L064B - Thu 3 Dec 1998 / Jeu 3 Déc 1998 1
The House met at 1831.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
TAX CREDITS AND REVENUE PROTECTION ACT, 1998 / LOI DE 1998 SUR LES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET LA PROTECTION DES RECETTES
Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 81, An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures contained in the 1998 Budget, to make amendments to other statutes and to enact a new statute / Projet de loi 81, Loi visant à mettre en oeuvre des crédits d'impôt et des mesures de protection des recettes contenus dans le budget de 1998, à modifier d'autres lois et à en édicter une nouvelle loi.
The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Further debate? The Chair recognizes the member for Windsor-Riverside.
Mr Frank Klees (York-Mackenzie): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was wondering if we might ask for unanimous consent of the House to invite members of the Liberal Party to this debate.
The Deputy Speaker: Agreed? It is agreed.
Mr Wayne Lessard (Windsor-Riverside): I don't know who is supposed to extend that invitation. However, now that I have the floor, I extend that invitation, and I'm pleased to see that the member for St Catharines has joined us this evening to hear my comments with respect to Bill 81, An Act to implement tax credits and revenue protection measures, another one of those bills that has a fine-sounding title but really has a whole lot more in it than may be expressed in the title.
We're talking a lot about tax credits. This government likes to follow that agenda that provides tax credits, a tax scheme for those who are the most well off in Ontario while sticking the bill to those who are the least able to afford it. I think this is a message that people are finally starting to understand. They know what the costs of this government's tax scheme are. They know that people who are working on Bay Street, who may be stockbrokers, for example - nothing against stockbrokers, but just an example of people who may be able to make up to $200,000 a year - are going to get a tax break of over $7,000.
That tax break doesn't come without any implications, without any ramifications, because people in the community I represent, Windsor-Riverside, see what that means for health care, for education and for other things like increased tuition fees.
We have gone through what most people, I would think, can only point to as a crisis in health care in our community. We have seen long lineups at the emergency wards at Hotel Dieu and Metropolitan General Hospital over the last couple of years. We have seen people who have been unable to be admitted to beds in the hospitals because there weren't any for them. People are being turned away at emergencies. Ambulances are having to be re-routed to other hospitals because they can't go to the hospital they were originally assigned to.
Although there is finally some progress being made as far as reconstruction of those emergency rooms at the hospitals in Windsor, we know that has come far too late to effectively address the critical crisis we've been facing in our community. Although it's all well and good to finally have the funds to replace the emergency rooms at the hospitals, we're still waiting for the announcement of long-term operating dollars for the hospital.
The Minister of Health was down in Windsor announcing just over $80 million for capital construction in the Windsor area, but the people in my community recognize as well that bricks and mortar are not going to be enough to improve the situation with respect to health care in the Windsor community. We need a commitment with respect to operating dollars. We've been waiting months and months and months and we still haven't seen it. We're wondering what the holdup is. Why is the Minister of Health not coming to Windsor to make this announcement about long-term operating dollars? Could it be that she may be waiting for the election to be called? If that's what she's waiting for, I just say, call that election soon, because we need those operating dollars in Windsor.
One of the issues in health care that we've experienced recently is the possible closure of the Malden Park long-term-care hospital. That was a replacement for Riverview hospital. It was a promise that had been made by previous governments, but it was the NDP government that finally built that hospital. For many in our community, that was the fulfillment of a 20-year dream. It convinced many people to contribute millions of dollars for the construction of that project. It's for that reason that it would be so tragic for that hospital to close.
I think some of the steps this government has taken, some of the steps that are reflected in Bill 81 and other budget measures, are really leading us down that road where that hospital may close, because they are making that into a long-term-care centre. It's not going to be a hospital any more.
This government's hospital closing commission has recommended that there be 446 new long-term-care beds in our community. It sounds good, but they've only announced 20 of them so far. The Harris government is privatizing health care in Ontario. They're not selling off hospitals. They say they're not closing hospitals, although we know that it's their hand-picked commission.
Interjections.
The Deputy Speaker: The conversations going on are making it impossible for me to concentrate on the debater. Would you please carry them on somewhere else.
Mr Lessard: Thank you very much, Speaker. I'm glad you have tried to get the members of the government to listen to what I have to say about what they're doing to health care in my community. I don't think I'm alone with respect to this either. I think there are a whole lot of other people who feel the same way I do about what this government's tax scheme is doing to the quality of health care in their communities.
As I was saying before I was interrupted, I believe this government is privatizing. They're moving us down the road to privatization of health care in Ontario. How are they doing that? They're moving services out of the hospitals and then they're starving those community-based services for funding that provides care for those people who had to leave the hospital. The only people who will be assured adequate nursing or home care services will be those who can afford to buy it, those who can pay for it, the ones who got the big bucks from that tax scheme. Those are the people who are going to be able to pay for it.
1840
They know that this government has downloaded public health and ambulance services on to municipalities, and downloaded child care services as well. They're creating a demand for home- and community-based health care services, starving those services for money, and they know that the Canada Health Act only protects services that are provided in hospitals. So when people aren't getting those services in hospitals, when they're getting them from agencies providing them possibly in their home, those services are no longer guaranteed. There's no guarantee with respect to the quality of those services, there's no guarantee that the prices are going to be controlled, and that is leading us to a two-tier, privatized health care system. That's what this government is heading for.
We need to take steps to ensure that doesn't happen. That's what my colleague Marion Boyd had been doing through her patients' bill of rights, so we have consistent quality, consistent access and consistent funding for health care services, no matter where it is that you may live in the province, whether it be in Windsor-Riverside or in Timmins or in downtown Toronto, for that matter. We should all have access to a consistent level of service.
If this government really wanted to make improvements to health care, they would address issues such as that. They would address the concerns we have for long-term operating dollars in the Windsor health care system and they would also address the issue of treatment of children who have cancer.
I saw a couple of press releases earlier this week about children with cancer benefiting in eastern Ontario, children with cancer benefiting in Kingston, and I think I read one in another part of Ontario as well. I was looking around for the announcement that children with cancer in the Windsor area were going to benefit, but I didn't see that one. I can only assume that that announcement is coming soon.
We know that in the Windsor area children who have cancer are going to have to go to London to get services, to get treatment. That creates quite an expense to families, for transportation and for accommodation and due to loss of work time as well. We're hoping that these types of services are going to be provided in Windsor as well.
What these announcements in Kingston and eastern Ontario mean is that there are going to be additional staff people - physicians, nurses, a clinician, a social worker, a psychologist and support staff, people specially trained to deal with children with cancer. That makes a lot of sense, and it would make a lot of sense for these services to be provided in Windsor as well. I hope that the government, in making some of the budgetary announcements they've been making recently, will make an announcement for cancer services for children in the Windsor area. I encourage them to do that. I'm awaiting that announcement, and if there's anything I can do to be of assistance, I'd be more than happy to help out.
Something else the government could be doing is urging the federal government to do what they can to reduce the incidence of children who smoke, because we don't want to have to provide cancer treatment for young people or cancer treatment for older persons who got cancer because they started smoking when they were young. We need to take preventive measures, measures that will lead young people not to smoke and lead them away from that temptation.
I thought that Bill S-13, passed in the federal Senate, was a worthwhile undertaking. A Liberal Senator brought forward that bill to put a 50-cent levy on each package of cigarettes to go towards a foundation that would use the funds to prevent young people from ever considering smoking - a worthwhile initiative, I think you'd agreed, Speaker. But what happened earlier this week when the bill was introduced in the House of Commons? It was a Liberal doctor who introduced this measure in the House of Commons and it was another Liberal member who, on a point of order, killed the bill that could have done a great deal to reduce the incidence of young people beginning to smoke.
