal election, They got more seats than you got last federal election. Maybe there are some answers that they're offering that are reasonable, but I want to say --

Mrs Karen Haslam (Perth): That doesn't make them right, Chris.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. There will be an opportunity for questions and/or comments following the member's participation. Please allow him the opportunity. The member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Stockwell: The problem is that we have built in in the past 15 years an incredible amount of tax, an incredible and phenomenal amount of tax; not just businesses -- personal income tax.

When you look at the personal income tax levels of this country, we in Ontario rank right up there with the east coast provinces when it comes to PIT. We're right up there when it comes to tax levels. On a corporate tax level, we're right up there with the highest. Cumulatively, and this seems to rise to be great anger, we are the highest taxed jurisdiction in this country; cumulatively speaking, taking in corporate, personal, all those other taxes, we're the --

Hon Mr Cooke: You're absolutely wrong. You're wrong.

Mr Stockwell: Can I finish? We're the highest taxed jurisdiction in this country when you're dealing with provinces that are west of the Maritimes. When it comes to Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and BC, we are the highest taxed jurisdiction.

Hon Mr Cooke: Wrong.

Mr Stockwell: The other provinces on the east coast are all have-not provinces and they get transfer payments from the federal government -- significant; there are some in the western provinces. But when it comes down to the bottom line, the taxes in this province have either scared companies right out or they're scaring them not to come in. That's why we're not creating any work.

Hon Mr Cooke: Ask the auto industry.

Mr Stockwell: The Education minister says, "Oh, you're wrong, you're wrong," but I say to the Minister of Education, if I'm so wrong, how come your policies and platforms you put forward have been complete and utter failures? How come you can talk about Jobs Ontario and the hundreds of millions of dollars you've spent and you create 9,000 stinking jobs? That's it: 9,000 jobs year over year. If I'm wrong, then the federal government and Statistics Canada are wrong, everybody's wrong who accumulates these statistics and the Minister of Education is the only one who's right. He's the only one who's right; everybody else in the country of Canada is wrong.

How come, if they're doing such a bang-up job -- taxes are reasonable, red tape is reasonable -- we can only create 9,000 jobs? You want to know why? Because of the commercial concentration --

Mr Owens: Yes, some of those jobs in your riding.

Mr Stockwell: Where? I could probably tell you the 9,000 jobs. That's how sad it is. You could probably go through them and list them the 9,000 jobs.

We lost literally hundreds of thousands of jobs in the last three years, they create 9,000 jobs in one year, and they refuse to look at any examples of what caused the mess or antidotes that might fix the mess. The mess has to do with taxes, with bureaucracy, with government red tape, with spending, the fact that we end up spending $10 billion per year more than we collect. But God forbid they should look at that as an example: "No, that can't be the problem."

We all know what the problem is: the free trade agreement and Brian Mulroney, who hasn't been in government for five, six, eight months. That's always the problem. And if it's not their fault, it's the federal Liberal government's fault. And if it's not the federal Liberal government's fault, it's the opposition parties' fault. If it's not their fault, it's the private sector's fault. If it's not their fault, it's local government's fault or it's hospital boards or it's somebody else's fault. Never, in all the years I've been here, have they stood up and taken the blame for anything they've ever done, nothing.

Do they ever stand up and say: "Maybe we made a mistake. Maybe $10 billion was too much to borrow. Maybe we shouldn't have brought in this tax or that tax. Maybe we shouldn't have dealt with more government red tape. Maybe we hired too many people. Maybe we gave packages of too much for increases. Maybe we did some things wrong in the first three years." No, it's never their fault. We've got the lowest employment growth rate. We've got one of the worst welfare rolls in the history of this country. We've got unemployment rates that are at 20% or 25% in some regions. But ask them to stand up and say maybe they did something wrong in the last three years -- not a chance: "It's somebody else's fault. Everybody is out to get us. Everybody doesn't like us, and you're just using that as some excuse to get us unelected."

This government had better understand that when you introduce minimum corporate taxes, when you introduce more taxes in the private sector, on the private individual, they look at those taxes and say: "What am I doing in this province? If I'm lucky enough to make some money, all the government says is, 'Send it in.' That's what the government says."

