L258b - Tue 9 Dec 1997 / Mar 9 Déc 1997
The House met at 1831.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TAX CREDITS TO CREATE JOBS ACT, 1997 / LOI DE 1997 ACCORDANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT POUR CRÉER DES EMPLOIS
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 164, An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 Budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance or relating to taxation matters / Projet de loi 164, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des mesures de création d'emplois et d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1997 et à apporter d'autres modifications à des lois dont l'application relève du ministère des Finances ou qui traitent de questions fiscales.
Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Is there the opportunity for questions and comments on the last speech we had?
The Deputy Speaker (Ms Marilyn Churley): To the member for Nepean, the last speakers are not here, so we don't do the questions and comments when the speakers aren't here to rebut them.
The member for Lake Nipigon.
Mr Gilles Pouliot (Lake Nipigon): When I first read the title of what is being debated tonight, and I quote, "An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 Budget and to make other amendments to statutes administered by the Ministry of Finance or relating to taxation matters," I wished to start by saying what a pleasure it is indeed every time there is an incentive especially focused at small business. We in the New Democratic Party welcome all initiatives and most opportunities, for they create employment.
However, upon closer scrutiny I soon realized that this bill is most enjoyably read backwards because in those 199 pages the devil begins to emerge. This is a document that covers sins and omissions, things like dozens upon dozens of amendments regarding other bills. You know what has taken place, Madam Speaker. You were in the House when the government, in its haste regarding Bill 160, that dreadful systematic, deliberate, destructive attack on education, the beginning of a slow, prolonged death, did this and then moved on. It was on a Monday.
On the Tuesday they were on the other track with the downloading, the Who Pays for What bill, starting January 1.
Then there was Bill 149, the taxation bill on property.
Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, but they made mistakes. You see, first they set the rules. Then they found themselves, in their haste and their incompetence, unable to abide by the rules they themselves set and they came up with Bill 164. They gathered, they met in the Premier's office and they said, "How will we sell Bill 164?" "We'll call it an act for job creation and we will dedicate eight, 10, 12 pages documenting a series of promises that were made long ago. But if we say it loud enough and if we say it often enough, we can keep reannouncing the same budget measures week after week or month after month, so why not make it official? Why not say, `We'll call it Bill 164.' Then we'll press the high-speed button on the press and print the other 190 pages of amendments."
They were in such a hurry to cover their sins of omission, to cover their tracks, they went as far as to present, to introduce Bill 164 in the House before the other bills had been passed. They were so confused, Speaker Stockwell had a hard look at it and said, "This is not, when you read between the lines" - well, he said to them, "Okay, I'll let you go this time, but what you are doing is wrong and it should not happen."
Others picked up on what Stockwell said and went further and said: "This is not a surprise, although it's wrong. It's an affront to democracy." That's the way you began with Bill 26; that's the way you choose to operate and now you are getting caught. Your plan of attack of does not produce the results you had expected.
It was easy at first for there was very little resistance. People would not - in some cases, could not - speak up, speak out about the government's agenda. They were either frightened or they were the voices of the less fortunate. They were too remote from the mainstream for their voices to be heard.
So today we have to deal with Bill 164, and you've heard the soldiers of misery, the advocates of the present government take full credit for any recovery that is happening and is about to happen in the future. It's as if Ontario did not exist in the past 10 or 12 years. It only began to prosper when the Progressive Conservative Party took office on that day, June 8, 1995. Long before that, the United Nations had decreed that Canada was the best country in which to live; Canada, not Ontario, the whole country, the 10 provinces and the territories in their ensemble. Alas, the Progressive Conservatives were not in power in Ontario. So life goes on and the higher the reward the higher the risk, when you insist on taking credit for an upswing in the economy.
Our party is very pleased for every person that finds steady employment, a good job with a good boss, and we want to wish governments of any stripe well. We don't wish for the economy to be bad; quite the contrary. It's very lucrative in many ways for most of us, if not all of us, when our neighbours are working, when people have money in their pockets and they can buy consumer goods. But to hear them say that all is well, that's it's all even, that everyone has benefited, is far from the truth, most inaccurate. All is not well.
Let me share with you, with the highest of respect, the words of our Lieutenant Governor, Her Honour Hilary Weston. This is what Her Honour said at the Canadian Club, a well-known organization based in Toronto: "People in Ontario want `a more caring and more compassionate society,' Lieutenant Governor Hillary Weston said yesterday in reviewing her first year in office." Her Majesty's representative said that.
1840
Mr Baird: But she signed every bill we passed.
Mr Pouliot: Will you please show respect? Those are the words of Her Honour Hilary Weston. She went on to say, "There are many of our fellow citizens who are hurting and are in dire need of help." It's sort of a subtle message to the government, saying that not everybody is benefiting from the recovery. She said, "But the recovery is far from stable, nor is it universal." There is a message here.
We notice during this recovery that the gap between the very rich and the middle class keeps widening. You've heard it before. The poor get poorer, the middle class gets eroded and, in this game of winner take all, those who are the strongest, those who can run the fastest are taking an increasing share of wealth. When they do that, the middle class gets eroded further, the poor lose hope. They're further away from the mainstream.
The bus shelters are getting occupied, you've noticed, in your riding, more homeless people; more youth unemployment at a stage that's been described as being catastrophic; more student debt than ever before; among the middle class, more personal bankruptcies, people giving up, walking away from their homes, tossing their keys to the landlord. "Can't make the cheque any more. Take it." Student loans: $22,000 for graduate study, on the average. You start your working career and you're behind the eight ball to the tune of $22,000. With youth unemployment so high, your chances of getting anything but a jobette, I mean a good steady job that pays relatively well so you can pay your student loans, are quite remote.
When you say this is a recovery of extraordinary proportions, you should seek equilibrium and balance because the street out there paints a different picture. It paints a different picture to the marginalized, those on general assistance. It paints a different picture for still far too many senior citizens who don't have enough money aside from the bare necessities. It paints a different picture for our young people, the future of Ontario, who are not given the tools to integrate economically.
You must also say that, for failure to do so would be at your own peril and would jeopardize credibility, which is quickly eroding. People have said to you, "What is your plan of attack?" Be systematic. Superimpose your idea with a timetable. Come to the marketplace and we will do it together. But if there ever was a government that refuses to listen, to engage in consultation, it is this present government.
After only two short years in office, I never heard the sort of direct, bold language vis-à-vis ours or the Liberals' as I have vis-à-vis the present administration. I've heard words that I hesitate to repeat, words such as "dictators."
I caution you, we still have a system that works. We have an aberration, I agree. It will take some time. We still have a Constitution. They will have to go back to the people so I won't go as far as to say that the government is made up of dictators. I too, from time to time, believe that their measures are dictatorial. I have heard words such as "bullies," "thugs," "morally bankrupt," and other words. But suffice it to say, I think the message gets across.
I am concerned about the government losing the respect of the population. When this happens, it's not good for any of the people's representatives. We all suffer. It's unfortunate that 81 members in this House of l30 give the others such a bad reputation because I know that the opposition and most government members, in their own circles, are honest, well-meaning people. I know some of them personally once we leave the chamber. The problem arises when they get together. They change. It's a Jekyll and Hyde thing. It's as if you put them behind a wheel and they all believe they can drive like Villeneuve, they can drive a car fast. But if you can take them one by one, then it's really not so bad, it's not that desperate.
When they talk about the economic recovery, it's a recovery unlike the others, where the majority of people are hardly, if at all, better off than they were: again, a high degree of unemployment among our young people; senior citizens who now have to pay user fees for things such as prescription drugs; and a middle class that is no better off than they were a couple of years ago. Except for a few people who have benefited greatly from the tax break and have seen their bonuses and stipends and salaries go up by leaps and bounds, the rest of us have hardly benefited.
"Repaying Huge Loans `A Barrier to Education'" - a deterrent indeed. This is part of a three-month investigation conducted by the Toronto Star. The Toronto Star is the largest-circulation newspaper not only in Ontario but in Canada. The Star sent three reporters out. They spoke to 1,000 young people between the ages of 18 and 30. One third of the 1,000 they spoke to - so this is not a sample, this is a survey - had $13,000 in student loans. "Next year," 1998, "the average debt load for graduating students is expected to be about $25,000."
This government has cut them off at the pass. It increased tuition fees big time. Remember that? It decreased opportunities for young people to get a summer or a part-time job. So what do they do? They borrow money; they want to stay in school. It's difficult to get a job with an education, but without one it's almost impossible to get a good job, if you don't have the proper credentials. So they persevere and now they're caught. The average will be $25,000.
Jonathan Paine is 26 years of age, in architecture. He needs the student loans; his parents aren't rich. At this time Jonathan is $20,000 behind the eight ball, in the red. But he perseveres. Tomorrow will get better; life's a dream and it gets better. He expects to owe $50,000 by the time he's finished. "But Paine is optimistic: `I'm anticipating paying it back and not defaulting.'" Jonathan Paine, I hope everything goes well for you. But you see, Jonathan, I can't help but be saddened, concerned. I share in your burden of $50,000. I know you want well. You're 26 years of age and the world is your oyster, everything looks so well, but $50,000 is a lot of money. I have some difficulty reconciling the sum, it's so enormous.
1850
"Student loans are becoming a barrier to education, says federal Finance Minister Paul Martin." Mr Martin, you're the big-time guy there, you're the big boss. You cut transfer payments to the provinces a couple of years back and you're saying now, by your own admission, that it's a barrier. You're the person who signs the cheque. By the stroke of a pen, show them your power, Paul. Help those people. Help them with a new financial scheme. Listen to what they have to say. That's what New Democrats would do. New Democrats consult; they listen well. Then, together, we can get out of this mess. But you have to treat cases individually, not collectively, because they're talking about 50,000 bucks in the case of Jonathan Paine. How many years will he have to work with Tridel, with Cadillac Fairview, to be able to pay back the loan and the interest that keeps going and going and going?
Jonathan believes the words of Tommy Douglas: If you can pay the banker, everything is possible; but if you cannot pay the banker, hardly anything is possible. Tommy Douglas said that, the father and founder of medicare, still with us today, under some severe attack by the right-of-centre administrations.
When all is said and done, if you're to read those 199 pages, in relatively short order you will acquiesce that Bill 164, An Act to implement job creation measures and other measures contained in the 1997 Budget, has very little to do with job creation. This is an omnibus bill. It gives them yet another opportunity to shove legislation down Ontarians' throats without debate. They've had some opportunities with Bill 160, Bill 152, Bill 149 and other bills to come to the Legislature and to debate it. In this case, they are in such a hurry that they're putting it under this omnibus legislation. Anything from assessment of property and reassessment to downloading, who will pay for what starting January 1, errors, additions - you find them in this bill. It's certainly something else.
It gives the minister all the powers. It tells the municipalities what to write but also what not to write on your tax notices when you go and collect the shortfall. They say: "We must have it uniform; everybody must be able to read it the same. Don't print the truth, don't have any add-ons, because this will point the finger at our government." The government shouldn't be too concerned because they've been saying loud and clear that the downloading bill, Bill 152, is revenue-neutral. That's what the Progressive Conservatives have said. I've heard M. Leach, Mr Harris and Mr Eves say that this is a break-even bill.
People are assuming that their property taxes will not go up: "If it's revenue-neutral, if it's break-even, my taxes won't go up, will they?" But when pressed, when you ask them that question: "Will the taxes in this community go up?" "Overall it will be revenue-neutral; there might be winners and losers." "How many?" "We don't know." "Do you have an impact study?" "No, we don't." "When will this take effect?" "January 1st." "Oh, three weeks from today." "Yes, that's right." "Who pays for what and who does what?" "We don't know yet, but trust us." "Is it revenue-neutral?" "Yes, it is." "Why did you add another $800 million in the past two weeks if it is revenue-neutral?" There would be no need to add any money. "It's a transition fund to make up the difference because there will be a shortfall." "Will the transition fund be available in year two? Will the transition fund be available in year three?" No municipalities have received the formula.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): Year four, five, six; every year after that.