It's unfortunate that the federal Liberal government took that initiative. I would think they would agree that young people shouldn't smoke, shouldn't be encouraged to smoke. There must be some reason why they wouldn't want a bill like that to go forward. It might have something to do with the large multinational tobacco companies. It's a possibility. I'm only speculating. But when it comes to issues like that, kids' health is far more important than the interests of the large multinational tobacco companies.
The issue of children's health in general should be more important than the interests of large multinational tobacco companies and should be of more interest than how much profit banks make, how much profit corporations make and, yes, how much people are going to get with their big tax break. Those who are the most well off would like to get a tax break, but that's going to come at some cost, and we're seeing what that cost is now.
I just noticed in the Toronto Star today that child poverty in Canada keeps getting worse while the federal government continues to talk about tackling the problem. That was the result of a survey from Campaign 2000 that came out earlier this week.
There's a trend that's going on, and this government is part of that trend, is encouraging that trend, a trend that shows that children are losing ground year after year. The federal government introduced the child tax benefit to try and address that issue. We've seen what has happened to parents of children who are on social assistance in the province of Ontario who, when this government first got elected, experienced a 21% cut in the funds they have available for shelter and for clothing and for food; and when the federal government brought in the child tax benefit, we saw that benefit clawed back by the provincial government. Those funds that could have been used to improve the quality of life for the poorest in the province of Ontario were clawed back by this government.
I can only ask, why is that? Is that only so this government, so desperate to fund the tax scheme, is able to find the funds to do that? If that's where they're going to get the funds to cover their tax scheme, then I don't want to be any part of it. I think most people in Ontario recognize that there is a cost to that tax scheme.
We're seeing it as well in another report that came from the Centre for Social Justice called The Growing Gap, a report on the growing inequality between the rich and the poor in Ontario. What we're seeing is that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is quickly disappearing.
Mr Rosario Marchese (Fort York): Extinct.
Mr Lessard: It's becoming extinct, as my good colleague Mr Marchese says. I know he agrees that there is more pain than gain in the Harris tax scheme. Tax schemes come at a price, and we're seeing what that price is now.
We're seeing that the richest group of taxpayers got $15,000 from this tax system and the poorest group of taxpayers got $150. That's all they got. Somebody is getting whacked here. There are some people who are benefiting and some people who are getting whacked. These are the people who are the least able to afford that kind of tax scheme.
1850
Here are some of the things that The Growing Gap report recommended, some of their proposed solutions. They're not recommending the solutions we're seeing in Bill 81, proposed by this government's budget. They're talking about better distribution of working time, high-quality, low-cost education and child care. We have seen this government move away from publicly funded child care spaces in Ontario, so that those who are inclined to go out and work and try to get themselves off social assistance are unable to do that because they do not have access to affordable, quality daycare.
They're also suggesting that there be employment equity legislation, that there should be a raise in the minimum wage level and that there should be a maximum wage. That's a novel concept we might want to debate here. We see the CEOs of large corporations making hundreds of times what is paid those who are the lowest paid. In other countries they have limits on how exorbitant the highest pay for CEOs is. That might be something we should look at and debate.
Those are just some of the suggestions from The Growing Gap report. I'm sure many of my colleagues will be raising some of the other interesting suggestions that come from that report. The bottom line is that as a result of budget bills like this one, the rich are getting richer, the poor are getting poorer and the middle class is quickly becoming extinct as a result of the Tory tax scheme.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Terence H. Young (Halton Centre): The member for Windsor-Riverside was talking about revenue and taxes, and I think it's important to look at the total revenue that the province of Ontario was bringing in when the NDP were last in government. The actual revenue in fiscal year 1994-95 was $46 billion. We began to reduce taxes in that next year and we've now reduced the provincial tax rate by 30%. We stuck to our fiscal plan extremely closely. Actually it's even brighter than it was when we created it. The plan for 1998-99 is $53.4 billion in revenue, which is about $6 billion higher.
The question that remains is, how do you cut taxes and bring in more revenue? We've tried to get this message out again and again: because more people are working. There are 440,000 more people who have jobs, and they're going out and buying homes and buying automobiles. When you buy a house, you buy carpet and curtains. The places that manufacture those goods hire more people. It creates a positive economic cycle.
Total tax revenue, just in case there's a question about tax revenue, in 1994-95 was $34.5 billion. I can imagine the stark terror the NDP had the last year they were in office. They raised taxes and they got no new revenue. They must have sat around the cabinet table and realized they were totally bereft of ideas. They were a bankrupt government and they were bankrupting the province.
The plan this year for revenue is $40.4 billion, which is about $6 billion higher on tax revenue. By lowering taxes we've increased revenues. More people are working and more people are paying taxes. People have come to Ontario to invest. People who were staying home are going out to work. Investors who weren't investing are investing and the economy of the province is growing. The middle class is growing. The working class is making more money.
Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): To the member from Windsor, they were good comments. He makes the point quite well that one thing we're noticing in this province is that the middle class, more and more since this government has come to power, is really getting it in the ear. I'll give you an example.
I was in Iroquois Falls on Tuesday. I walked into one particular establishment and there was an individual, M. Milljour, who's trying to do the best he can to contribute to the economy of Iroquois Falls and at the same time build a business for himself. I consider him middle class. He's a mill worker who's trying to invest and become a businessman himself, but he finds that every time he turns around, this Conservative government is picking his pocket.
He gets a tax increase from the municipal government. Why? Because a new assessment system has come out because of the downloading that has gone on to the municipalities. At every turn he finds that some way or other this government has affected him when it comes to his ability to sustain his income. This particular individual is not just an isolated incident. We're starting to find more and more of that by way of evidence that this government is eroding the middle class.
The government argues: "This tax scheme is making the whole economy of Ontario just buzz right along. That's really what it's all about." The problem is exactly that there is no evidence to display that. What's happening is that Ontario's economy is linked to the United States. The United States economy has been doing well and consequently the Ontario economy is doing well. Conversely, in the early 1990s the American economy was not doing well. What happened to the Ontario economy? The Ontario economy didn't do well.
I hope we don't see this. I hope the economy keeps on building and things go well. But once the economy starts to go the other way, and there's an indication we will end up in another recession, what will be the government's argument when they start to lose revenue as a result of what's happened in the economy? I think they might be singing a different tune.
Mr Doug Galt (Northumberland): It was interesting to hear the member for Windsor-Riverside talking about tax cuts and who was going to gain from these tax cuts and some of the problems that are going on.
I can understand the NDP and their philosophy. It's nice that they hold firm to their beliefs. You look at the Liberals and they keep moving back and forth and you're never just quite sure where the target is. At least with the NDP you know where they're coming from.
It's also refreshing to see the province of Quebec, for example, in this last election. The Liberal leader, Charest, a true Conservative, goes with a platform of tax cuts, but then Chrétien comes in and really makes a mess of things. Who grabs his platform but Bouchard? He has come in on a platform very much like the platform we had back in 1995 of tax cuts to stimulate the economy. He understands where it's coming from. He found out where Charest was going and the big moves Charest was making, so Bouchard capitalized on it when Chrétien screwed up the whole campaign. Now we're seeing another province moving in the direction of tax cuts.