It's time we address the tax issue. It's time we address the government spending issue. It's time we dealt with the issue that every year in this province we spend about $10 billion more than we collect. It's time we dealt with the fact that welfare recipients in this province receive significantly more than the national average around this country. It's time we dealt with the fact that we have nearly 100,000 people working in this province directly for the provincial government. It's time we dealt with that fact and got this swelling government bureaucracy down to a workable level. It's time we dealt with the fact that, as a government, we simply spend way too much money.

As long as you argue with me, you're not getting the message from the public, and the public is saying: "You spend too much money. You tax me too much money." They're telling me to cut programs. They're telling me to cut spending. They're telling me we've got to cut these kinds of things, and they're talking about cutting a lot of programs that need to be cut.

I'll tell you something, I say to the members opposite. It means cutting bureaucracy. It means cutting 13,000 bureaucrats. It means cutting welfare payments. Yes, that's what it means. It means cutting education dollars that don't go to the classroom, that go to administrators and consultants. They're saying to me, "Cut the number of consultants at the provincial level." They're telling me: "You've got to cut spending. Don't just tell me you're going to cut it through wiser spending, through playing in the margins." They're telling me to make actual, physical reduction in spending.

Mrs Haslam: "But not in my program."

Mr Stockwell: Well, I just told you a bunch of programs we're cutting.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. In three minutes you will all have the opportunity to question.

Hon Mr Cooke: That's so simplistic.

Mr Stockwell: To the Minister of Education, that's a copout. If you think cutting these payments to welfare recipients is simplistic, it's not; it's tough. And it's not something we want to do; it's something that needs to be done. Cutting 13,000 jobs is not something I want to do either, but there's a certain fiscal reality that you don't get. What you don't get is that you can't keep spending $10 billion you don't have. And if you don't get it, pretty soon the public is going to give it to you themselves, and they're going to give you the straight goods. The straight goods are this: They're overtaxed, they're overburdened, they're overregulated, and they're tired of government's intrusion into their lives. The sooner this government realizes it, the better off they'll be.

The minimum corporate tax is just another example of this government's misguided thought that you can continue to go back to the well, to the overburdened corporations and personal taxpayers, and drag money out of them. You can see in the last couple of budgets you've brought out that you went back and tried to get money out of people and tried to increase your revenues, and they dropped. Why did they drop? Because they stopped paying. They went underground. They left the province. They said: "I've had it. It's finished, game over."

1730

Unless you deal with this spending crisis and unless you deal with this tax problem, you're going to find a province being vacated by the very people who create the wealth, who run the social programs, who allow governments to do the things they want to do, which is to protect the people who need protecting. If you stop realizing that the private sector and the business groups out there pay taxes to protect the people who can't protect themselves, you're going to end up with a province without a vibrant private sector, that needs to do things to attract investment and provide you with money to do the very things you want to do.

It's about time a plan like this came forward. It's about time we dealt with this spending and tax issue dead-on, because we've had four years of this government spending us into oblivion. I don't want to talk about children's children any more. They're not spending only them into oblivion. They're spending themselves and us and all people into oblivion.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments.

Mr Bisson: It's about time we finally see in this Legislature a clear enunciation of the position of the Conservative Party of Ontario. This is basically conservatism à la Preston Manning.

I really enjoyed the discussion from the member, because he's finally saying what has needed to be said by Michael Harris and the Conservative Party in this province for a long time, that is, what they plan on doing should they become government, should the province of Ontario be unfortunate enough to receive them as government.

They call this a Common Sense Revolution. There's nothing commonsense about it. This is pure, utter -- you think we've had people on the front steps of this assembly during the last couple of years over social contracts and expenditure control? You ain't seen nothing yet, if you ever try to do what is being proposed here. This is simplistic economics at its best.

He uses as an example inside that document the cut in personal income tax, reducing income tax by 30%. It's a noble idea, but it doesn't work the way you see it. Reagan tried that; it was called Reaganomics. When he tried to do that in the United States, it did absolutely nothing to stimulate the economy. It ended up driving that government into higher and higher debt.

What we need are, yes, commonsense approaches to dealing with very difficult problems. If I have to choose, I'll choose commonsense approaches this government has taken, which is, let's try to find ways to share what's left. Rather than putting 13,000 workers -- he claims -- out of work in the province through the civil service, I would say the numbers you're talking about here are closer to 200,000, and I think you should come clean.

What we need to do is find some commonsense approaches and do what this government has been doing, in which we were able to find $6 billion in savings last year in the coffers of the province without affecting services in the way you would propose under this plan. This is utter nonsense, what you're proposing.