Mr Pouliot: I'm hearing the sad interjection of the parliamentary assistant for northern development and mines. I can hear him all the way in northern Ontario, because both the minister and the parliamentary assistant reside in southern Ontario. Yes, they do know a lot about mining and forestry, I can assure you. They have never seen a live Christmas tree, but that's okay. Nevertheless we want to wish them well.
They're about to take credit for a gold mine opening in the great riding of Lake Nipigon. About three months ago, there was an official opening in the riding of Lake Nipigon - great employment, gold mine - and the Conservatives had the audacity to take credit for the opening of a gold mine. The parliamentary assistant said, as if he had planted the gold in the ground, "I hope people won't get discouraged." I said, "Don't worry, if the price stays up" - it's down now - "they're not going to take the gold under their arms and run away with it; it is under the ground." But no, the Conservatives thought: "That's it, we planted the gold mine; we'll take credit for the opening of a gold mine. We created a climate whereby" -
Mr Spina: Put a little water in and watch it grow.
1900
Mr Pouliot: One says to put a little water in and watch it grow. Humour does not become that sad lot, it's obvious. My God, put a little water in and watch it grow.
I want to share with you, through Bill 164, what is likely to happen in our communities in northwestern Ontario and northern Ontario, south-central and southeastern Ontario starting on January 1, 1998. The first business day, January 2, the day after New Year's Day, the bills will begin to arrive. The difference this year is that this is a brand-new ball game. Services that were paid for by the province of Ontario are now the responsibility of municipalities. They are of extraordinary proportions. We are talking of upwards of $1 billion leaving the province's responsibility and being downloaded on the shoulders of municipalities.
They will have only the education portion of the residential levy to cushion the impact, a 50% break which will not begin to suffice, will not begin to make up the difference when you start picking up all additional services. Where we live, be it in Geraldton, Longlac, Jellicoe, Beardmore, Nipigon, Red Rock, Hurkett, Dorion, Manitouwadge, Marathon, in the great riding of Lake Nipigon, there isn't one community which will break even. We will only have 50% of the previous year's amount to collect. Yet to this day there is no indication as to how and when the slack will be picked up. This is unbelievable.
The Conservatives, who pride themselves on being good business managers, couldn't run the smallest of enterprises successfully. They don't have a business plan. They have no organizational skills. The proof is in the tax bill: Three weeks before implementation, nobody knows.
Anxiety takes on extraordinary proportions and leads to fear, and then the final levy will include an additional twist. As you are well aware, the assessment of property -
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): On a point of order, Madam Speaker: I believe the government yet again has lost quorum in the House. I ask you to check.
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): Gilles, we had a deal.
The Deputy Speaker: Clerk, could you check and see if there is a quorum, please.
Clerk at the Table (Ms Lisa Freedman): A quorum is not present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker ordered the bells rung.
Clerk at the Table: A quorum is now present, Speaker.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon.
Mr Pouliot: We live through exciting and yet very busy times, so from time to time we make agreements vis-à-vis the rules of procedure and by and large they work pretty fine. But obviously people have so much on their plates, they're so busy trying to put their best foot forward, it's not 100% foolproof.
I see Madame Brenda Elliott shaking her head in disdain and disgust. I envy you. You've never made a mistake in your life. I'm here to protect some of my colleagues. I envy you greatly. I don't meet too many people like you. I'm truly honoured.
Mrs Brenda Elliott (Guelph): Thank you, Gilles.
Mr Pouliot: I'll stop it here.
Come June, the new twist will be the final assessment and then there will be some dislocation. Right now, 3.8 million units across the province are being re-evaluated. They're being assessed and reassessed, the value of one unit compared to another within a certain vicinity. There will be some severe dislocation and people won't have the opportunity to spread it over several years, for the municipalities will need the money badly because the government will have downloaded some new responsibilities without including the full cheque in the mail. They will have little or no alternative but to extend a line of credit, go to the industrial sector by way of a new class of subtax, hit the small entrepreneur only too hard and dump the remaining at the residential level.
Then they will be completing year three of their regime, and by this time, with their little tricks, it was to be all over. They were to do all the bad things during the first two years. The revolution was to be over. Then they were to take a break, come back in March and go back into their bag of tricks and come up with a few dollars and bribe the electorate with their own tax dollars.
But they've hit a snag. Their revolution did not go according to plan. The resistance they encountered grew stronger and louder. They've made so many mistakes, first it was a week behind schedule and now it's six to eight months behind schedule and they haven't even reached the implementation stage.
People will not forget your dislocation, your attempt at changing Ontario for what you say, for what you hope, for what you call a better Ontario, when you broke things that need not have been fixed. You've gone too far.
Again, the reaction in the community is one of disbelief. Look at what happened. They said: "This is a government that will keep its word. We won't be a government like the others." This government, during relatively prosperous times, has managed to alienate and to hurt more people than any government before. They've cut the budget on health care; look at the state of our hospitals. They've increased the burden on senior citizens; look at the levy on prescription drugs. They have hit the less fortunate, the marginalized 21.6%; look at the number of homeless people. Cheap hotels and motels are filled with people. Bus shelters are occupied. Walk down the street in downtown Toronto, in any major city, and ask yourself, "Have I ever encountered so many people panhandling, so many beggars, so many poor people?" They have left the mainstream, not during a recession, during what they call times of prosperity. If this is not a disgrace, I don't know what is.
Mr Gilchrist: A $100-billion debt.
Mr Pouliot: And on the eve of Christmas.
I heard people across saying a $100-billion debt. Mr Gilchrist, the mathematician, with respect to you, sir, if you have an $11-billion debt -
Mr Gilchrist: Deficit.
Mr Pouliot: Deficit, thank you kindly - my theory, my opinion would be that I would pay the debt first instead of having to borrow for $5.4 billion in tax credits that will not translate into jobs in the same way. I belong to that school of thought.
Mr Gilchrist: That's why we're not doing that.
Mr Pouliot: I respect you and I respect your opinion. It's a matter of style. But I find it in my economics passing strange that when you insist on paying down the debt - and heaven knows it's a burden and should be paid down, it's not a very hard choice to make. I go after the mortgage, I go after the debt first.
Mr Gilchrist: Conversion on the road to Damascus or the road to Manitouwadge.
1910
Mr Pouliot: I was converted long ago. Tommy Douglas converted me: If you can pay the banker, everything is possible; if you cannot, hardly anything is possible.
I've been studying the people across, the government of today, very carefully in the past two and a half years. In fact, it was two and a half years yesterday. I've searched long and hard to find a methodology associated with that mentality. Why is it they're doing this and they're doing that? Why must so many people fall? What are the benefits? To this day, I am unable to find - well, a little but not a lot of merit in their method. I see more madness, I see more hurt, more pain than ever before in Ontario.
What is happening to us? Why the disparity? On the one hand you can venture, for the most fortunate, I think it's Dundas Street, to a Mercedes Benz dealership, order a sports utility vehicle, an ML 3.2-litre or 4.3, and you will be told that there's a waiting list of a year and a half to two years. This is the Ontario they have created.
Mr Baird: How do you know there's a waiting list? Who told you that?
Mr Pouliot: Because the brokers, the bankers, the business people, those who clip coupons, the hoarders, have formed a line.
Yet you go through Regent Park on your way to the Eaton Centre and you will see in front of your very eyes that bus shelters are occupied by people who are homeless. Churches are full. Rundown cheap motels and hotels, roach-infested, are filled with people, with human beings. Young people are desperate to make ends meet. Nice, isn't it?
Madame, à chaque opportunité, vous me connaissez, depuis 13 ans en cette saison, à l'approche de notre Noël à nous, ce qui devrait être notre Noël à nous tous, j'ai pris l'occasion de mentionner les Ontariens et les Ontariennes, Canadiens et Canadiennes que la vie avait un peu oubliés. Je disais tout à l'heure en anglais qu'il s'agit en 1997 - so much to say, so much to be done.
Il y a tant à faire : les démunis, les personnes âgées, les esseulés, les marginalisés, les pauvres, enfin ceux qui se cherchent, ceux qui cherchent mais néanmoins ceux qui en ont moins. Dans une remontée, dans une recouverte économique, vous comprendrez très bien que le gouvernement a maintenant à sa disposition à peu près tous les outils pour alléger le fardeau fiscal, pour enrayer cette pauvreté qui afflige, qui touche tant de gens de chez nous en Ontario.
Vous avez d'une part les étudiants et les étudiantes à l'échelle universitaire, ces jeunes adultes qui doivent emprunter jusqu'à un total de 50 000 $ pour se donner les outils pour être comme les autres, pour s'intégrer, pour se donner une meilleure chance de devenir un citoyen ou une citoyenne à part entière. Aussi, ce gouvernement a choisi, s'est fait des alliés, de choyer ceux qui en avaient le moins besoin, les mieux nantis, les personnes qui peuvent courir le plus vite et qui bénéficient le plus de toute remontée, de toute recouverte économique. Ce sont des gens qui sont riches. Ce sont des gens qui bénéficient.
Par contre, la classe moyenne, qui paie pour tout ça, se voit en diminution, se voit éroder, et les pauvres conséquemment deviennent encore plus pauvres. Certains chez eux diront que c'est un style de vie qu'ils ont choisi, que s'ils sont démunis, s'ils sont sur une liste d'attente, c'est un endroit qu'ils ont choisi, que c'est leur faute.
En cette saison des fêtes, qu'on se regarde, qu'on examine son âme, sa conscience, et qu'on prenne toutes les opportunités pour établir un équilibre. Économiquement, moi je crois que ça a beaucoup de bon sens, que tous participent à la collectivité. Un gouvernement se voit responsable non à l'échelle individuelle, c'est dans la collectivité que le gouvernement voit sa sagesse, professe son programme. C'est la seule façon de le faire ; certainement pas en privilégiant ceux qui en ont plus, parce que faire ceci mène à l'indécence, à l'immoralité. Quand même, nous sommes ici au service des autres, non les autres à notre service. C'est le contraire.
Allez sur les rues sales et transversales, allez voir de vos yeux ce qui se passe un peu chez eux, chez elles, et vous reviendrez enrichis. Chez vous on verra la beauté de l'âme. Vous ferez lumière dans votre milieux.
When the numbers keep rolling in, one would expect to see a noticeable difference, all positive. Money was coming in from all sides. The door at Revenue Ontario was hardly wide enough to accommodate the receipts. Finally the good times had come back. The government said, "We created the climate to make it that way." Well, with their style I'm sure they have a right to claim that they have made a contribution to creating a climate so that entrepreneurial Ontario can create jobs, but it was a global entity as well. It's not all that easy.
Those are supposed to be good times. Well, "good times" means let's all have a good time, not a winner-take-all good time. "Where were you when the good times came by? They passed you by. If you can't succeed during good times, when will you ever succeed?" Oh, maybe if you get a lottery ticket, but unless you win the jackpot you're not likely to succeed. This is not a game of chance. There's an awful lot that could be done, and you do it when times are good.
First, you don't give a tax break that benefits mostly the rich and cabinet ministers, former cabinet ministers and the people they court. You do it by attacking the debt, the deficit first and then the debt, so finally you can say to Ontarians: "The good times have returned. We paid our debt back. We broke away from our chains. Now we're free. Now we can do a lot."
1920
But in the meantime, this government that calls itself prudent, able and practical will have borrowed over $20 billion more than when they took office. It makes little sense to me. You go to the banks, you go around the world and borrow $20 billion, and you still have a debt. Minister, please, does that make sense to you? No, I know you. You pay your debt first. You break away from those shackles and then, ah, a breath of fresh air. Now you can have some money to return to the middle class, to help the senior citizens, to help the young students with their student loans, to help the poor, to help the sick, the feeble. That's how you use money - a good tool if you know how to use it wisely.