The NDP talks about, "Oh, sure, it's the US economy that's doing it all for Ontario," but have a look at BC, for example, the Canadian west coast. Things were booming out there when we were in recessionary times here. Why were we in recessionary times? Because we had an NDP government adding red tape and all kinds of taxes. They went into recession when we are doing well. Why? Increased taxes, increased red tape. They went into a recession long before the Asian crisis, so they can't blame it on the Asian crisis.
This indeed is a tremendous bill and I'll certainly be supporting it.
Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I just find the interpretation of the Quebec election results unbelievable. A lot of people wanted to jump on Jean Charest because he did not win the most seats in the election. I thought he made a courageous step when he went to Quebec City, when he took over the leadership of the federalist forces, the Liberal Party of Quebec. I think a lot of people resisted that temptation to blame Mr Charest for running a bad campaign or something. He didn't.
But here's the ultimate in partisan rhetoric over there. To start blaming somebody else -
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: I don't know. I just can't speak any further when you hear that kind of utter nonsense.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Windsor-Riverside has two minutes to respond.
1900
Mr Lessard: I want to thank the members for St Catharines, Northumberland, Cochrane South and Halton Centre, for their comments about my remarks on Bill 81. I don't know how the Quebec election got into the speech. I don't remember mentioning that, but it's interesting to hear the member for Northumberland's recounting of the history of the election. I can only be thankful that he's not the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. I don't know whether his diplomatic skills would come in handy.
The member for Cochrane South makes an interesting comment. He talks about, where is the evidence that this government's tax scheme has really improved Ontario's economy? I just don't buy it that that is the only reason the Ontario economy is doing well.
In my area in Windsor I see the auto sector doing well and that is strictly as a result of the American marketplace. I see the casino doing well and that's as a result of 80% of the clientele coming from the United States. That's what's driving our economy.
The problem is that in the next recession we have, as a result of the cuts that this government has made, we are going to be in such a squeeze here that we will not be able to recover as quickly and as well as we need to.
To the member for Halton Centre, who says that the tax cut has led to people being able to go out and buy a new home, if only that were true. There are a lot of people who aren't able to buy a new home. The ones who are are buying another home so they can rent it to somebody who can't afford to buy one and then charge them exorbitant rents because of the Tenant Protection Act letting rents skyrocket. There is no protection whatsoever for tenants any more. I'd say further that the tax scheme is coming at the expense of borrowed money, money we're paying interest on.
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Joseph N. Tascona (Simcoe Centre): I'm very pleased to join the debate with respect to Bill 81, the Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act, 1998. It's time to get focused on what we're speaking about here in terms of the legislation, which hasn't happened up till now.
The bill means many things for Ontarians, and I'd just like to point that out. It's more tax cuts for Ontarians in small businesses to create jobs; it's assistance for and accessibility to child care for working families with children; greater access to capital for small businesses; it helps people with disabilities to get jobs; it's support for small growing firms for job creation in the new millennium; and it provides a fairer tax system when you're dealing with a number of areas with respect to tobacco and with respect to estates. Essentially what this bill does is what this government has been doing through its entire mandate: putting people first.
The first measure that I want to deal with is one of the most draconian tax measures ever brought in by the Liberal government between 1985 and 1990, which was the employer health tax. It was not only a mean-spirited tax, but it certainly put a lot of small businesses behind the eight ball in terms of payroll taxes. What we're doing here is to help small business.
With respect to small business, tax cuts mean jobs. Payroll taxes are essentially a disincentive to hire young people, to create employment. This bill supports job creation by reducing the payroll tax burden on small businesses. The phase-in of the $400,000 employer health tax exemption is being accelerated by increasing the exemption for 1998 from $300,000 to $350,000 for employers and self-employed individuals. In 1999, the tax on the self-employed individuals will be eliminated. That's even more good news for people who are trying to get out there and put their lives in order, get a sense of direction in terms of getting security and in trying to make a good living.
We're not out there like the previous governments in terms of attacking small business. We're trying to help them, unlike the federal government, which has essentially turned a blind eye to small business. Their most recent measure with respect to UI premiums - they have a $7-billion surplus. So what do they do? They say, "We're going to decrease the premium by 15 cents effective January 1, 1999," which still leaves a $5.5-billion surplus. That is one area that really does kill jobs. I've talked to a number of small business owners, and they would say that if you decreased the UI premiums to $2.20 per $100 of payroll, you would be creating hundreds of thousands of jobs.
The bottom line is that you're allowing employers to put money into their businesses and not into the coffers of the federal government, because they have no accountability. What they've been doing with that money is putting it into general revenues, creating false impressions with respect to their fiscal responsibility. What we're also going to be seeing effective January 1, 1999, is that CPP rates will be increasing 10%, so that means more money that you won't be taking home to provide for your family.
These payroll taxes by the federal government are killing jobs, and another thing they're doing in terms of harming consumers and the everyday person is that they have done nothing with respect to indexation of tax brackets. It's called "bracket creep." As you move up the income bracket, what have they done? They just tax you more. We've been paying more in terms of taxes since 1993 because of this bracket creep. People are in essence not taking as much home to deal with the inflation, because inflation has not been moving up by that much, but when they're put up and they move into another bracket, it all gets taxed by the federal government. Any offset that we've been able to put forth in terms of people's pocketbooks, in terms of our 30% tax cut, is being ravaged and attacked by the federal government through their policies with respect to UI premiums, with respect to CPP and in terms of bracket creep. What the feds have been doing is putting more money into their own revenue coffers and killing jobs and basically reducing the amount of take-home pay for the average consumer.
The policies we have put in place - I take exception to the member for Windsor-Walkerville saying that it's just as simple as if, because the American economy is doing well, Ontario is doing well. It just isn't that simple. Everybody knows that the US economy was doing very well when the NDP government was in power and we were not creating jobs in this country. This province during their entire mandate created 10,000 jobs, which is a joke. This is the most powerful province in this country and we can do much better than that.
The message you send out is very important in terms of a job creation climate and an investment climate. We've done that. In essence, the fruit of the labour of small businesses in this province is that we have 440,000 new jobs. That's certainly not totally attributable to the US economy. The basic fact is that in the automobile industry, a significant proportion of the automobiles are exported to the United States. That has been going on for the last 20 years or so. I don't accept that's the reason why this province is doing very well.
Another measure in this bill is assistance to working families, Ontario's child care supplement for working families. The bill proposes a new $140-million child care supplement for working families, to replace the $40-million child care tax credit for lower-income families introduced in the 1997 Ontario budget. The supplement will be available to low- and middle-income Ontario families who are working or attending school or receiving job training and who receive the Canada child tax benefit for children under the age of seven. The supplement is calculated as the greater of a designated percentage of family-earned income in excess of $5,000 and 50% of eligible child care expenses, up to a maximum of $1,020 per year for each child under age seven. The supplement is reduced by 8% of family net income in excess of $20,000. The supplement may also be reduced if the family receives a child care fee subsidy funded by Ontario.
For example, eligibility for the program disappears at a net family income of $32,750 for families with one child under age seven, at $45,500 for families with two children under age seven and at $58,250 for families with three children under age seven.
1910
When you're looking at these types of wages, if you listen to the Liberal Party and the NDP, they would say people who are making $32,000 are rich and that's who we've been giving the tax credit to in terms of our tax reductions. Well, the fact of the matter is they're not. They're making sure that from paycheque to paycheque they're making ends meet. They need to have the money they earn in their own pockets. It shouldn't be going directly to the government. Those people are the ones who need this money and that's who we're directing this child care supplement to, trying to help them deal with the challenges they face.