Mr Offer: The member for Etobicoke West has brought forward quite clearly the difficulties the province has found itself in by virtue of the Rae government.

I'm referring to the report by my leader, Lyn McLeod, Getting Ontario Working Again, if I could read a few points. It says: "What people do feel...is that the Rae government's 'policies' did indeed make the situation significantly worse than it should have been. They also feel that the Rae government has failed to take the bold new approaches that are required to get us out of this unacceptable situation."

This report speaks to the direction we should take to make Ontario North America's leading economy. We can do this by "charting a bold new course," by "letting the economy breathe," by "redesigning the machinery of government," by "making Ontario 'the home of the best workforce,'" by "providing the tools for the future." We can do this by reducing unemployment to 6% over five years, and that means creating 150,000 more jobs over the next five years than is currently planned. We can do this, as is outlined in this report, Getting Ontario Working Again, a report that was the subject matter of meeting people across the province, providing more jobs, setting and charting a bold new course, making Ontario North America's leading economy and effecting a 1% annual decrease in the level of taxation for Ontarians.

This is the type of report that I believe meets some of the concerns that the member for Etobicoke West has outlined, concerns that have been raised and caused because of the inaction of the Rae government. I would ask, Mr Speaker, for you and the member to take time to read this report, because it does chart the course for the future.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? The honourable member for Don Mills.

Mr David Johnson: I listened to the member for Etobicoke West and I congratulate him on his speech. I listened to the member for Mississauga North, and I think we all have the same objectives. I think what the member for Etobicoke West is saying, though, is that the people of Ontario are no longer content to listen to clichés; they're no longer content to listen to comforting words. They want to see the evidence. They have to see a program that works. They have to see the numbers, and those are the numbers that are contained in the Common Sense Revolution, and those are the numbers that the member is putting forward.

It's fine to sit back and say all the things that won't work and galvanize yourself into inactivity, but the member for Cochrane South seems to think that it doesn't make common sense to balance the budget, that that's not common sense. I can tell you that the people of the province of Ontario don't agree with that. They understand that when you're paying $54 billion a year and taking in revenue of $42 billion a year, as we did a year or two ago, that doesn't work over a period of time.

It was interesting this morning that there was a press conference from the Ontario Taxpayers Federation. These are people who are representing thousands of people across Ontario and their affiliates across Canada, and they're suggesting that there must be a balanced budget, that's what we must be looking at. To achieve that, they're looking at expenditure reductions but they're looking at no tax increases. The member for Etobicoke West, on this bill, is suggesting that there should be no tax increases.

They're suggesting -- and this is the mood of the people of the province of Ontario -- that if governments do not eliminate the deficit and then put in place provisions to provide for no deficits in future years, there should be penalties to the Premier and the executive members. That's the kind of mood in the province of Ontario, and that's being reflected by the member for Etobicoke West.

The Acting Speaker: We can accommodate one final participant. The honourable member for Fort York.

Mr Marchese: I want to say very briefly that the member for Etobicoke West has a great deal of energy, but it exhausts me. It exhausts this whole House, I have to say. What he is doing and his party is doing is, they're building cathedrals in the desert -- not to speak of the Liberals as well -- with this revolutionary document that they have proposed. They abuse the word "revolution." They discredit a very noble word. They're using hackneyed, bankrupt ideas that have been tried by many governments, including the previous national government we had in this country.

He takes us back to the Mulroney days, where all of the proposals that he speaks of have been tried. Deregulation, free trade, GST and so many other ideas have been tried. Reduction of taxes, overtaxation, overregulation, all of these have been tried by the previous national government.

Mr Stockwell is saying that if we try some of these ideas, cutting down on taxes because we're overtaxed, reducing the paper burden of our small business people and all the others, which is a factor, I would argue, in that, that we will solve all the problems. It's a magical idea; it is not real, it is not based on any fact.

The corporate minimum tax says to corporations that make a profit, and it excludes small business people, "You have to pay your fair share." In the 1950s they used to pay 60% of the taxes; today they pay only 23%. Who is left to pay the taxes? He is asking us, on a leap of faith, to say, "Let's reduce taxes by 20%, and let's not touch any services or health or education." What is left to tax? What is left? If we're going to maintain our services, that plan will not work.

1740

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

Mr Stockwell: I'm not certain if the cathedral's in the desert. I know this government builds cathedrals in the city; I've seen its housing program.