But they spend it on the tax cut, the two-cups-of-coffee tax cut. They're as bad as drunken sailors when it comes to money. No, they're worse, because drunken sailors spend their own money. These people go and borrow, borrow and borrow.
Interjection.
Mr Pouliot: Madam, do you wish to tell me about drunken sailors?
Mrs Helen Johns (Huron): Yes, the $50 billion you lost.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Come to order.
Mr Pouliot: I have with me the 1997 Ontario budget. It contains some measures, some incentives for small business. I began my remarks this evening by saying that we in the New Democratic Party will always support any initiative that will help create jobs, preferably good, permanent jobs. Our goal is to achieve full employment so that everyone can be contributors and benefactors at the same time.
The engine of the recovery has been that of medium and small business. In fact, that was perhaps your first job, Speaker, because most Ontarians' first jobs was with small business people. Indeed we want to wish them well. I said I would try to be fair. I looked at Bill 164, 199 pages; and there are some small but well-meaning endeavours, some small incentives for business, but there's also about 190 pages which reflect the sins, errors and omissions.
Speaker Stockwell was asked to rule on Bill 164. I don't wish to impute motive, but I know the Speaker could not believe that some of those bills had not been passed yet, weren't law, but these people came up with other bills and said: "We're going to fix the amendments. We were too incompetent at the committee level and we missed the deadline, so we're not going to open the bill." We said: "Speaker Stockwell, why don't we come back here - in a democracy, a constitutional monarchy, be it that the adversarial system is alive and well - and we will debate your new amendments? We're all here for the public good."
But the commissars had heard enough. The brigade went punchy; they went absolutely crazy. They went to the commissars and they said, "Say no; no more debate." My friends from Algoma and Cochrane South spent hours at committee and they wanted to debate. The government said: "No, no, no. We will have Bill 164. We will be devious and hypocritical, because we're calling it An Act to implement job creation measures and other" -
The Speaker: Member for Lake Nipigon, I find that language to be unparliamentary and I'd prefer that you use other language.
Mr Bert Johnson (Perth): Try English or French.
Mr Pouliot: I heard Mr Johnson say, "Try English or French." Sir, I respect you and I respect your opinion. Thank you very kindly.
Mr Bud Wildman (Algoma): This man speaks English without any accent and you have the gall to say that to him?
The Speaker: Order.
Mr Pouliot: Speaker, I've heard the tone. I've read about it. There would be nothing to be gained if I say any more about that.
Mr Gilchrist: Speak Spanish.
Remarks in Spanish.
The Speaker: Member, you're out of order.
Mr Pouliot: Thank you very much.
In a few short minutes - when we refer to it as a missed opportunity, it's because this is not the way to do business. You had on a Monday Bill 160, the education matter, very important indeed - a black day for education, students, parents, taxpayers and those 126,000 community leaders, teachers. The following day you had the downloading, the devolution bill, who pays for what. On the third day, a Wednesday, you had Bill 149, the assessment bill.
I recognize two of those bills right in Bill 164. You see, they blew it. Their incompetence was such that they came up with this document. You had difficulties with it, Speaker Stockwell, and I have a great deal of difficulty, but they had to dress the animal up. They couldn't come up with only a series of amendments. No, they said: "We're going to call it job creation. We'll take the budget book, lift a page or two and put it up front, and then the devil will be in the amendments, the remainder of the document."
It won't suffice. You can't pull the wool over people's eyes. They're going to see right through it. When implementation comes up, then you will begin to see the error of your ways, those 40, 50 and 60 amendments to a bill, because you do sloppy work. You don't know what you're doing. But that's not the end. You have no timetable - you're going full speed - so 40, 50, 60 amendments are not enough. On top of it, you've got to come up with this omnibus bill filled with amendments. There are 199 pages. Why isn't it in Bill 149? Why isn't it in Bill 160? They themselves were rectified, were reviewed, and 40, 50 and 60 amendments were added there too.
1930
We asked you, Speaker, to rule on this. The other bills were still being pushed through. This is an appendix to the bill; this is an addition. These things should not be allowed to go through. This is bad law. You must have agonized, but the good person you are, you said in your ruling - and I'm sure you had some consultation; you're surrounded by well-meaning people filled with expertise. It's good of you to listen and to do that in the collective. It must have been quite a call. I would have liked to be part, as an observer, of what must have been a very difficult decision, because you don't have to search too much - this thing's out of order, in my opinion. The bills are still going through and you've got some amendments. Anyone who can read sees the scheme, the fix, knows what those conjurors of illusions are after, and it's very, very basic magic. It's pretty cheap magic. If you were to hire a magician for the anniversary of your son or daughter, you'd have a great deal of difficulty when the bill came in for this kind of cheap trick. I know myself, I would question it, ask for a rebate. I would say I was robbed; I didn't get value for money.
I know you to be a person of honour, Speaker, and therefore I believe in your ruling and I will abide by it with the highest of respect for you and your tenure, sir. However, I still have some difficulty personally in accepting it, because I can see through that thin veil what is being attempted here. They go from a bag of tricks to a bag of snakes and they're at the point now, after two and a half years, where honour has departed them. They have antagonized three quarters of the populace of Ontario. Tomorrow they will scan the phone book to try to find out more people to sock with this kind of legislation.
I'm beyond disappointed with the government. No government is all good or all bad, but I think on the down side they've gone further than has been noted in the annals of Ontario in a long time. Some parts of Bill 164 I like: the incentive to small business. The trick part, I don't like. Yet again, the systematic alienation, the erosion of the middle class, hurting those who are the less fortunate: I as a citizen have difficulty with that.
I want to thank you, Mr Speaker. I will make a recommendation to our caucus that we vote against Bill 164.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
M. Baird : J'ai bien entendu le discours de mon collègue le député de Lac-Nipigon, un discours intéressant. Mais pour nous de ce côté de la Chambre, entendre un discours de quelqu'un qui s'assit dans le cabinet de M. Rae, un cabinet néo-démocrate qui a gaspillé l'argent comme aucun gouvernement provincial dans ce pays, c'est absolument extraordinaire.
He talks about fiscal responsibility. First of all, if it was Dalton Turn-Back-the-Clock McGuinty who had made that speech, it would be interesting. But to hear a member opposite, a member of a government which brought the deficit to $11.3 billion a year, doubled the debt in this province in just five years, give a lecture to this government on fiscal responsibility - some would say it would take nerve. I am quite surprised. I don't think we need lectures. Those we should take lectures from are those with a lot of experience who have carefully reviewed these things and have rendered judgements.
I have an interesting article here from the Ottawa Sunday Sun, June 8: "I do believe that all that has taken place is necessary. There are limits to what all governments can spend and borrow." Who said that? Bob Rae. "Harris Right, Rae Says." He claims not to have said it, but the journalist remembers it. Even Bob Rae thinks there are limits to what we can tax and spend.
But the goal can't just be a balanced budget. The goal has to be job creation. We can't simply say: «Attendez, mesdames et messieurs. Vous, les sans-emplois, vous devez attendre le prochain siècle pour avoir un emploi.» Il y a des personnes qui ont besoin d'un emploi, qui ont besoin d'espoir. C'est important.
Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): It's always a pleasure to listen to the comments from the member for Lake Nipigon, who is, as you know, a fellow northern member who has represented his riding and has been a member of this House for a great number of years. He certainly points out some of the bents of this government when it comes to wanting to fulfil a promise they made, an ill-conceived promise in terms of giving their friends a 30% income tax reduction in Ontario.
While trying to do that, of course, we're looking at various policies which the member points out quite well have led to a great amount of suffering of the poor and of various people who just cannot make their way to speak to this government, when we have a government here yet bent on a 30% income tax reduction for their friends.
As well, it's always good to listen to the member for Lake Nipigon talk about the lack of knowledge and the lack of interest that the government has in northern Ontario. The minister's parliamentary assistant is from southern Ontario, and his lack of knowledge about what is happening in terms of the natural resources, again, the member for Lake Nipigon points out quite well.
In essence, he's just pointing out the shortfalls of this government in terms of not representing the entire population of the province, but catering to a very small portion of Ontario. As I say, in my riding, anyone making $500,000 a year is looking forward to their 30% income tax reduction, but there are very few people in the riding of Kenora and very few people in the north who would be making anywhere near that.
I congratulate the member on his comments.
Mr Wildman: I want to congratulate my friend from Lake Nipigon on his presentation, which is as insightful and incisive as usual when he makes a presentation in this House.
I must say, and I say this advisedly, I was most disappointed at the intervention of the member for Perth during my friend's comments. I realize we have give and take in this place and there are back-and-forth interjections and so on. Sometimes they can add to the debate; other times they take significantly away from the debate. I think that was one of the latter.
To suggest that my friend from Lake Nipigon should speak either French or English when he had demonstrated his ability in both of our official languages very well throughout his presentation, and considering that he is one of the most eloquent members of this assembly in both languages - I think it is most unfortunate that we would have that kind of insult thrown across the floor.
I know we are in an evening sitting. I've warned the government about the problems related to evening sittings when they wanted to change the rules and the kind of things that tend to happen in evening sittings. This is a minor example of that. Perhaps the member would want to rethink his situation and might be prepared to proffer an apology to my friend from Lake Nipigon and to all the members of the assembly and all the Franco-Ontarians in this province who have tremendous respect for my friend, the traditions of the House, and his ability to put forward his view on behalf of his constituents in this place.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Hon Margaret Marland (Minister without Portfolio [children's issues]): Since the Speaker allowed the member for Algoma to comment other than on the comments -
The Speaker: It's not the job of the Speaker to determine what the member is speaking to. If you want to stand in your place and place a point of order, you're more than welcome to, and I will take it up.
1940
Hon Mrs Marland: I'm not raising a point of order. I'm saying that I'm going to make a comment not related to the member for Lake Nipigon's comments, which is what we're supposed to do, since the member for Algoma was given that leeway as well.
I think all of us in this House agree that the member for Lake Nipigon is one of our most articulate members when he's on his feet - not, of course, that we always agree with what he has to say, but his flourish with both official languages is something that I've enjoyed with him since we both were elected at the same time. I also enjoy his humour.
Sometimes, whether it's an afternoon sitting or an evening sitting, members on both sides of the House make comments back and forth, and sometimes they're misinterpreted. I think the comment that was made was misinterpreted, and I don't want someone to be upset unnecessarily for that reason.
I will say on the subject of the bill that as minister for children, I could do a great deal with the $9 billion we pay out in interest now on the accumulated debt for this province, a debt which unfortunately was doubled by the Liberal government and doubled again by the previous NDP government.
The Speaker: The member for Lake Nipigon has two minutes to respond.
Mr Pouliot: To the members for Nepean, Kenora, Algoma and Mississauga South, thank you for your good response and your kind words as well, very much indeed.
My friend and colleague from Nepean talked about when we were the government. How can he forget? It's only two and a half years ago, but he obviously chooses not to - oh, well. Times were difficult. It was a very acute recession, but we did not see 85,000 of our faithful, dedicated civil servants withdraw their labour by way of a legal work stoppage, and we did not see 126,000 teachers engage in 10 days of protest, all this happening in the face of your government during what you refer to as the economic recovery; nor did we show the door to 14,000 civil servants, deprive them of the right, the privilege, to earn a living.
Bill 164 is a load. It is very difficult to digest. This is the pay-with-no-say bill. We repeated that the devil was in the details. This is a façade; the façade is a small package of incentives. What's in the bill is a whole series of punitive amendments. Let's recognize it for what it is. This is a scheme, a cheap trick. The cover is nice - it's like Bre-X - but there's very little gold inside.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mrs Johns: It's a pleasure to speak to this bill this evening. I want to first talk about Bill 164, and maybe I should talk a little about the process here.