That's another measure of what this government has been doing. From day one it's been putting people first and fixing government, unlike the two previous governments we had. The workplace child care tax incentive initiative was announced in the 1998 Ontario budget to support businesses that create additional licensed child care facilities in Ontario. The workplace child care tax incentive would provide corporations with an additional 30% deduction from Ontario income for capital costs of construction or renovation of licensed child care facilities in Ontario incurred after May 5, 1998. This incentive would also be available for contributions of cash, property or services by corporations to child care operators if the contributions are used by the operator for this purpose. Capital costs for playground equipment would also qualify, and a 5% refundable tax credit would be available to unincorporated businesses.
Another measure of what this government is doing is helping people with disabilities get jobs. To support businesses that hire employees with disabilities, the workplace accessibility tax incentive would provide an additional 100% deduction for qualifying expenditures incurred to accommodate an eligible person with a disability. A 15% refundable tax credit would be provided to unincorporated businesses, qualifying expenditures or costs incurred after July 1, 1998, to accommodate qualifying employees in performing their job functions and include expenditures incurred to (1) install a passenger elevator, a platform lift or a stairway lift; (2) modify workstations and install required equipment and devices; and (3) provide the support services of a job coach, a notetaker, a sign language interpreter, an intervenor, a reader or an attendant required by a qualifying employee.
I would say that a qualifying employee is an individual who is not related to the employer and was not employed by the employer in the preceding 12 months, works at least 60 hours per month for a period of not less than three months, qualifies for an existing federal or Ontario program for people with disabilities or is certified by a qualified practitioner to have a disability that is expected to last for more than a year and creates a substantial barrier to competitive employment.
Those are very significant measures with respect to giving a hand up to help people who have disabilities in getting them employed in the workplace. It's a very positive way of doing these things because it's an incentive for employers not only to hire them but to make the workplace much more user-friendly.
One of the more important areas that we want to deal with with respect to this act is the Tobacco Tax Act. Proposed amendments to the Tobacco Tax Act enhance existing sanctions by prohibiting possession of unmarked cigarettes by unauthorized persons and parallel the existing provisions relating to the possession of unmarked cigarettes for the purposes of sale.
Let's face it, I think the member for Windsor-Walkerville did make a significant point when we're talking teen smoking and what we should be doing with it in terms of making sure that we put in place measures that can address this. He did mention yesterday what happened in Ottawa, which was an absolute disgrace. It's reported in the Toronto Star, and I will quote:
"In Ottawa yesterday, House of Commons Speaker Gilbert Parent effectively killed the Stop the Kids Smoking bill by ruling that it imposed a tax. Bill S-13 would have slapped a 50-cent surcharge on every carton of cigarettes sold, money that would have been spent on an ad campaign to combat teenage smoking."
Senator Colin Kenny, author of the bill, said he was disappointed and urged the government to adopt the fight against teenage smoking.
"`The public doesn't care about a procedure, or whether a bill imposes a tax or a levy, they just want to see action on youth smoking.'"
What does the federal government do? They kill a bill that is designed to deal with teenage smoking and they do it with impunity.
I would say that's something we're trying to address with respect to bringing in preventive measures in terms of making our Tobacco Tax Act work. The Tobacco Tax Act has specific provisions relating to the wholesale distribution of tobacco products: (1) Wholesale dealers selling tobacco for resale must be authorized by the minister and be issued a permit; and (2) persons purchasing tobacco for resale are only permitted to purchase it from wholesale dealers who are authorized. These requirements are critical to ensure the correct tax has been collected and remitted and that tax-exempt product has not entered the taxable distribution stream. New offences are created and fines and penalties are increased for unauthorized wholesaling of tobacco products, either through sales or purchases.
The Tobacco Tax Act also provides a general offence provision for purchases contravening provisions of the act for which no penalty is provided. It is proposed that the minimum fine for general offences be increased from $200 to $1,000 and the maximum be increased from $5,000 to $25,000. The existing jail term of three to six months would be removed in light of the enhanced amendments proposed for specific offences relating to the wholesaling of tobacco.
I'd say that what we're dealing with here in terms of tobacco is a very serious issue. It has to be addressed. There has to be some leadership by the federal government. There has to be some action taken. You can't simply say, "We're going to increase the price of cigarettes," with no specific purpose other than to put money into the coffers of the federal government. There has to be a plan of attack as to how to deal with teenage smoking. They had an opportunity to deal with it yesterday and they crushed it. They killed it, and they didn't even give an opportunity for public hearings. I'm very disappointed in the federal government, but that hasn't been the first time.
There are other areas I want to deal with. Of fundamental importance is the Ambulance Act. Schedule A of the Services Improvement Act, 1997, amended the Ambulance Act to provide for the transfer to municipalities of full funding responsibility for land ambulance services as of January 1, 1998, and full responsibility for ensuring the proper provision of such services as of January 1, 2000.
The proposed amendments (1) broaden the definition of "designated area" to include upper-tier municipalities, where designated by the minister as part of the consolidated municipal service management structure; (2) make it possible to consolidate service delivery management in a single-service delivery agent for land ambulance and other services in any area of the province; and (3) create new regulation-making powers for, among other things, agreements and arbitrations as a means of determining the apportionment of land ambulance service costs within or between upper-tier municipalities and/or delivery agents.
The final area I want to cover has to do with the Estate Administration Tax Act, 1998, and the Estates Act. On October 22, 1998, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Ontario's probate fees are taxes and that therefore the regulations which attempted to impose the fees were not authorized by statute. The court suspended this declaration of invalidity for six months, until April 22, 1999, to enable the province to address this issue. In response to this a new act, the Estate Administration Tax Act, is enacted. The act "imposes a tax on an estate when an estate certificate is issued" and applies "to all estate certificates issued after May 14, 1950." The amount of tax payable under the new act is the same as the amount of fees that were payable as probate fees under the previous legislation.
1920
In essence, what we've done in that area is to address fairness in terms of the estate tax act, because that's what the issue was with respect to the probate fees that had been implemented by the previous government. The decision essentially strikes down the measures that were taken by the previous government, but what we're dealing with here is addressing the concerns of fairness.
In closing, Bill 81 fundamentally deals with implementing the budget of 1998. The Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act, 1998, helps child care and it helps working families in terms of the tax credits that are put in place not only for the working families and their children but also for the corporations that can increase the number of child care spaces.
It also increases access for Ontarians with disabilities. This is the first government to introduce legislation with respect to dealing with those with a disability. You can say whatever you wish with respect to that, but the bottom line is that we're the first government that took measures. There are other measures that we're taking under this particular piece of legislation and also under the Human Rights Code that protect those individuals who have a disability.
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Bradley: I have a question for the member. He had his usual speech blaming the federal government, blaming previous governments, blaming everybody but his own government, and that's part and parcel of all the speeches he delivers in the House. I'm surprised he doesn't run for the federal House of Commons, but he is here and he will make the speeches he makes. I have one question for him: If he feels so strongly about the tobacco industry and the problem with children smoking, why doesn't he join with the government of British Columbia in a suit against the major tobacco companies in this country?
Mr Bisson: I just want to make a point on the comments of the member. He went to great lengths to talk about how the big reason that the economy of Ontario is doing well by and large is because of the tax cut. That's the argument he puts forward, but there are a couple of things that have to be said.