But let me just be clear. You don't understand: You don't have a choice any more. It's over. Your choice of saying, "Okay, we'll tinker here and we'll tinker there and we won't cut here and we won't cut there and we'll continue to spend" -- you haven't got an option. Don't you get it? You don't have an option.

I'd like to tell them that if you think I'm tough, wait till you see the world bankers whom you owe the money to. If you think our policy is tough, wait till you go and talk to them. They don't want to hear any yip. They don't want to talk to you. They don't want to hear your clichés. They just want their money. That's what they want, they want their money, and they extract it. They extract it out of you.

Your options are finished. You can't go on spending $10 billion a year that you don't have. You can't go on running this deficit up into hundreds of billions of dollars. You can't go on pretending to provide services for the people that you can't afford to provide. The jig's up; it's over. You've been discovered. We've all been discovered. The federal Liberals want a hand, because they announce a budget that's going to put $100 billion in new debt on to the debt, and they want us to stand up and applaud them for some reason.

It's over. Next election, the government that goes in, it's over. You can't do it any more. You had the four years when you could put double-digit debt on the books and you could talk a good game and you could use clichés. It's finished. You're going to have to get real. You're going to have to get fiscally responsible. You're going to have to cut spending. Finished. Case closed. Cut spending.

Now, if they want to go out to the people and tell them for the next five years that they can continue to run a $10-billion deficit and they can continue to provide the programs, go ahead, because they'll see through it as much as they saw through the last four years. They aren't believing you, the polls say they don't believe you, and you better get it through your head: The spending spree is over; the jig is up.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate on the second reading of Bill 146?

Mr Bisson: I'm only going to take a couple of minutes in regard to this debate, because I think it's an interesting one. What we're talking about doing in this debate is that we're talking about being able to deal with -- I see the Conservatives are all leaving the House. Just as we get to the crux of the debate, we see the Conservative caucus leaving the House. That is quite interesting. At that point, it was to the benefit of the Conservative Party that I wanted to go through this debate. I will end my debate at this point.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments. We are debating second reading of Bill 146. The member for Cochrane South participated. Questions or comments. Seeing none, further debate.

Mr Daigeler: Frankly, when I heard the member for Etobicoke West, whom I respect, I was kind of beginning to understand why the revolutionary comrade Mike Harris wants to cut the politicians down to 99, because frankly I think the member for Etobicoke West, while he has some good points to make, speaks too often.

Mrs Haslam: And too loud.

Mr Daigeler: And too loud, yes, as the member opposite says.

I think people across the province expect from us some reasons and rational argument and from time to time to intervene, but not at every opportunity. But of course the member for Etobicoke West I think uses every opportunity he can get to speak and leaves me only about five minutes, because I understand we want to vote still on this matter.

I do want to make a few points about this bill that's before us, because frankly I don't take an ideological position on this. It's a measure that will put in place a minimum corporate tax. Frankly, if you talk to my constituents -- and they're basically well off, I must say. They pay a lot of taxes and they're not too pleased about all the high taxes.

Hon Gilles Pouliot (Minister of Transportation): What about you?

Mr Daigeler: I pay quite a few taxes too, if that's what the member was asking. But they say everybody should pay their fair share, and they would say "including the corporations." They would say that. In principle, I am prepared to look at whether it is appropriate to have a minimum corporate tax in the province. I'm not one to say, "No way; we don't want to look at this at all." I'm prepared to look at it.

But then the question becomes, what does this tax achieve? Will it at this point in time bring in more money? Presumably that's one of the reasons why the NDP government is instituting this tax. In fact, it has instituted it already. We're debating it basically a year after the fact, because budget measures take effect immediately after they are announced. Why did they put this measure in place? Why are they already collecting the minimum corporate income tax? Presumably in order to have more revenue so we can pay for some of the services we are providing. Frankly, that's our logic. I think that would be a reasonable argument to make.

However, in the current economic climate, what we're seeing is that by instituting a tax and by increasing tax rates, we are actually collecting less money, because we're scaring people. We're moving them out of the province. In the international market, business people, especially corporate citizens, can make a decision to move somewhere else. As much as we dislike that -- and frankly, I'm not in favour of that, but I am realistic, I'm practical, I'm pragmatic. I realize that is part of the world we're living in. That is part of the free trade world we're living in, so we have to take that, as responsible politicians, into consideration.