People might wonder why we're not speaking directly to a bill. I want to remind the people of Ontario that this is a budget bill, which allows a little more leeway to speak about issues that may financially involve the province. So we have heard today what the member for Lake Nipigon believes are some of the issues that are affecting the province from a financial basis. But I'd like to say that I see the picture in a very different light, of course. I believe the province has a much rosier look than it did two and a half years ago, and I'm going to go on to explain why some of this happened, but first I think it's important to talk about Bill 164.
Bill 164 is a result of the budget that was introduced by Ernie Eves in 1997, and it's our commitment to talk about research and development, to talk about youth employment; it's our commitment to talk about new technology in Ontario. We are responding to the things we think are important in the province. We are responding to economic growth and our need for economic growth. We are responding to our need for employment to be generated in the province - not like other governments believed it should happen, that is, to go out and create some new public sector jobs, but to ask the private sector to move forward and create jobs, to feel that our Ontario is a good place to start to have jobs. We have tried to do that in the bill.
We're trying to create new, leading-edge technology jobs. The member for Nepean, who is sitting beside me today, has a great deal to say about high-technology jobs because in his community those jobs are being created, and we need to find a way to put people into those jobs.
We also need to deal with youth unemployment, and this bill starts to tackle that issue. There is no question that in Ontario, yesterday and today, there are many youth who are unemployed, and we have to do something to try to stimulate the private sector to hire young people.
I am going to run through some of the tax credits being introduced in this bill that will allow some of these activities to generate new opportunities in the province. We have asked that there be access to capital for small businesses. As a newly elected member in 1995, one of the issues I've dealt with is people coming into my office consistently and saying, "I want to start a new business and I am unable to arrange funding." I am sure that most members in this Legislature have had to deal with that problem.
The government has tried, over successive budgets, to deal with that issue. In this budget we talked about a small business investment tax credit for financial institutions. I want to stop right there and say that this is to entice a financial institution to lend to small businesses, to lend investments of $50,000 or less to small businesses. We need to have that in the province, because the backbone of the province is small businesses. We have made some enticements to get financial institutions to do so, and you mustn't forget the financial information we input as a result of the previous budget.
Community small business investment funds: We're encouraging communities to partner with financial institutions to have labour-sponsored investment funds and local investors to provide greater access to capital for small businesses so that we entice financial institutions to take into consideration the plight of small businesses within our communities.
We also believe we have to promote cultural industries within the province. We have seen over the last 10 or 12 years that there has been a focus on culture within our communities. We've tried to do more, and I admit that the NDP and the Liberals started this process to do more to create opportunities in culture for our communities.
In this budget, we said we were going to enhance the tax credit for book publishing. We want Canadian authors to feel some incentive to write. We want to ensure that Canadian publishers publish Canadian-authored books. For the first time, we're saying this tax credit is expanded to children's books, expanded to educational titles. We're tying to increase the depth of our ability to publish books that are Canadian material, Ontario material, in Ontario.
We are also trying to enhance the Ontario film and television tax credit because we want to foster a vibrant, world-class industry right here in Ontario. Before I came to Queen's Park, I don't think I understood how much the film industry does to create jobs within our community of Ontario. As I came down Avenue Road today, I saw the trailers and trailers that were there for the filming of a movie. We need to boost film production and the jobs associated with film production within our province.
One of the things that Ontario has become very good at is computer animation and special effects. We have worked with Sheridan College to produce and expand and create jobs within this growing, dynamic market sector. What has happened is that graduates from the colleges in this area have had no trouble in obtaining jobs, and that is a good thing to deal with when we're dealing with our youth having substantial unemployment.
1950
We also want to foster research and development and create innovation in Ontario, and we have done tax credits to do that. We know that research and development in the province are what makes the province tick. We need to have new research going on - the colleges and universities have asked for that - and we need to have businesses searching for new opportunities to enlarge our marketplace.
The minister responsible for children, who just spoke, would be most interested in the increase in the child care tax credit. What we've said is that we're going to make a new investment of $40 million in working families and their children in Ontario. We believe we will assist about 90,000 families, and about 125,000 children are expected to benefit from this tax credit.
One of the things I'm the most interested in and like the most about this budget is our youth employment and small business job creation tax credits. What we have tried to do in this specific area is to find opportunities so we can work towards finding more jobs for the youth in our province. We have done graduate transition tax credits which will help 45,000 unemployed graduates find needed work. We have also come up with a cooperative education tax credit which tries to help young people move into leading-edge technology fields. We believe this is where the growth is in job opportunities and we're trying very hard to find ways to get good-paying jobs for the people of Ontario.
Mr Wildman: Spend, spend, spend.
Mrs Johns: What I see in this budget bill is jobs, jobs, jobs. What is important about what we're trying to do here is that we can already begin to see the results in the province. I have a document called Positive Economic Signs in my hand, which talks about Ontario's social assistance caseloads falling in November. "In November, Ontario's social assistance caseloads declined by 4,400 cases. Since June 1995, the number of people depending on social assistance has fallen by 250,000 people, a decline of 18.6%." The opposition will say, of course, that all these people are still unemployed. I think we all know that the fact is that more and more people are working in this province.
We also can see from the economy that we have a GNP increasing at substantial rates. For the third quarter of this year we had a GDP factor of costs rising by 4.8% on an annual rate. We also had gains in the last quarter of 5.1%, and for the first three quarters of this year we're at 3.8%. This is a substantial increase in economic activity.
The member across said, "Spend, spend, spend." That's exactly what consumers are doing. They are spending, spending, spending, because they believe the economy is vibrant and it will continue to get stronger and stronger.
Private sector economists are becoming increasingly optimistic about where our province is headed. I have the Bank of Montreal saying, "Ontario's economy became red-hot in 1997 and is likely to remain so through 1998, growing at a 5% pace in both years." Scotiabank says: "Ontario's economic engine is moving into high gear. While exports will benefit from solid US activity, the domestic economy is revving up." We're not the only people who are saying it's important to have an increased economy. This increased economy will lead to job creation, not only for our youth but for the people of Ontario. It's time for jobs to be created.
I want to talk about the jobs that were created in November. Ontario gained 13,000 jobs in November. In November, Ontario's total employment rose 13%, following some job losses and some job gains. In fact, we had a net increase in jobs created in the month of November. The unemployment rate eased slightly, it's down a little bit, and we'll continue to work on that, but to do that, we have to get the youth of Ontario to work, for the first time in many cases, and back to work in other cases.
One of the important statistics that I think the people of Ontario would like to hear about is Ontario youth employment. We had 4,300 new jobs created in the month of November in youth employment. It's important for us. The unemployment rate for youth has fallen from 15.6% to 15.4%. That's the lowest level in over a year. I'm not saying it's perfect. That's way too high, no question, and we have to keep working on it. But this budget bill will help to entice small businesses to hire young people, will entice them to look at opportunities for young people, and that's what we need in Ontario right now. The youth are our future and we have to find opportunities for them. Government cannot make jobs for these people. They need to be trained in the private sector. They need to work in small businesses, to find the opportunities that will give them a long life in the workforce.
One of the other interesting statistics that I think people would want to hear about is that Ontario's Help Wanted index was up in the month of November. Ontario's Help Wanted index climbed by 8% in November. The Help Wanted index has risen steadily over the past year, up 24.3%, reaching its highest level in October. It's important to recognize that there are starting to be jobs out there. We have to work towards getting jobs for the people of Ontario, and this budget continues to do that.
Mr Wildman: Mostly part-time.
Mrs Johns: No, that would be incorrect. The member across says, "Mostly part-time." There are many jobs in all factors that are important to recognize.
There is also optimism in the province. Confidence about the province is at a nine-year high. Ontario's retail sales rose 2.8% in 1997. All around we're starting to see the results of the Mike Harris government: We're starting to see employment up; we're starting to see unemployment fall; we're starting to see jobs for our youth in Ontario; we're starting to see consumer confidence; we're starting to see retail sales increase. All of that lets Ontario be the economic engine.
When I was much younger and took a stockbroker course, one of the things they said was the leading indicator in terms of where the Ontario marketplace was going was housing sales. We can see from housing sales that the Ontario market remains robust, and it will create jobs. For every house that is built, it creates something like 1,000 or 2,000 jobs, and that's important in Ontario. It is very important that over the first 10 months of 1997, all area starts in Ontario are running 29% ahead of last year's pace. We have growth in the economy, we have a lot of confidence and we have a community that is starting to see the results of where we've been.
We still have a way to go. In the Common Sense Revolution, we said we would create 725,000 jobs in the period between the two elections, and we have to work at that, but we're starting to see the results of our hard work and of a strong economy and confidence in the government and in the province.
The government's plan to ensure that there is more opportunity and more jobs in the province is starting to work. I think we all recognize that all of us have to work together to create opportunities. In the past seven months 43,000 jobs have been created for the youth in Ontario, and that's a substantial part of Canada's youth employment increase, so I think we have to be very proud that we're leading the way in youth opportunities. I think we also have to be very proud that we're working to find new ways to stimulate that and to continue to have growth within the province.
I'm going to close with the fact that I think this bill is important for our youth. I think it's important for the province to have some tax credits that allow businesses and individuals to find opportunities within the province. I look forward to everyone approving this bill with unanimous consent as we move through the ensuing days.
2000
The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Questions or comments?
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I want to commend the member for Huron for trying to defend her government's intentions and record. She talks about jobs, but she knows full well that the tragedy of the jobs that have supposedly been created over the last couple of years has been that they have been essentially part-time jobs, temporary jobs with no security, generally low-paying. That is where the real gap is.
Young people are the ones who suffer most from these part-time, low-paying jobs whereby young people are just used essentially - and it's not the small employer that's doing it; it's the major corporations that are not fulfilling their obligations to society. Their profits are going through the roof. The banks' profits are obscene. There's nothing in here about maybe even a hint of controlling the bank's multibillion-dollar profits, not a hint of it, because we know that this government primarily protects those that have.
What isn't in this Bill 164 is protection and encouragement for those who don't have: the pensioners, the youth, the older workers who are being thrown out into the dustbin because they're not of value to the gobbling corporations.
I think it's the duty of government to make corporations aware of their civic and moral responsibility. They will do it, but this government is refusing to do that. It's easy to pick on teachers, easy to pick on welfare recipients, easy to pick on caretakers in schools. You'll never ever hear this government take on the big oil companies or the big banks - never - because they're too cosy with them. That's what I wish the member for Huron would speak about.
Mr Bisson: To the member for Huron and her comments: I guess what bugged me with the most about the presentation is how government members - and I remember how the Tories, as the third party when they were in opposition to our government, used to go on at length about how government can't create jobs. They went on at length during the election about how government can't create jobs. In fact, after they got elected, they got rid of all the economic development programs that were in place at the Ministry of Northern Development and Mines and the Ministry of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism, and others, and then had the gall to stand in this House and say, "All of a sudden I found out after I was elected that all these people who were coming in to try to arrange loans to set up businesses can't get access to capital." It's your government that cut those very grants and loans. We've been getting those kinds of requests within our office at Cochrane South.
The other thing is this myth that the government tries to put on that only since 1995 has there been any kind of economic activity in Ontario and that nothing happened before that, like before 1995 the province didn't exist. I want to go through a couple of things that happened just in my riding from 1990 to 1995 when it came to economic investment.
Malette waferboard built a brand-new plant: $60 million. Dome created a brand new mine: $250 million at the open-pit operation. Echo Bay: $150 million. Kidd Creek: a brand-new indium plant. Abitibi: $150 million on a TMP plant and $20 million on tertiary treatment. Northland Power: a $75 million-investment in a power plant in Iroquois Falls. Battle Mountain Gold: $120 million - all during the time of an NDP government.
For this member of the government to get up and all of a sudden try to say there was no kind of economic activity going back before 1995 is a stretch at best. I really take offence at the kind of comments she was making.
Hon Mrs Marland: I would like to compliment the member for Huron on her comments on this bill. Obviously, as the minister for children, which includes youth, I'm very happy to hear her making a strong emphasis for youth employment. I appreciate her focus on something that all of the people in this government recognize as being very important.