First of all, we have to understand why we pay taxes and where that money goes. By and large, we all know that the majority of our income tax dollars go to pay for education and health care. Those are the two biggest things they pay for. What ends up happening is that if we were to make the choice these Tories are making for us, which is that the only way to get the economy to accelerate is to lower taxes - the problem with that argument is that you'd have to lower taxes so low to put dollars into people's pockets that you literally would have to end programs like health care and education to be able to bring them down to the level to have the effect they're looking for. That's counterproductive, because people then have to go out and buy insurance or they've got to negotiate it with their employers, as they do in the United States in some cases, to have health care coverage.
I was talking on the Internet about two weeks ago to somebody who lives just north of Florida. The person was saying to me that they were paying a $550-a-month premium to get extended coverage above what the employer provides for them already. We were comparing salaries, and yes, the person's take-home pay was larger because they were paying less tax, but when you add in what they pay by way of premiums to get health care coverage, they actually make about the same as we do here.
The problem with their argument is that to get the kind of stimulus in the economy that you need, you would have to drive taxes down to a level that would end services, which you would then end up having to buy out in the private sector. The amount we're saving on the tax cut doesn't have a heck of a lot to do with what's happening in the economy. By and large, it's what's happening in the United States and generally in the Canadian economy.
Mr Young: I would like to comment on the comments of the member for Cochrane South. He said that the greatest things we spend money on are education and health care.
The Deputy Speaker: I would ask you to comment on what the member for Simcoe Centre said.
Mr Young: Thank you, Speaker. There's a common belief that the greatest amount of money we spend in government, where our tax dollars go, is for education and health care. When we became the government in 1995, that was simply not true, and it's something the NDP still don't understand. In fact, we were spending $9 billion a year of interest on debt - not paying the debt back, just paying the interest on the debt. For a family with charge cards, that's like you make the minimum payment on your charge card and you're not paying any of it back. That $9 billion we were paying on interest on debt, most of which his government created, is more money than the provincial government was spending on all education. Education was actually third, after health care and interest on debt. That's one of the main things we've tried to fix in our government and one of the main things we are fixing in our government.
Talking about low-income people, in our first year and a half in government, one of the main things we did was that we added 140,000 low-income Ontarians on to the Ontario drug benefit plan. These were people who in some cases couldn't afford the drugs because their income wasn't high enough, and the social worker would say to them, "If you go on welfare, you can go on the Ontario drug benefit plan." We changed that so that if they're low-income, they can still get the drugs they need for their health. That was something I'm very, very proud of.
But we also had a tax cut which applies for all working people. The minimum tax cut you can have in Ontario in our government is 18% if you're a top earner, $100,000 or $200,000 a year, but the maximum tax cut is actually for the lower taxpayers, up to a 90% tax cut.
Mr Michael A. Brown (Algoma-Manitoulin): I just want to ask the member for Simcoe Centre how much his government has borrowed.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for Simcoe Centre has two minutes to respond.
Mr Tascona: I'm very pleased to respond to the members' comments. The member for St Catharines seems to be a little sensitive with respect to his federal colleagues in Ottawa, and I can understand why he would be with respect to the types of policies they're putting in place. I think it's just fair comment when you're dealing with fundamental issues, such as people's livelihoods, the money they take home every day, that they realize and understand the facts of who's taking the money out of their pockets and spending it.
To the member for Cochrane South, when we talk about the economy, it's not that simple, that the economy is growing just based on tax cuts. I never said that. What I said was that a number of measures have led to the increase in our economy. It has been attributable to a number of factors to do with the climate we put in this province: getting rid of pro-union legislation, getting rid of red tape, and the tax cuts mean a great deal in terms of putting more money in people's pockets and encouraging a climate where there's greater investment. The facts speak for themselves. There are 440,000 new jobs that have been created in this province since we came in.
On the comments of the member for Halton Centre, certainly we've been spending more money in the educational sector. We're spending over $15 billion this year in education, putting in provincial standards, what the people want. With respect to health care, we're spending more than we ever have in this province; we're spending close to $19 billion. But the bottom line is that we're setting a very important health care system so people can get health care when they need it and where they want it.
1930
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Bradley: We are dealing with a bill in the provincial Legislature, and there are parts of the legislation that people will find quite acceptable and other parts which will draw more of a debate and perhaps some disagreement.
We've talked about economies overall. My good friend from Etobicoke-Humber and I were exchanging some pleasantries across here while other things were happening, talking about the difference between, say, Ontario and British Columbia. I have no reason to defend the NDP government of British Columbia. I simply want to put things in a fair context.
If we look at Ontario and its relationship with the United States, we are far more reliant on the booming American economy for our exports than is British Columbia. Remember when we in Ontario and in fact much of the country were experiencing a pretty deep recession? People were saying, "Look at British Columbia. It's doing fairly well. It seems to be recession-proof," during that time. If you will recall, the American economy was not doing exceptionally well at that time. That was one of the reasons that President Bush was defeated in 1992, because he was seen by some people to be part of the problem; that was a negative for him at that particular point in time. The American economy wasn't doing exceedingly well. As it heated up, we in Ontario benefited immensely from that.
That's the point I make: Back then, British Columbia seemed to be immune from that. That's because British Columbia does so much of its trade with the Far East, and the Far East wasn't as hit with a recession as the United States was at that time. Now we have a situation where British Columbia, which relies upon a lot of trade with the Far East, is not doing well because countries such as Japan and South Korea and Thailand and China are experiencing considerable difficulties and are not making the kind of purchases, whether it's raw materials, whether it's commodities, whether it's finished products, that they did before. So we're now seeing British Columbia experiencing more of a recession than we are.
As I say, I have no reason at all to defend the government of British Columbia; I simply want to put it in that context.
Second, I heard a lot of talk about tobacco problems. Gee, the last time the federal government raised tobacco taxes, what seemed to happen - correct me if I'm wrong - was that the provincial government seemed to be opposed to that. Now there was a bill before the House that would have dealt with tobacco taxes. It was ruled out of order because, as you know - in our private members' business as well, our Speaker would rule out of order a bill which implied or called for the increasing of a tax. Our Speaker would get advice from the table, which I surmise would be that the bill was out of order. That doesn't mean that the government shouldn't do it, but the bill would have been ruled out of order.
What the Ontario government could do, if it wanted to have a major impact, is join in the suit, along with the government of British Columbia, against the major cigarette manufacturers. That would be a reasonable stance to take on the part of our province. Many states in the United States, whether they're Republican or Democrat, or whether the governors or the legislatures are seen to be small-c conservative or small-l liberal - there seem to be a fair number of states taking action against the tobacco companies.
If you watched the testimony that took place, I thought it was quite revealing. They had the major presidents, vice-presidents and others from the tobacco companies come before the committees and really concede that in fact they knew how addictive cigarettes were, that they did aim their advertising at young people, trying to get new smokers, and that they did not reveal just how addictive nicotine is. It's always easy for those of us who are non-smokers to preach to smokers to quit smoking, but there is a recognition that nicotine is a very addictive drug. That's something the tobacco manufacturers, the cigarette manufacturers, tried to hide from the public in the US, so I think they're fair game for such a suit. The money that would be derived from that could well be applied to the medical care system in any jurisdiction, because the smoking of cigarettes, tobacco products, has had overall a detrimental effect on the health of people.
That's something I would suggest to this government, as Dalton McGuinty asked the government in the House the other day whether they might be joining in that particular suit. It's a good suggestion. So many have done it in the United States, and I know many people who advise the Premier think a lot of the things that happen in particularly the Republican states in the United States should be applied to Ontario. So there's a suggestion the government could take up.