If, because of this tax, people are moving out of the province and are moving to other jurisdictions perhaps farther to the south, are we achieving with this tax what we want to do? That's where I say, in the current economic climate, this is the wrong thing to do.

I'm not saying that this may be the wrong thing for ever. As a Liberal, I try to make my decisions -- contrary to what the Conservatives are saying and what the NDP used to say, I try to look at the situation as it develops, and frankly, between 1987 and 1990, yes, there was time to raise taxes, because people wanted services and the economy was good. We provided the services and I supported raising the taxes in order to pay for the services, rather than burden our children with that.

At the same time, one had to realize, and today one certainly has to realize, that the economic situation is different and you have to use different fiscal measures. You can't just come in with a heavy, dogmatic hand and on a matter of principle, which are honourable principles, do more harm rather than good.

That's what I think this tax is doing. It's trying to say, "As the NDP, we made this promise." I think it's a bit of trying to catch up to the normal, usual NDP constituency and that they're saying: "We've harmed so many of our traditional support groups, we've harmed the unions, we've harmed the students, we've harmed the seniors" -- that would be in itself a very long story, what the NDP government has done to all of these traditionally underprivileged groups -- "at least we have to keep one of our promises. We said, 'Those unnamed corporations, those terrible people, they have to at least pay taxes.' That's one of the promises that we have made and we have to keep that." That's why we have this measure in front of us. That's the only reason that I can see.

As I said, what the tax does is it has the opposite effect, unfortunately, of what the Treasurer had in mind when he instituted this tax. Instead of collecting more money with this bill, he's scaring the business community. He's making it more difficult at the current time for the business community to invest in this province and to expand and to build jobs, and that's why I don't think this is the right tax at the right time.

Just also very briefly, one other measure in here that I think is harmful -- it's harmful to a sector of Ontario's economy that is extremely important, and that's the tourism and restaurant sector -- is a provision in here that business people can no longer deduct 80% of their meal costs, but only 50%.

Again, on principle, it sounds good. People in my riding would say, "Well, why should these business people be able to write these things off?" I can see that. I can see that argument.

But what does it do to restaurants, the small tourism operators who are trying to make a living and who have really struggled over the last three or four or five years even? What does it to do them? That's I think the point that we have to consider. There are a lot of people in that industry who are employed, especially low-skilled people, and what we're doing with this measure is we are making it much more difficult for that tourism and restaurant sector of the province to be viable and to employ people.

That's why I say it sounds fine in principle that the business people shouldn't be able to deduct these lunch expenses from their payable tax, but the actual effect of this -- I think as politicians we have to look through that -- is that we are hurting with this measure an industrial sector and a commercial sector that already is smarting very badly and that needs support right now, and not attack, as is done with this particular provision.

With these few remarks, given the fact that time has gone on and the member for Etobicoke West has taken most of my time, I want to conclude. I nevertheless wanted to put on the record my reasons as to why we'll be voting against this bill.

Mr Sutherland: I just have a couple of brief comments. I want to thank all the participants who participated in this debate on the corporate tax changes, specifically the minimum corporate tax. I think everyone will, hopefully, see that in the long run this impacts a small number of businesses, that it impacts the wealthiest businesses and that in the long run it is keeping with the direction of this government and moving to a fairer tax system.

The Acting Speaker: This completes second reading debate of Bill 146. Mr Laughren has moved second reading of Bill 146. 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.

Call in the members, a 30-minute bell.

The division bells rang from 1754 to 1803.

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

We are now dealing with Mr Laughren's bill, second reading of Bill 146. All those in favour of Bill 146 will rise one at a time and be identified by the clerk.

Ayes

Abel, Akande, Bisson, Boyd, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Farnan, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hope, Huget, Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings), Klopp, Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, MacKinnon;

Marchese, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip (Etobicoke-Rexdale), Pilkey, Pouliot, Rae, Rizzo, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wildman, Wilson (Frontenac-Addington), Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

The Acting Speaker: All those opposed to Bill 146 will rise one at a time and be identified by the clerk.

Nays

Arnott, Brown, Cleary, Conway, Daigeler, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Henderson, Hodgson, Marland, Miclash, Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound), Offer, O'Neil (Quinte), Runciman, Ruprecht, Sterling, Turnbull, Wilson (Simcoe West).

The Acting Speaker: The ayes are 57; the nays are 20. I declare the motion carried.

Shall the bill be ordered for third reading? Agreed.

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

The House adjourned at 1807.

4 mai 1994