Interestingly enough, when we talk about where we are with jobs and the economy generally in this province, we can be very grateful for the fact that we have now not the government creating jobs, because we've had two previous governments in this province that have job creation by the government spending money creating jobs; what we're doing is creating the economic environment in the private sector that is generating the jobs. Those are the kind of jobs this province is looking for.
As long as the policies of this government improve the economic climate, the recovery of our economy is guaranteed. All we will have, fortunately, are more and more private sector jobs. When we have private sector jobs, we have employment for families. Parents in those families, in turn, make a better living situation for the children in those families. That's something that is obviously a very major priority for our government and that I'm particularly proud of because we have been concerned about the future for children in this province. As long as their parents can get jobs, we know their future will be guaranteed.
Mr Rick Bartolucci (Sudbury): I'd like to thank the member for Huron for her comments. Although I don't agree with much of what she said, I appreciate the amount of effort she put into her presentation.
I want to focus on job creation because she spent a little bit of time on it. I want the people in the House here this evening and the people in Ontario to understand that right now there are more people unemployed in Ontario than were unemployed in June 1995. That's not a Liberal statistic. That's not a third-party statistic. That's not a government statistic. That's a StatsCan statistic. That's reality. There's no political spin on that. That in fact is reality.
The government is way behind on their promise to create 729,000 jobs - way behind. At this point in time, they should have created X number of jobs; they're way behind that. Even the most ardent economist who supports the government realizes now that the government isn't going to reach their job creation mark. That's going to be another promise broken by this government.
Youth unemployment is at 17.5%, I believe, but in northern Ontario it's much higher than that.
What do we see in Ontario? We see a government that isn't living up to the promises they made with regard to job creation. But also we're seeing health care in transition, we're seeing municipalities in transition, we're seeing education in transition.
The member for Huron spoke about creating the proper atmosphere. I don't think that when you have this much confusion and this much transition taking place, we are creating the proper environment for job creation.
The Acting Speaker: The member for Huron, you have two minutes.
Mrs Johns: I'd like to thank the members who responded to me in the question period, including the member for Oakwood.
The member for Cochrane South, I would like to say that I find it interesting that my comments have, as you say, "bugged" you. Maybe there's some kind of a guilty conscience there because of the fact that we lost 10,000 jobs during your tenure as government and you're feeling somewhat guilty about that. From that point I'll say that, although I might bug you, it's important for the people of Ontario to recognize that during the tenure of the NDP government - and you can blame it on economic recessions, you can blame it on whatever you like - there was a net loss in job positioning for 10,000 people.
I would also like to say that before I came to this job I worked in the accounting world. I saw a number of small businesses that were trying hard to get loans in Ontario and the difficulties they were having. The member for Cochrane South talked about how this phenomenon has just happened in the last three or four years. I was in accounting some 20 years ago; this has been a difficult problem for small businesses for a long period of time. We need to correct this, and we move towards this every day as we try to make changes to ensure that financial institutions will lend to these small businesses.
To many of the businesses the members opposite talk about, a $50,000 loan isn't going to make a difference. But to someone like me or someone in this House who might start a small business, $50,000 can get them started in business. That's a great incentive for them. I don't think there's a person contemplating starting a small business in Ontario who would be complaining about a little enticement to the bank to make sure they loan to small businesses in the province.
2010
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Colle: I think deep in her heart the member for Huron understands that one of the main inequities we have in Ontario and Canada is the fact that our superbanks are too super, too big and have too much control. She knows that's one of the areas where maybe her Premier could perhaps use some moral suasion to get the banks to help small business.
I listened to Mr Conacher, who is one of the bank watchdogs federally - he's in Ottawa - and he was commenting on the fact that in the United States they monitor, state by state, the amount of loans that go out to small business. They keep a record and a report card to make sure the banks are helping small business. In Canada and in Ontario we don't do that. There's nobody monitoring the banks. Maybe the minister of consumer affairs can do that, monitor the big banks, see how much money they do give to small business.
You still get it every day: You talk to a small business person and they still say: "Government still is not helping me. I still can't pay my provincial sales tax. I can't make ends meet. I'm trying to be independent." Small businesses are still not getting that help. I mean a family operation. I'm not talking about car dealerships as small business; I'm talking about the mom-and-pop operations. We have a lot of those and they're all struggling.
In terms of Bill 164, ironically one of the things this bill is doing is setting up the framework to abolish and privatize one aspect of Ontario's outreach to small business and individuals through Ontario savings and loan corporations. That is going to be privatized; it's going to go out to the big business people. That is where I see no hint of really trying to help the little people who need help financially and economically.
In terms of the philosophy of this budget bill, it's an omnibus bill, and this government, as you know, loves jamming bills through, putting things together, railroading bills through as quickly as they can. One aspect of this bill which is quite interesting also is that it deals with amendments to previous bills; it's a cleanup bill. We couldn't see those amendments when we were dealing with Bill 160, for instance, yet we find them in this bill. That's quite unusual, but it's part of the style of doing things so quickly and then thinking about the consequences and pretending they don't exist until afterwards. This is part of the style.
Also, the philosophy is quite clear. As you know, this government claims that government cannot create jobs. They're saying that government has to create an atmosphere and that's different from what anybody else did. But there's no government that preceded this government, whether NDP or Liberal, that didn't do the same thing. This government is doing the same thing: They're priming the pump. It's pure Keynesian economics they're practising.
Instead of creating traditional government projects like the Tennessee Valley Authority or building highways across Ontario using government money in government projects of that magnitude or building hospitals, this government is priming the pump through its tax cut. They admit that. They're spending $5 billion of their money and they're giving it out just as if it was any socialist or Liberal or NDP government that was priming the pump by building government projects, whether it be dams or setting up apprenticeship programs or providing so-called government jobs. They're doing the same thing. They're putting in money and they think they can best create jobs with their money by giving it in a tax cut. That is how they are priming the pump. Keynes, if he were still alive, would be very happy with this approach, but as we know, most economists will tell you that Keynesian economics don't work any more.
This government claims, "Oh yes, this five billion bucks we're spending on priming the pump is going to work." What has worked for this government is not that $5-billion expenditure in the tax cut, which most classical economists tell you is foolhardy. They tell you what is really working in Ontario is the low interest rates whereby Ontarians in the manufacturing field, especially auto parts and the automobile industry, can export their automobiles across the border to the United States - free trade, low interest rates, the booming American economy. That's what Mike Harris economics are living off: the booming American economy. If the NDP had a booming economy during their period in office, they probably would have done much better economically; but if Mike Harris and his whiz kids were here in 1990-91, they probably would have had a horrible time dealing with that recession in 1990-91. They couldn't have dealt with it either.
It's easy for the government now in power to say, in hindsight, "We're great." But in 1990, when the recession hit, very few governments were able to cope; no matter how intelligent and how capable they were, they could not cope. For this government to slam previous governments holus-bolus is unfair. Previous governments made mistakes and they also did some good things. This government prides itself on being perfect. They never admit to mistakes. They claim they are responsible for all the good things and they never make mistakes. That is what's so scary.
We've got this huge bill before us that affects everything and it's very detailed. The most ominous thing in this whole bill, which sort of labels what this government is like, is they've got a clause in schedule F, section 9, which even frightens that revolutionary group of people who are the Association of Municipal Clerks and Treasurers, this wild-eyed group of radicals that meets in the basement of some church up in Willowdale. They are afraid of this bill. Because you know what this government has even gone as far as to do, very explicitly? They are so worried about people perhaps questioning this government's new powers. As you know, this government has now the power to set property tax rates. They've got $6 billion in property taxes they're going to set behind closed doors. Not only are they going to set the rates without debate, by regulation, they are also saying, "The minister may require that the notice be in a form approved by the minister." That's a tax bill. "A municipality shall not vary the form unless the variation is expressly authorized by the minister."
It's so concerned that some municipality in Wawa or Cornwall or Sudbury may vary the tax bill, they have to say, "You must have the express authorization of the minister himself if you want to change the wording or the format of a tax bill." Talk about centralized, overbearing, authoritarian government; they are now ordering expressly that you can't even change the format of the tax bill. It's got to be one size fits all, approved by the minister.
2020
Then they even go further; that's not enough. Subsection 5 says, "The minister may, by regulation, prescribe the information that must or that may be included on the notice. A municipality shall not include other information on the notice unless expressly authorized to do so by the minister." So the Minister of Municipal Affairs is going to be checking every tax bill that goes out from every municipality in this province because, in essence, as I said, the revolutionary association of clerks and treasurers says what in effect has happened is that this government has taken over property taxation in this province. They have dramatically overhauled it. They have taken it over, where they control it. Ken Cousineau, who is the executive director of AMCTO, the clerks and treasurers, says that the cumulative effects of 106, 149, 160, 164 - because these bills are all linked; it's part of this upheaval - is that we no longer have a municipal property tax system. So the people of Ontario will know that if they've got a problem with their tax bill, if it's too high, too low, whatever, it is now Mike Harris that you call for that tax bill because, in essence, they've taken over property taxes in this province.
Cousineau goes on to say that we have a provincial tax system administered by the municipalities. They decide, the municipalities decide, very little at this point because the decision, even down to what's on the bill that goes to every household, is now decided by the minister himself, and he can change that by regulation. The province controls the education tax. It determines classes and subclasses of land. It allocates tax ratios and transition ratios, and now it may determine what will go on the tax notice itself.
Talk about big government, intrusive government. This Bill 164, along with all the other bills they have been ramming through day after day after day, is in essence this attempt to control all aspects of property taxation in this province, of education, of municipal services. They have in essence taken over. As I've said, when you have a problem with your taxes, call Mike Harris, because he's essentially in charge. If you don't like what you pay for education in your taxes, call Mike Harris or call Dave Johnson, because they are now in total control and the municipalities are just going to be there trying to do the little they can in damage control.
The other aspects of this bill - again, as I said, essentially it's an omnibus bill which covers a host of budgetary proposals put forth by Mr Eves earlier - are also very, very difficult for the general public to deal with. The reason we have this system in Ontario is that there are checks and balances where bills come before this House, the House can ask questions, committees can ask questions, and the public can get engaged in the bill.
I wonder how many people out there in Ontario really know what's in Bill 164. They've just been spending the last three months trying to find out what was in Bill 160, which was such a complex, detailed piece of legislation. Now do you think they have the time or the interest or the will after being sledgehammered by Bill 160 to find out what's in Bill 164? Most Ontarians won't have that time, yet this bill is going to be rammed through again. It's going to impact on all kinds of Ontarians, all kinds of tax ratios, tax provisions. And this is just the bill. I can imagine when the regulatory powers come out, the regulations passed by this minister for 164.
The people of Ontario aren't well served when this government goes so fast, because they don't get a chance to find out how these bills are going to affect them. They are too mature just to be told, "Trust us." Most Ontarians want to have an idea of what's being passed in this Legislature. They want to have debate and scrutiny. That is what the tradition of this province has been. This government has said: "We don't care about that. We've got to jam everything through."
A rush to what? This mad rush to what, to achieve what? So they can cut, so they can reshape, so they can turn the whole province upside-down to achieve what end? What is the ultimate end of this bill and all these bills? What is the ultimate end? If it's just that stupid, crazy tax cut, it's not worth it. You could have stimulated the economy without it, because you had the American economy booming, because you've got the low interest rates. You could have done it without that. Is it punitive? Do you want to punish people some more? Do you want to keep on hammering at those you feel are not upcoming or promising citizens? I don't know what the motives are. Maybe you should ask some of the whiz kids: What's this all about? What are we doing this for?