Now I look at some other issues contained in this bill: the estate taxes. It says in the information provided on the bill that Bill 81's amendments to fix the estate fee court ruling problem basically introduce a new Mike Harris tax that will raise about $1 billion. It is a new, retroactive tax going back 48 years. This means, of course, that the Mike Harris government has decided that the fees that were imposed by the previous NDP government on estates are now going to be adopted.
I can recall - my friends in the New Democratic Party will remember this; some of my Conservative friends will remember this - that Mike Harris put up an awful fight against the increase in those estate fees. I think it was 1992. I remember his speeches in this House, the questions he directed to the government. Some of the Conservative members of Parliament who were in opposition at that time directed some very scintillating questions to the government concerning this significant increase in the probate fees or the estate fees. The government defended that position at that time, but you gained the impression that if Mike Harris were ever to get in government, one of the first things he would do was cut that probate fee way back down. He decided not to.
I've had many people phone my office, mostly to inquire what was going to happen. I initially didn't know, didn't know what the reaction of the Mike Harris government would be. They speculated to me that they expected that Mike Harris, having been so critical of the NDP raising this probate fee back in 1992, would have scaled it back considerably. Some were even hopeful that they would have made the estate tax that was there for so long illegal. I understood why the government didn't do that, but I really thought this represented an opportunity for the Mike Harris government to perhaps take another look at this estate fee that they found to be so reprehensible and repulsive when the NDP was in power.
That did not happen, and I can understand that. The government has lost considerable revenue because of its 30% tax cut overall, which most benefits the wealthiest people in the province in terms of dollars. I hear the Conservative members say - I know they have speaking notes, and their speaking notes say, "You're supposed to say that the lowest-income people got the best break." What you have to understand is, what are the real dollars back in people's pockets? If you look at the real dollar amounts, the wealthiest people are going to get the most money. If you want to look at figures, $60,000 is more than $2,000. The bank presidents, who are well paid, are going to do much better than a person working at a fairly low-income job. There we are. We had a situation where we had a 30% tax cut implemented while we were running a deficit in this province.
I know there was a debate within the previous Conservative caucus. Some members of the now government caucus, at that time the opposition Conservative caucus - I won't mention them in the House tonight; I've mentioned them before - said, "What you do is wait until you balance the budget and then you can lower taxes." They didn't win that debate. As a result, the government has had to go out and borrow about $24 billion worth of additional funds to make up for that lost revenue. That's unfortunate.
Interjection.
Mr Bradley: Mr Parker mentions that they were slashing and burning as well - I think that's what I heard him say - at the same time. Most, in fact all, small-c conservative economists I've talked to about it have said that the combination of significant and substantial cuts to government expenditures and programs at the same time as implementing a provincial income tax cut would have a contractionary effect. Now, these aren't Liberals, these aren't socialists, these are your Conservative economists who will tell you that.
We are very fortunate in this province that we live next door to the United States, which is booming right now. The economy in the United States - I don't know who you can give credit to. Some people will say it's President Bill Clinton, others will say it's the United States Congress, others will say it's just good luck. But what has happened is that the United States is experiencing a booming economy and they are buying a lot of goods and services from the province of Ontario.
1940
Mr Ted Chudleigh (Halton North): Good luck? Been around long enough.
Mr Bradley: Perhaps the member for Halton wishes to give Bill Clinton the credit. I'll send a letter to the President that says the member for Halton agrees that it was President Clinton.
Mr Chudleigh: Good luck, Jim.
Mr Bradley: I say that; it's the President, perhaps. The point I'm making is that they have enjoyed a very good economy, and since we're very much an exporting province, we have done well in our exports to a booming economy. They've had low interest rates, and of course now we have low interest rates. Up until about 1992 or 1993, we had a high interest rate policy. I won't mention Brian Mulroney because that always starts my friend from Etobicoke-Humber with some interjections. So I won't mention Brian Mulroney was in power when we had the high interest rates. I simply won't mention that.
Another thing I always find amusing - I've said this in the House before and in most cases you can say that it's true, that it applies - is that when there's some good news, this government is first in line to take the credit. When there's something that might be bad news, they're last in line to take the responsibility.
Mr Douglas B. Ford (Etobicoke-Humber): You never give us credit for anything, Jim.
Mr Bradley: I do. I want to give you credit for something. Let me tell you, when we bring in the Vintners Quality Alliance Act - remember, I asked the government to bring that in? I said, "When you bring it in, I will be the first one with words of praise," and I was. I remember the night we talked about another piece of legislation dealing with brew pubs. During my remarks that night, I said: "You know something? What we need now is the Vintners Quality Alliance Act." The minister listened; I want to give him credit. When we have the debate on that bill, the first thing I'm going to say is I want to give him full credit for accepting my recommendation to bring in the vintners quality alliance bill. I know it will be a good bill. Just so the government members don't think I'm being negative all the time, I want to give some credit tonight.
But my friend the Minister of Municipal Affairs would know, for instance, that the Ontario child care supplement for working families, money that will become available - it's not available yet. The cheques will go out during the election campaign or just before the election campaign. That's a prediction I have. I could be wrong but I suspect it will be the case.
You know something? As I recall, $100 million of that is federal assistance; $40 million is from last year's child care tax credit. This is to create a new program. In other words, it's mostly federal money. But do you know whose name is going to be on the bottom of that cheque? I can tell you whose name is going to be on the bottom of the cheque: the provincial government representative. They'll characterize this as a provincial payment. That's what I mean when I say first in line to accept the credit, last in line to accept the responsibility. I think people should know that.
What was particularly cruel was the clawback I saw. There were some people who benefited - they're not well-off people; they're people of modest income, modest means - from a new government program in this field. The provincial government learned of it. You know how they always say: "If only you'll help these people. We need more in Ontario." So they put more in for these people and the Ontario government took it back. They had a clawback for those people. I'll tell you, that created a lot of resentment because they thought here was a step forward for once, and they were happy to see it - I was happy to see it as well - but the provincial government clawed it back from those people. Most unfair. It didn't allow those people to advance the way we would like. Most unfortunate, but that was the decision this government made.
Mr Ford: The feds are giving us 15 cents back -
Mr Bradley: I'm glad the member intervenes because it seems to me that when I see these transfer payments come to some provinces, they actually spend them on such things as health care and education and social services. When the federal government transfers money to Ontario, they give it away in the tax cut. They take the money and give it away in the tax cut, with the richest people in the province benefiting the most. I wonder about that. Yet they don't have money for the PSA test, the prostate-specific antigen test, which people have to pay for now. Men who reach a certain age and are more vulnerable to prostate cancer -
Mr John L. Parker (York East): I guess we should just raise taxes, Jim.
Mr Bradley: I'm glad you're intervening during this. I'll send the Hansard to the people who have written to me and called me about having prostate cancer and how much this test means to them. I'll send them the Hansard of that particular intervention. Thank you.
I look at that and say this is probably something where there's a consensus among the three parties that it's something the government should finance, because it's so important in the early detection of prostate cancer, which is important. Many of us have friends or relatives who have experienced prostate cancer. Some of our former colleagues in this House who are friends of ours have gone through this experience.
I had a letter just the other day from a person who lives in the Parry Sound area, someone I've known for a long time, who's a friend of Mr Eves as well. The person said how important that test was. The person was detected relatively early, was able to receive some considerable treatment and is doing quite well now. They certainly mentioned the PSA test as being important. I would hope that could be included in the future, because with all the money the government's going to get from the estate taxes, the probate fees, some of those funds could be directed into that particular test for people, to help them out.