If you ask about the youth, you know, here's a government that keeps talking about jobs. We haven't seen in two years any substantive initiatives to help young people get jobs. All we've seen is this government tearing apart and denigrating their education system and saying, "You're not educated; you don't have the skills." That's all they keep telling young people. Before you know it, if you keep telling young people that - "You don't have the skills. Your schools are no good and your teachers are no good" - they're going to start to believe that malarkey. Instead of encouraging young people, instead of encouraging our schools to educate and keep doing the good things and do better - you'd get a lot more out of our kids, you'd get a lot more out of our schools and a lot more out of this province with a carrot rather than a stick. But this government's approach is always with a stick.
They're at war with everybody in the province. They've got to have conflict. They thrive on conflict. Why the conflict all the time? Why this war with the teachers? To what end, if you had the end of putting more money, more investment in education? We found out through Veronica Lacey's contract what your motives were. The contract was written specifically, like this Bill 164 is, saying that Veronica Lacey would be hired on the basis - her performance contract said that she would take $667 million out. You were exposed that it wasn't about making the system better; it was about taking the money out. Who do you take the money out of? You take the money out of those kids who need that education to get those good jobs and to get a better future.
If you talk about high-tech, I talked to a person who just got back from going to Bulgaria, Romania, Germany, Yugoslavia and Turkey. They are going there recruiting young people from their universities to come here and work in Canada. That's shameful. This government should instead be educating young people in this province to do those jobs. Put your money into our schools and universities so that you won't have Canadians head-hunting in Bulgaria to fill jobs in Ottawa. That's what's happening right now. This government should put its money where its mouth is, put the money into universities, into our high schools, into our grade schools, into our junior kindergarten programs so we don't have to go head-hunting in Bulgaria to fill jobs in Ontario.
That isn't in Bill 164, and that is the tragedy of the Mike Harris economic program. It's punitive. It is not innovative. It is reactionary. It believes that by cutting and by throwing out crumbs to people they favour or sectors they favour, they're going to create jobs.
It doesn't work that way, because all you've created in the last two years is turmoil, confrontation, and people who are saying, "We never knew that these were what we elected." They thought they were electing the Davis/ Robarts type of Conservatives who were going to be talking to people, who were going to be listening, who were going to be admitting mistakes. Instead, what we got is some government that came out of who knows where that has an answer for everything, that picks enemies week by week and vilifies them, and then says, "We're going to make up and then we're going to be okay."
2030
People are not that naïve. They've caught on to the game. They are saying, "We are mature taxpayers. When we vote for something, we expect you to respect our vote. We want to be listened to. We want to be at least given all the information," and "all the information" means an objective dissemination of information. How much information do the people in this province have about this bill? We pass bills by the cartload around here. How can that consumer in Ontario be well informed? They can't be. There's too much, too fast.
The property tax system that they're setting up is just one example. If this government really cared about the small person in property taxation, now that they've introduced market value across Ontario, they could have at least said that if you have a small business, you've got a little pizzeria, you've got a shoemaker's shop, you've got a restaurant, you've got an older house where you fix it up, you put some money into it and you improve the value of the house, they won't increase your taxes because you invested in your shoemaker's shop, your restaurant or your home. No, this government continues on an antiquated system that if you repair or upgrade your home, renovate it or your business, they come along with market value assessment and they're going to increase your taxes. That is punishment.
Why wouldn't Bill 164 have a provision that said, "If you fix up your home or your business and you make an improvement to it, it doesn't mean a higher assessment"? That is still part of 164 and this assessment system in this province, which goes back to the days of Oliver Cromwell. That is archaic; it's not progressive.
There's no innovation in this bill whatsoever. Let's do something that's at least trying to help the little person who's trying to contribute a little bit to Ontario. That's what should be in 164.
The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?
Mr Wildman: While there was much in the member for Oakwood's comments that I found interesting and which I could support, I found it curious that I happened to be reading this biography of Bonaparte as he was making his presentation. I have a quote in here on page 100 which was written by Napoleon's private secretary, Bourrienne. He was describing Bonaparte's view of people, and he said that Bonaparte had "a preference for those who cleverly defended an absurd proposition," as opposed to those who simply applied reason and logic to do so.
It reminded me of the member for Oakwood's presentation, particularly when he talked about the problems that government had in the early 1990s. He said that "Even" - I think that was the word he used - "the NDP could have done better if there had been better economic times." That's a particularly condescending and ridiculous comment to make.
I would think that "even" the federal Liberal Party in bad times would have difficulties. I think "even" Mr Chrétien and Mr Martin would have difficulty when faced with the kind of usurious interest rates that we faced thanks to the Mulroney Conservative government in the early 1990s. I think "even" the Liberals would have difficulty providing a balanced budget, considering the ability they demonstrated in the 1970s and 1980s at the federal level for escalating the public debt in this province. Even the Liberals might have some difficulty balancing the budget in the 1990s.
Mr Jack Carroll (Chatham-Kent): Listening to the comments from the member for Oakwood reminded me of the introduction to the Lone Ranger movies of years ago: "Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear." His argument was totally for a return to the status quo.
Mr Baird: Turn back the clock.
Mr Carroll: Turn back the clock. Don't make any changes. It's interesting. He talked about, and I quote him, "the stupid, crazy tax cut."
In the 10 years that preceded our arrival here in this lovely chamber, the party that the member for Oakwood is a member of and the party that now sits as the third party raised taxes in our province 65 times. There wasn't a single time during that process that anybody questioned any of those stupid, crazy tax increases, but now we elect a government who on behalf of the taxpayers of the province are instituting what the member for Oakwood calls "stupid, crazy" tax cuts. I do not understand how he can stand in his place in this House and talk about a tax cut on behalf of the taxpayers of our province being stupid and crazy.
He also talked about the new tax form that's being sent out. The new tax form is designed to be transparent so that the people of our province, the taxpayers, regardless of where they live, can understand it. It's the same tax form everywhere. We have said all along that municipalities have the right to include some additional information in that tax bill if they choose to. That is their right. It has always been their right, and we have not taken that right away from them. It would be nice if the member for Oakwood would understand that particular issue and get his facts straight, and if he would stop referring to our tax cut as "stupid" and "crazy."
Mr Bartolucci: I would like to thank the member for Oakwood. I'll try to spend the time with my remarks not zeroing in on one word, "even," or two words, "stupid" and "crazy." Let's talk about what he really said.
What he was telling the government members and the people of Ontario was that there's a fear out there that this government is basing its policy without the proper amount of public input, without the proper amount of public debate. That's what he's saying out there. The people of Ontario want the opportunity to debate and have input before the government rams through legislation. That's what the member for Oakwood was really saying. He brought out specific examples that showed exactly that taking place with this bill because of this government's desire to force through legislation in large chunks all at the same time. That's not good for democracy.
I'm not telling the government members anything they don't know. Certainly both opposition parties have been telling you repeatedly over the course of the last two years that you're moving too quickly, you're not involving the people in the process, and what's happening is that whether the decisions ultimately are good or bad is not important: There are no checks, there is no balance, and that causes concern for the average Ontarian.
I don't know when you're going to get the message, but you should understand that people will not stand for that type of government when they go to the polls the next time.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): The member for Oakwood made some interesting comments when he talked about how this government giving a break to their big money friends isn't necessarily going to lead the job creation in the province and encourage banks to make loans to small businesses.
He also referred to this as an omnibus bill. You can see how big it is and imagine how many things are buried deep within that bill. Part of the bill is to fix up previous mistakes that have been made by this government in other legislation.
He also exposed the myth that somehow the current Tory job creation measures are different from some of job creation measures that were embarked upon by previous Liberal and NDP governments. But we have to ask ourselves, who is going to pay for the Tory job creation measures and who is going to benefit?
This is a government that claims they never make mistakes, that they're always right, but we know this bill is going to be fixing some mistakes, some in Bill 160, which hadn't even passed before this bill came in with amendments to try and fix up some of those mistakes. He said that many people were still struggling to try and figure out what was in Bill 160 before this bill came along and that most people don't know what's in it.
It's important, and he made a good point, that this government really needs to slow down, give people an opportunity to have some input on bills like Bill 164 and stop ramming through legislation. They really need some public hearings on this bill. I would encourage government members to recommend those, because at the end of the day, backbenchers for the Tories are going to wonder why they were ramming through this legislation so quickly, and they're going to decide that it really wasn't worth it.
The Acting Speaker: Member for Oakwood, you have two minutes.
2040
Mr Colle: I want to thank my colleagues for their comments. I may disagree with some of them, but I certainly thank them.
To the member for Algoma, that's the last time I compliment the NDP. Never again. It's dangerous ground, thin ice. Never again.
To the member for Chatham-Kent, it's interesting. As you know, the reason the tax cut is stupid is because even Ralph Klein said it's stupid to give a tax cut before you reduce your debt and deficit. He said it was stupid. Conservative economists have said, "Don't give a tax cut before you get rid of the deficit." Conservative economists have said: "It's kind of stupid to give the tax cut when you have to raise user fees and when you have to raise property taxes. That's doesn't make sense. That's kind of stupid." The tax cut doesn't cut it with a lot of Conservatives too, and it's stupid to a lot of Conservatives when you've got a deficit to deal with.
I want to thank the member for Sudbury for his usual insightful comments. Coming from the north, I think he can see through this Tory haze in the south. He knows the reality of what's going on here, and the smoke and mirrors don't work with the northerners, that's for sure.
I certainly concur with the member for Windsor-Riverside that a lot of people have a hard time catching up to all this blitzkrieg of legislation. It's so much, so fast that the average person will never know what bills are being passed. It's a tragedy that they're doing things so fast.
In summary, I just want to say that I think the rationale for this is founded on principles that are not sound, in that you wreak all this havoc on this province, you close hospitals, you're taking teachers out of schools. That is something this bill doesn't correct and, therefore, this whole program needs to be corrected. This isn't doing it.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate, even with what little limited time the government now allows for members to speak.
I want to pick up on the issue of the tax cut, because certainly the government backbenchers have not got the message other than the one that comes out of their whip's office and the laboratory of their spin doctors that tax cuts are wonderful things for Ontarians. Of course, the reality is that it is a wonderful thing if you're in that group of very special Ontarians who make a whole pile of money already. If you're already making a wallop of money, and I'm talking serious coin, if you're making $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000-plus, this 30% tax cut is literally worth its weight in gold.
But I defy any of the backbenchers on the government side, on the very few occasions when you actually do come out of your bunker and go out into public or, God forbid, stand in front of a public meeting - if there's enough room for the citizens after you make room for OPP bodyguards - and ask the people in the room, and I'm talking about the general public, not your special interest groups that you like to speak to, chambers of commerce and the like, but real ordinary, hardworking, middle-class family people, if you ask them what they are getting out of the 30% tax cut, the reality is that, if they're lucky, they're getting a couple of cups of coffee a month - if they're lucky.
What's the price they're paying for that tax cut and the other tax measures that are in Bill 164, where again you're taking care of your friends? There are a few other little crumbs in here but nothing that amounts to the kind of serious benefit to the very, very wealthy and privileged in our society. What's the benefit to the average person? A couple of cups of coffee. What's the cost? Bill 160, a devastating attack on our education system, as your government finally fessed up to during the early days of the political protest by the teachers, and God bless them for doing it; the almost $700 million that you're taking out of the education system, over and above what you have already taken out, and you still haven't had the guts to offer up what the formula is going to be for the stub year, which takes effect early next year, weeks away. I can only assume that you're hoping to get through the House here as quickly as possible and leave little time for us to grill you on behalf of those working middle-class families and what's happening to their education system.
They're losing their education system to pay for your tax cuts so they can get a couple of cups of coffee in benefit, if they're lucky. Of course, on the other side of the fence, those that I spoke of earlier - and there aren't many, which is part of the problem; it would be nice if there was maybe a little more sharing of what we have - but for those who are lucky enough to be making the $200,000, $300,000, $400,000, $500,000-plus or the very serious money where we're talking millions of dollars of income every year, they can afford to take care of their kids by sending them off to private school. That's not a problem. Hell, your tax cut alone would probably pay for that in one year, just the first instalment.