I want to indicate as well, because I heard a member mention, and it is referred to in this bill, the land ambulance services. One of the transfers that took place that I don't think was appropriate - some may be appropriate; some of the transfers I think were accepted by municipalities - was the transfer of responsibility for land ambulances. That's something that is best under provincial jurisdiction. It allows the province to make sure there's some kind of equality across the province, although it's hard to have complete equality. It's something where we want to make sure every area has equal access, as much as is possible within the geographic conditions and the concentrations of population this province has.
Downloading that to the municipalities was not a particularly wise move. It may save the provincial government some considerable money. I think it will open the floodgates to huge American companies coming in here. There's already one, Rural/Metro, which has made incursions into Ontario. Rural/Metro, once it gets a substantial foothold here, is going to be charging an awful lot more than we pay at the present time for ambulance services, again something we consider to be basic here.
In the United States they consider that individuals shall pay for some of those things. That's why we say in Canada that generally speaking - there are exceptions to this now - we've been pretty proud in this province, all three parties, over the years, that we have had a system where your health care doesn't depend on the amount of money in your wallet or in your bank account but depends on the need you have. I think we should try to maintain that.
I see a danger that with the heavy infiltration of these American ambulance companies and the responsibilities going to municipalities which are already facing some additional financial burdens, what we're going to have instead is user fees in that particular field of health care, which are going to be fine for wealthy people but certainly not for those of modest income.
1950
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Bisson: The member for St Catharines raises a point yet again, and I think it's a good opportunity to comment on it: He talks about how the government somehow thinks Ontario is an island unto itself when it comes to the winds of the economy, both inside Canada and outside Canada, and more particularly with the United States.
The argument the Tories seem to be putting forward is that absolutely everything that's going on that's good in the economy of Ontario is based on this stupid, silly 30% tax cut that they put in place. They fail to recognize the reality is that the Ontario economy is very interlinked with what is happening in the American economy generally. Quite frankly, he was correct. The previous Conservative member tried to say that during the late 1980s and early 1990s the economy of the United States was not in a recession. I was wondering what American economy he was talking about, because I remember quite well what was happening in the economy. The member for St Catharines made the point. In fact, one of the reasons that George Bush, a very popular American president, didn't win his second term was because of the ills the American public had when it came to what was happening in the economy of the United States. They did not have confidence in their President to find some solutions to put forward in order to -
Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): That's not why George Bush lost.
Mr Bisson: Well, anyway, it really astounds me, because the reality is that our economies are interlinked. Yes, provincial governments can have a positive effect when it comes to being able to create jobs, but to somehow make it look as if everything that's going on is a result of this tax cut is really a silly idea. As I said before, to get the kind of effect that the Tories claim to get, you would have to cut taxes to the point where you'd have to shut down entire services. It makes absolutely no sense.
Mr Wettlaufer: I'd like to address the speech of the member for St Catharines. It's very interesting how he talks about the tax cuts of our government. I can recall that in the 1996 and 1997 finance committee pre-budget hearings for the Ministry of Finance, the Liberals' own finance critic, the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, advocated sales tax cuts. We had a number of presenters come to the hearings in those two years who were very well-known, very well-respected economists, and they told us right out that there was no benefit to sales tax cuts; however, there was tremendous benefit to the cuts in income tax. The Liberals can't have it both ways.
Mr Lessard: Sure they can. Come on.
Mr Wettlaufer: The NDP member for Windsor-Riverside says, "Yes, they can." Well, the Liberals try to have it both ways but they can't. You either advocate tax cuts or you don't, and we carried through on the one that had the most benefit for the consumers of Ontario.
In addition, they talk about the American economy and how well it's doing, and that it's because of the American economy that Ontario is doing so well. They also criticize Brian Mulroney, who was the Prime Minister of the day, who brought in free trade. Well, free trade has benefited all of Canada. Who opposed it? The Liberals opposed it. The NDP opposed it too, and neither one of them have yet to see the light.
They want to take credit for a lot of things they haven't carried through on, but we are the ones who took the action.
Mr Michael Brown: I'm always delighted when the member for St Catharines has one of his rare opportunities to speak in the House.
I didn't hear the member for St Catharines say - and I know he meant to say it, because he would recall that Mike Harris had said, "A fee is a tax." That's what he said, and today we are finding out that's exactly what he meant, because he is now turning a fee into a tax. He's coming before the Legislature today, finally, to make probate fees a tax. I had spoken about this issue back in May. The government of course waited for the court decision to make them so-called honest in this matter. I know I've got a lot of calls in my constituency where they are saying, "Now that these probate fees have been struck down, what's going to happen?" Well, now we can tell them: "The Harris government has made that fee a tax and you will have to pay. Anything you have paid is still paid because it's retroactive for 48 years."
Fees in general are pretty interesting with this government. Our numbers show they're up about 400% across the board as revenue sources for this government. That is absolutely astounding. In the liquor licensing board, for example, do you know what the price of transfering a liquor licence between a husband and wife is in Ontario today, just from one name to the other? It's $1,000, which is a fourfold increase over what it was before these people came to power. I agree with Mike Harris: A fee is a tax.
Mr Lessard: It's always a pleasure to respond to the remarks of the member for St Catharines because he always talks very conscientiously about where this government is going with its taxation policies in Ontario. Sometimes I think that maybe the next member of the Liberal caucus to come over and join us here in the back row should be the member for St Catharines because of the way he speaks with a social conscience about so many issues. He talks about the unfairness of the Tory tax scheme. I agree with him a lot of times when he mentions that point of view.
I don't know whether he mentioned the propaganda that this government is involved in to try and sell its budget agenda to the people of Ontario; almost $50 million in propaganda that they've been spending. I've just got a few things I received in my own mailbox. Here's one: Welfare Reform: Making Welfare Work. That was one I got recently. Then there was another one: Health Report to Taxpayers. That was a nice-looking one as well. Then I got this one, which is probably the one that I got the most calls in my office about: Find out more about what the Harris government is doing about education. That was one that people were quite upset about, I can tell you. Then I got another one about education that I used to measure my son's height. He'll be six years old in December and his name is Brett. It's quite useful. I've got this one: Report to Taxpayers: Jobs and the Economy. I've run out of my two minutes and I haven't even got through all these brochures yet.
The Deputy Speaker: The member for St Catharines has two minutes to respond.
Mr Bradley: I appreciate the remarks of each of the members. I'm sorry I forgot to mention the propaganda. The member has mentioned that now. I'm expecting any day now that the taxpayers coalition will be protesting the $50 million that this government is now spending on what I would call self-serving, blatantly political advertising.
Mr Bart Maves (Niagara Falls): It's not $50 million.
Mr Bradley: It's now up to that. I think the member for Niagara Falls should know that there are some new commercials out. Perhaps he hasn't heard them. There are some new commercials out that have now hiked the price, and I suspect there will be more pamphlets. Every time I go to the mailbox there's a new pamphlet paid for by the taxpayers. I think a lot of the taxpayers don't realize that the entire cost of that comes out of their pockets; money that could go to keeping the Hotel Dieu Hospital in St Catharines open; money that could go to keeping schools open, such as Merritton High School, Lakeport Secondary School, St Catharines Collegiate, Lakebreeze Elementary School; money that could go to pay for that PSA test, the prostate-specific antigen test. Instead it's being squandered on self-serving political advertising.