But the backbenchers continue to stand up and think that by the end of this term average Ontarians will not have woken up to the fact than this great wonderful world of milk and honey that the Tories talk about is not their world, and it isn't. You talk about creating jobs. This Bill 164 is going to create jobs. Today we see in the Toronto Star, "End Youth EI Premiums to Create Jobs, Eves Urges." What kind of jobs? Part-time, temporary, weakened Employment Standards Act? Minimal health services available in the future, property taxes that are going through the roof.
I want to read what the Canadian Council on Social Development said about jobs, particularly as it relates to young people, in a report released today. Katharine Scott, the council's research director - this also was reported in the Toronto Star today and in the Globe and Mail and the other major papers across the province - the report says, "Fewer young people have good jobs that offer decent wages, benefits and full-time hours than was the case a generation ago." Decent wages, decent benefits, full-time hours: those are exactly the jobs that you're eliminating to pay for your tax cut.
Teachers make a decent wage. So they should. You're eliminating thousands of those jobs. Nurses barely make a decent wage compensable for the work and training that they have to have and increasing at that. Those are decent jobs. The thousands and thousands of other public sector jobs that each of you so proudly pops up in this place and says, "We've cut all those jobs out of here," those are the very decent full-time, decent wages, decent benefit jobs that are being talked about in terms of the challenges and the worries our youth are facing in the future, and those jobs are being eliminated to pay for your tax cut, to pay for what you're doing in Bill 164 and all the other legislation that benefits your friends.
Oh, but then we hear you say, "We're going to privatize a lot of these services and that's more efficient and that's good for the taxpayer." Again, let's take a look at this: If you assume, and I do, that the taxpayer is by and large the majority of working middle-class families, then it's the taxpayer that's getting the two-cups-of-coffee-a-month benefit; not the new Mercedes, not the enlarged investment portfolio, not the expanded summer home. They're the ones who are going to pay the price. How else are they going to pay for it? They're going to pay for it very directly, because your privatized jobs, sure, are more efficient in terms of costing less for the taxpayer, except it does dawn on the taxpayer, when it's their public service job that has been eliminated, that when it's privatized the efficiency means they go from making $13 or $14 or $15 an hour down to your minimum wage. That is their reality. They pay that price. Who gets to save at the other end? All those folks for whom "marginal tax rates" and other phrases mean an awful lot.
2050
This debate for us as New Democrats is not only, as some opposition members will say, about going too far and too fast. It is both those things, but it's too far, it's too fast and it's in the wrong direction. That's the key thing.
The jobs you're creating are not those decent-paying jobs, with decent benefits, full-time hours and some relative security that did exist prior to you taking the reins of power. So we do find it infuriating when you continue to stand up and say the tax cut is such a wonderful thing, that it's going to generate all these jobs, is going to help the average person decide where they're doing to spent their economic clout and all the other buzz, BS phrases that you come up with.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): That's out of order. I would ask the member to withdraw.
Mr Christopherson: I withdraw, Speaker.
My point is that the brave new world that you talk of is not one that the vast majority of Ontarians are going to share in - except when it comes to the pain.
Who else is talking about the pain you're creating? None other than Her Honour the Lieutenant Governor, Hilary Weston. This is somebody who understands money and power. With great respect, and I mean that sincerely, that is the world she comes from and she understands it well. What she said yesterday in reviewing her first year in office as our Lieutenant Governor is, "There are many of our fellow citizens who are hurting and are in dire need of help."
Do you think she's talking about those people who are gaining tens of thousands of dollars in tax benefits as a result of your 30% tax cut? Do you think that's who is hurting and in dire need of help? I think not. I think what Her Honour has seen in the year she has been in office is that there are literally tens and hundreds of thousands of people, many of whom are children, who have been hurt and continue to be hurt and will be hurt in the future as a result of your policies, the exact policies contained in Bill 164 and every other piece of financial legislation you introduced in this place that's meant to implement your tax cut. Not only is your tax cut stupid - as someone else referred to it - and absurd; it's insane and it's hurtful. But you don't want to see that, or at least you don't want to talk about it.
It's interesting. There are a couple of members, and it does seem to grow, who are beginning to realize - and I can recall making these comments in speeches right from the beginning. Not that I'm suggesting that I'm any kind of political scientist, but experience teaches you an awful lot. I can remember that back in the heyday, when you were riding on those huge poll numbers and everywhere you went in your ridings you were all heroes, there were those of us over here who said: "If you follow the agenda you set out, the day will come when you will realize that you've got to go door to door and talk to ordinary people and working, middle-class people about the impact of your agenda on their quality of life to get re-elected. When that day happens, there's going to be a real sea change in attitude." Well, it took a little while, longer than I expected, to tell you the truth, and longer than I'd hoped, but it is happening.
Just the other day, for the first time we had two members of your own government vote against one of your measures. Don't kid yourselves. I certainly wouldn't impute motive in terms of why they did it. I'm sure in large part it was principled, but I also believe that one of those principles was that they want to get re-elected. They realized that if they follow the rest of you off the cliff, that's not going to happen. They're beginning to realize that they're going to have to have an attitude change in terms of how their own constituents see them if they're going to get re-elected. Believe me, more and more of you will begin to feel that as time goes on.
That's not even to mention, just as an aside, the incredible political drama around watching some of you scramble among yourselves or, worse yet, jockeying with cabinet ministers for a nomination berth in the next election because you've decided it's a great idea to eliminate 27 members from this place. Notwithstanding that particular intrigue, which we watch with some interest from this side of the House, there are still growing numbers, I believe, who lay there at night and, as they turn off the light and close their eyes, begin to think, "Just how am I going to get re-elected anyway, since just about everybody in my constituency is angry?"
You can spend the next couple of years running from one chamber of commerce meeting to another or a little soirée somewhere else on a Saturday night and you can hide out in the various country clubs all across your ridings, or maybe you can take up a lot more extended trips if you're a parliamentary assistant, where you're making speeches to other chambers of commerce in other parts of the province, but the day will come when you have to stay home in your own riding and go knocking on doors of people who realize that the tradeoff of their education system and their health care system and their municipal services for a couple of cups of coffee was not worth it and that the last thing in the world they want is another four or five years of your mean-spirited agenda because they can't afford it.
There are those, like Ontarians for Responsible Government, the people who like to put up those complimentary billboards over on College and Bay, and others, who will spend a ton of money doing everything they can to make sure you get re-elected, because they have a vested interest. When they look at their tax returns over the last few years under you and they look at their quality of life and they look at how much extra money they've had to spend, and they can utilize your theory of empowerment and spend it where they want, they say: "Hey, that was a great first course. Give me more, give me more."
But what about the people who have lost their communities, the people who have lost their jobs or whose partner or spouse has lost a job and whose quality of life has gone through the floor? And if they're a young person or a middle-aged person and have lost their job, who knows whether they are going to have any prospect in the future, except maybe one of your wonderful new privatized jobs?
I look around at some of the staff here and I see a lot of young people who are wondering what the future is under you folks and I see an awful lot of people who have served decades in this place. I talk to them all the time. They are terrified of your agenda because it means that their quality of life goes down. It means that the quality of life of their families goes down. It means that the quality of life of their communities goes down.
You can hope that your smoke and mirrors and your spin doctors and your bumper sticker slogans will be enough to carry you through the next election. But the reality is that at the end of the day, no matter how much you stand up and say that the average working, middle-class family has a vested interest in making sure that those who are already fortunate enough to have power and privilege get more, it's going to diminish in terms of its effectiveness.
People will have had enough time to - and this is where you've got problems. I wish we had some more time to talk about some of these things, but I have less than a minute now so I'll wrap up. What will happen at the end of the day is that you're going to realize that the people like those I just spoke of in these immediate surroundings as I look around the room at the people here, when you compare their numbers in terms of the general population to the very small selective group of people in this province who benefit from your agenda, who have an increased quality of life as a result of your cutting and slashing and giving away of tax benefits - you will realize that no matter how you cut things, at the end of the day there's still a hell of a lot more of those people and of us than there are of the very few people you pander to at the expense of working people and their families.
2100
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Spina: I take great exception to the perception of Conservatives in this province being fat cats who pander to the small portion of this society who are seemingly the wealthy, according to the member for Hamilton Centre. I say that with all sincerity, because I'm the son of a railroad worker and an immigrant -
Mr Wildman: Who wasn't a Tory.
Mr Spina: Who voted for the Tories - in Sault Ste Marie, I might add.
My meetings were not with chambers of commerce. Tony Clement and I, from Brampton, have had many town hall meetings. We have never backed down from the school meetings that we were invited to. We have been door-knocking - with the exception of during the municipal election - regularly. That's how we keep in touch with our constituents. The Brampton constituency is not a fat-cat wealthy community; it is a community of hardworking, middle-class, blue- and white-collar workers. They are the ones who voted both Mr Clement and myself, with a majority, into this government in this last election.
You talk about a tax cut: 40% of that will fully be for the low-income families under $40,000. As the salary increases, it diminishes to as low as 12%. You want to talk about jobs created? In Brampton, 3,800 good-quality professional jobs have been created at Nortel. You talk about our bumper sticker slogans. Well, mister, your bumper sticker slogans and Jobs Ontario didn't get you re-elected, but the CSR, the Common Sense Revolution, got me elected.
Mr Bartolucci: I'd like to thank the member for Hamilton Centre for his very impassioned approach and for his very insightful comments. Let me tell you, they are comments that you people should be listening to. That's the problem we have around this place: We pick up one little point and blow it all out of proportion instead of listening to the message the member is trying to get across to the government. Maybe that's part of the problem with the way we operate in this place. We really don't think that anybody has anything to offer anyone else unless they're in the same party.
That's the sad commentary in the Ontario Legislature. I'm telling you right now, it has never been more pronounced than it is with this government. That's sad, because the member makes some very excellent suggestions to the government. But no, we're going to home in on one or two sentences and blow them all out of proportion in the hopes that the average Ontarian will forget what the member said. After Bill 152, after Bill 160, people are listening very carefully to what each and every one of us is saying. Another thing they want from this House is for us to start listening to each other. They want us to start taking some of the advice that the opposition is getting from its constituents and the people of Ontario, and pass it on to a government that won't listen in the hopes that they will listen. That's your challenge.
Mr Wildman: I'd like to congratulate my friend from Hamilton Centre for his comments. I'm sorry that the member for Brampton North seemed to be offended by the characterization of this government and this government's intentions by my friend from Hamilton Centre.
We should all recognize, as a former Tory Premier once said to me in this place, that perception is politics, rather than the other way around, that politics is perception. Perception is indeed politics. The politics is the fact that this government would like the perception to be that they are trying to serve the needs of the vast majority of Ontarians and that they are trying to produce an economy that will serve their interests and their needs.
The problem with that is that we know that 66% of the tax cut is going to go to the top 10% of income-earners in the province, 66% of the money, people who don't need it and, unfortunately, no guarantee that they are going to spend it in Ontario. Many of them, because they don't need it, are not going to spent it. Others will spend it on holidays in Hawaii or St Moritz or wherever, or, if they do spend it here, may buy a Mercedes or a BMW, which will help the workers in the dealership but doesn't produce any other jobs because those are manufactured in foreign countries.
The fact is that the trickle-down theory of economics does not work and it will not serve the majority in this province.
Mr Baird: I would like to congratulate my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre on his remarks. I disagree with the member on just about everything, but I can certainly respect his opinion. You get one opinion that doesn't go back and forth, and you've got to respect that.
He spoke about how Conservative MPPs must sit at home wondering how we will get re-elected. I can tell you, we on this side of the House don't undertake politics and government as a popularity contest. We know we can't be all things to all people. We want to do what's best for the people of Ontario, what's best for the province of Ontario, and sometimes you've got to make decisions that are good for the people in your province in the long term but are perhaps more controversial in the short term.
As the poet Robert Frost said, we took the path less travelled, and what a difference it has made.
The member from Hamilton spoke of being terrified of the agenda. Was it the agenda that helped create more than 250,000 new jobs in the province? Does that terrify him? At the homes of 250,000 families, the phone rang and the voice on the other end of the line said, "You got the job," and they're able to provide for their families, are able to raise their children with some dignity. Does that terrify him? Or the quarter of a million people who have been able to leave the welfare system as a result of very successful welfare reforms? Or the beginning of movement and progress on youth unemployment and the measures contained in Bill 164 for high technology and graduates and co-op education to help even more, to ensure we don't take it for granted?
Consumer confidence is up. Spending is up. There are some people in Ontario who don't pick up a picket sign and protest in front of Queen's Park, who don't have temper tantrums in front of the cameras, and we're working to ensure that there are jobs and opportunity for them.
2110
The Speaker: Member for Hamilton Centre.
Mr Christopherson: Thank you to all members who took the time to respond. I always appreciate listening to the member for Sudbury and his message of listening to the message.
My colleague from Algoma, I always appreciate his very generous remarks. He always complements and adds to anything that I might have said, and I appreciate that, as always.
To my friend from Nepean, when he said that their politics is not that of a popularity contest - obviously. That's pretty clear. But I would mention to him that the other person who comes to mind who used to say that an awful lot was Brian Mulroney. He would always use that to justify as he was beginning the process of dismantling a lot of the things that made this a great nation. So that brought him to mind.
I'll give you an example of what terrifies me about your agenda, and I'd be willing to debate any one of you any day about the different terrifying images that we have in this province. There are workers at S.A. Armstrong, for example, who've been on strike now for over 17 months because your government made scabs legal again in Ontario. That's devastating. That's frightening. The fact of the matter is that strike wouldn't be happening if it weren't for your making scabs legal again in Ontario.
To my friend from Brampton North, it's interesting that the example he used is a corporation that happens to have one of the strongest unions in North America. Isn't that interesting, from a government that clearly hates unions and believes they are yesterday's idea and have no value today.
I also, in ending, would mention I find it interesting that he used the term "fat cat." I use that directly, but it was Tommy Douglas who said, "For those of us who are from the working world, it's not what kind of cat, it's the fact that they're catching your mice."
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Ted Arnott (Wellington): And it was Tommy Douglas who also believed that incurring massive amounts of debt would ultimately only enrich the bankers. He spoke against that consistently, which is something that obviously the New Democratic Party, while it was in government, forgot about.
I am very pleased to rise this evening to speak in support of Bill 164, on which we are in second reading debate this evening. The measures in this bill are a significant part of the government's plan to make Ontario's economy stronger by creating a climate where investment and initiative are rewarded.
Improving access to capital will help small businesses in communities throughout Ontario, and Wellington county, grow and create the new jobs that we need. Bill 164 reflects how we've listened to stakeholders on making the community small business investment funds more attractive.
The 1997 budget announced the creation of community small business investment funds to encourage communities to partner with financial institutions, labour-sponsored investment funds and local investors to provide greater access to capital for small, local, growth-oriented businesses. Bill 164 will provide further support for small business by enhancing and simplifying the small business investment tax credit for banks, trust companies, credit unions and caisses populaires that allows these financial institutions to reduce their capital tax when they invest or lend to small businesses.
In order to simplify and modernize Ontario's capital tax system, the bill will harmonize Ontario's capital tax on banks and other financial institutions with the federal government's large corporations tax. This will level the playing field between financial institutions and will also reduce compliance costs for business and administration costs for government.
Bill 164 recognizes the important contribution of the domestic film and television industry to our economy. It implements the 1997 budget announcement to increase Ontario's domestic film and television tax credit rate. The Minister of Finance has also announced that legislation will be introduced to expand eligible genres to remove the per-project and corporate caps on size of production and total credits.
These changes will significantly expand the amount of eligible Canadian content production that will qualify for Ontario's tax credit. These measures will help to ensure that Ontario continues to be a leading film and television production centre in North America.
Bill 164 will provide more support for other cultural industries in Ontario. The book publishing tax credit will encourage Ontario's publishers to publish and promote new Canadian authors. The bill responds to advice from the publishing industry to include educational textbooks and first-time illustrators of children's books.
There is new confidence in the private sector, which is supported by the actions of the provincial government. We want to help Ontarians take advantage of the opportunities opening up around the province.
Bill 164 supports lower-income working families who are not benefiting currently from child care funding by implementing our budget's commitment to a child care tax credit. About 90,000 families and 125,000 children under age 7 are expected to benefit from the 1997 tax credit. This tax credit will be a new investment of about $40 million to support lower-income working families and their children. This government is committed to ensuring that Ontarians receive high-quality service in a cost-effective way in all aspects of the government's operations.
This legislation delivers on our commitment to reduce costs and make sense of the division of provincial and municipal responsibilities by returning property assessment to the municipalities, where it can be run more efficiently and effectively. Bill 164 will establish the Ontario Property Assessment Corp. After a quarter century of the province preparing this local tax base, the municipal sector will take back its control and management, now that the province-wide assessment has been undertaken.
We know that the private sector is the primary economic engine in Ontario. It is our government's responsibility to pave the way for entrepreneurs to invest and create new jobs here. This is why we are encouraging by reducing taxes, eliminating barriers to growth and providing the private sector with the tools it needs to invest, compete and create the new jobs we need for the people of this province. I encourage all members of this House to support this important piece of legislation.
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Bartolucci: I'd just like to make a very few comments with regard to what the member said.
He alluded to the tax cut. I'm not sure he understands that by and large a tax cut for the average man is certainly not something that's appreciated, because of the price you have to pay for that tax cut in new taxes. We call them user fees, but I believe it was Mike Harris who said a user fee is just another form of taxation. He's going to go down in history as the person who increased taxes more times in a single term than anyone else.
I have to tell you as well that if we're looking at setting the right environment in Ontario, I'm afraid the agenda the government has gone on is in the wrong direction. Jobs are not being created for our youth. We have a youth employment crisis. I don't know how the government is addressing the problem we have with youth employment. I have two children in university, one doing a master's program and one graduating, hopefully this year, from Laurentian. You know what? They both are concerned because they want to stay in Ontario, but they don't see any stability for them to stay here in meaningful, long-term employment.
If you really want to be a government that is interested in promoting job creation, you might want to try to devise a strategy which will give hope to the youth of Ontario to remain in Ontario, to make Ontario strong. Bill 164 does none of that.
2120
Mr Lessard: I want to thank the member for Wellington for his comments and acknowledge the ruling you made when he first began, saying that he was a courteous member. He certainly is; I agree with that. He is a loyal soldier in Mike Harris's army and has been a strong supporter of the Common Sense Revolution all along. That was reflected in his commonsense comments here tonight, I guess.
Some of the things he didn't really refer to in his comments were who is going to benefit and who is going to pay for the job creation initiatives, so-called, that are included in Bill 164.
What kind of jobs are going to be created through these initiatives? We've seen an elimination of thousands of public sector jobs, the impending elimination of thousands of teachers' jobs, the elimination of nursing jobs. There's been an elimination of thousands of jobs, and they're going to be replaced by jobs that may be created through the initiatives in Bill 164. We're going to see many traditionally public sector jobs become privatized and the people who are going to lose those jobs are the ones who will pay the price for the privatized jobs.
We heard today that there are plans to review the Employment Standards Act, and we know that includes provisions for minimum wage. Does that mean that these private sector jobs at minimum wage could be even lower than the minimum wage we have now? I hope that's not going to be the case. We also heard what Sears is doing in Sault Ste Marie, eliminating long-standing full-time jobs and replacing them with part-time jobs.
Those are the people who are paying the price, and that's the future that people like my son Brett who are concerned about it -
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): I want to compliment the member for Wellington on his remarks with regard to Bill 164, which is the bill that supplies support for small business corporations and enhances in simplifying the small business tax. The member has brought out many of the issues that we want to relate to the business community of this province. When we look at the filmmakers, the people who are involved in television, the tax credit rates they get, these are all things that are going to enhance the economy of Ontario.
Bill 164 supports lower-income working families who are not benefiting from the current child care funding by implementing our budget commitment for a child care tax credit where about 90,000 families and 125,000 children under the age of seven are expected to benefit from the 1997 tax credit.
The member wisely points out that these are important things with regard to the budgetary policies of this government. It implements the 1997 budget announcement to increase Ontario's domestic film and television tax credit, which I have indicated. These measures will help ensure that Ontario continues to be a leading film and television producer in North America. My understanding is it's in third place in the world, behind Los Angeles and New York. Toronto is third in that line.
Bill 164 will provide more support for other cultural industries as well. The book publishing tax credit will encourage Ontario publishers to publish and promote new Canadian authors, which is part of the overall business community.
After a quarter of a century of the province preparing this local tax base, the municipal sector will take back its control and management now that the province-wide assessment has been undertaken.
I compliment the member for Wellington on his remarks this evening.
Mr John Gerretsen (Kingston and The Islands): Certainly some of the measures that are called for in this bill are totally acceptable, particularly with respect to the film and cinema credits. However, the whole notion of a tax cut when we're still running an annual deficit in this province of somewhere between $6 billion and $7 billion, when we're still increasing the debt of this province from $100 billion where we started in 1995 to over $120 billion by the year 2000, is simply totally unacceptable.
Even the government's own budget documents clearly show that this year we anticipate paying $9.1 billion in interest payments on the public debt. When you compare that to two years ago, when it was $2 billion less, on a total budget of about $50 billion, you can well understand how the people of Ontario must find it totally incongruous, must find it totally unacceptable, that we are actually giving people tax cuts at the same time that we're still increasing the public debt, when we're increasing the interest payments on the debt, even during the period of time when interest rates are at an all-time low. It is totally unacceptable.
The other point of course is, this only helps some Ontarians. It doesn't help the Ontarians who are at the bottom one third of the economic scale. Those people have had it a lot worse during the last two years. They can expect absolutely nothing from this government. They have gotten absolutely nothing from this government, except more grief, more controversy.
I would just say to this government once again, forget about your tax cut for January 1.
Interjection.
The Speaker: How many were there? There were four. Response, member for Wellington.
Mr Arnott: Sorry, to the member for Algoma. I wish he'd had a chance to add his comments, but it is almost 9:30 and we're almost concluding our evening's debate.
I want to thank the member for Sudbury for his constructive comments, and the member for Windsor-Riverside for complimenting me on being a loyal foot soldier for the Common Sense Revolution. I appreciate that compliment. The member for Simcoe East, my colleague and friend who over the years has provided me with a great deal of very helpful political advice and help in terms of representing my riding and the good job that he does representing his riding is something we all appreciate; also the member for Kingston and The Islands for his comments.
I'd like to say a couple of things. I've listened to the debate and I hear the opposition parties continuing to make reference to the government's policy of reducing taxes so as to encourage more job creation. They are critical of that. They're overlooking, I think, the fact that this bill does not reduce taxes; it creates tax credits, tax credits to stimulate further investment and create incentives to encourage positive things to happen in Ontario. We have the graduate transitions tax credit in this bill; the cooperative education tax credit; the community small business investment fund program, another tax credit; the small business investment tax credit; the Ontario business research-institute tax credit for research and development; the Ontario new technology tax incentive; the Ontario computer, animation and special effects tax credit; the Ontario film and television tax credit; the Ontario book publishing tax credit; the child care tax credit and a number of other initiatives which encourage further investment in things I think all of us in this House would probably support. That's something that they have to be reminded of, I believe.
In response to one of the points that was made by the member for Sudbury suggesting that the government doesn't realize that there's a severe youth unemployment problem, we know that the government recognizes this problem and has undertaken measures to encourage job creation obviously, especially for young people. In our ministry, the ministry that I'm involved with, the Ministry of Economic Development, we're doing everything we can -
The Speaker: It now being nearly 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned till 1:30 of the clock tomorrow.
The House adjourned at 2128.