These are the slick television commercials, these are the radio commercials, these are the full-page ads that we see in newspapers, and precious few editorials - I know the Brantford Expositor had one - condemning them. I don't know why. And of course, the pamphlets that we get.
This is from a government that was going to save money, that would never squander money on anything that wasn't absolutely essential. That's what Mike Harris was going to be all about. Now here he is, making sure he's got all that money from those probate fees, those huge increases. He's now confirming them. He's squandering thousands and millions, $50 million now, on self-serving political advertising, and this from the person who was supposed to be the taxpayers' friend.
2000
The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Marchese: I would remind the good people of Ontario who are watching that we now only have 10 minutes to speak on this magnum opus. As you can imagine, how can we, in nine minutes or so, touch on the many things that are contained in this bill?
The intent of this government has always been to make sure we have a bottleneck kind of debate in this House so that, as you get to the neck, you get the picture of how little debate there is, as a result of the changes this government has made.
The member for St Catharines, just to touch on this, talked about the advertising of this government. To a question addressed to him, the Premier of Ontario said, "We've been consulting with people and they've been saying to us, `Talk to us.'" That's what he said. The Premier said that people are saying out there, "Talk to us."
His response is, these fetid materials that people have to deal with - and I say "fetid" to the extent that this government, when they were on this very side, said that it was improper for the government of the time to spend money to communicate with the people of Ontario. That is why people like us in the opposition are angry, not necessarily because a government decides to spend money to communicate with the public, that it's a bad thing. But to have heard from the opposition at the time that what we did was wrong and to see them now do the very same things they attacked us on, in the mind and the words of the Premier as being talking to people only, I find that contradictory and unacceptable.
We need to point those things out. When the members for Halton Centre, Kitchener and others say that this income tax cut is a good thing, we need to present the other view, and the other view, in my humble opinion, is a very cogent one. My point is that there is no evidence to support their argument that giving a $6-billion income tax cut is going to spur the economy on.
Mr Wettlaufer: It already has.
Mr Marchese: There is absolutely no evidence other than hearsay and other than these fine Tories saying -
Mr Maves: And 450,000 jobs.
Mr Marchese: - and they laugh and they say, "How about these 450,000 jobs?" These jobs are not connected to the income tax cut. There is no economist I am aware of -
Mr Young: They just don't get it.
Mr Marchese: We need the member for Halton Centre, on a fine day, to produce some evidence here in this House and say: "The member for Fort York, I've got it. Here it is." I await that moment from these two members next to me -
Mr Wettlaufer: Read the finance committee reports from Hansard.
Mr Marchese: - because all they can say to us is, "It is true because we Tories say so."
To continue, this $6-billion income tax cut isn't money that you have in your pocket. You've got to borrow money to give it away to people. That's why you guys have a big deficit. That's why you are loading the rest of us with a big tax deficit, because you had to borrow close to $20 billion to give wealthy Ontarians a tax break. While the CEOs make millions of dollars, they are the very ones who are saying, "You're spending too much on social programs; you're spending too much on health; you're spending too much on education," as they take from you that income tax cut that they do not need.
To borrow $20 billion, to keep the deficit high so that we can have user fees to make up for that difference, so that you can make your wealthy friends happy - it is obscene. It is more than obscene to have these Tories argue the benefits of such a plan when it's devastating the middle class that's left, the working poor, the poor and the homeless.
In this bill there is mention of the Ambulance Act as part of the first order of business in this particular magnum opus, and it's a $200-million download to the property taxpayers and to the tenants of Ontario. These people have not just downloaded ambulances to the tune of $200 million; they have downloaded many of the health services, amounting to $250 million, as well. They've downloaded housing, they've downloaded child care, they've downloaded welfare to the municipalities. When you boys claimed that you were going to disentangle this whole process, you then entangled municipalities with more costs.
There is in this bill an attempt to deal with your $200-million child care which you announced in 1996, and did nothing. You then re-announced it in 1997 as a tax credit. Then you scrapped that program - it's pretty well dead - and you're introducing $85 a month for each child under seven. This is called the Ontario child care supplement - nothing to do with child care, no link necessarily to child care except that hopefully before Christmas you're going to send everybody an $85 child care supplement. It will not increase child care one ounce in Ontario. It's all neatly designed to introduce something so that the people of Ontario can say: "Eighty-five bucks is better than nothing. Thank you, Mike Harris, for that gift. We could use it."
Sure, you whacked social assistance recipients with close to a $600-million cut. You then take some of that money and give it back to some folks and you say: "Look, we're helping you out. We're giving you $85 a month as a child care supplement."
Do you see the shell game? I know you don't, Speaker, but good folks of Ontario, you see the shell game. You take money out of here and then you give it back and you say, "We're giving you money." It's like the income tax cut. We give you money here and then we whack you with a whole lot of user fees. We've got birth certificates that you probably had to pay $10 for. Now you've got to pay $60 for that birth certificate. You've got tuition fees doubling under these fine people here. You've got access to private information files that have doubled or tripled. You've got prescription fees. You've got poor folk out there having to pay a whole heap of money for this income tax cut that you say is creating 420,000 jobs.
It's pitiful; it really is. It's the job of the electorate and it's our job to find the time, as we debate these bills, to raise these issues. There is in this magnum opus yet another matter dealing with the Teachers' Pension Act and these fine Tories once again dictatorially, unilaterally decided to change the benefits of that pension act and they've decided not to consult the teachers, the federations involved in this. I assume that again in their omnipotence and good kindness, good grace, they didn't have to consult with these people because I'm assuming that they would say: "We know what we're doing. We don't have to consult the federations because what we have done is something they will like."
That may or may not be true, but it's a big program for teachers and they want not just to be consulted but to be part of the decision-making process. So the federations are saying: "Let us sever this bill. Let's sever that part of this particular bill so we can deal with it and give you the benefit of our experience, because it affects us."
This is a big bill and you people put it all together as a way of minimizing the debate. Ten minutes is not adequate for this kind of debate. There is a whole lot to say. We want to urge the people of Ontario to pay attention to what is happening in this place, to fight back, to ask questions of these fine people who haven't read this bill and don't know what's in it.
2010
The Deputy Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Galt: It is quite interesting to hear the member for Fort York, his usual kind of speech, but I think the word that really stands out was when he talked about being "obscene." I think what's been obscene in this past while was a doubling of the debt back in the early 1990s, the increase of taxes, over 30 tax increases while they were in office. That indeed was obscene.
They talk about the booming economy in the US. That didn't start on June 8, 1995. The economy was booming in the US in the early 1990s when this province was going through a massive recession, the most significant recession since back in the Dirty Thirties. That is what's obscene about what has been going on in this province; devastating, what that government did to Ontario and to the residents. They weren't the spenders like the Liberals back in the late 1980s. They doubled spending. They had no idea where to start or stop with the spending; they just taxed and spent and taxed and spent. But it was the NDP that just went out and borrowed, and borrowed extensively, so that we had a horrendous debt.
He talks about downloading and ambulance services and disentanglement. They started talking about disentangling, and it was just a great idea, but what happened? It died on the order paper. They got into a social contract. They broke every contract that the government had in Ontario. Absolutely every contract was broken by the NDP government. That is what I would refer to as being truly obscene, when they would do that kind of thing to every collective agreement. This is a socialist party, they had a socialist government, they believed in collective agreements and what did they do? They broke absolutely every one that was in the province. Trying to balance the budget and trying to cut spending I agree with, but not breaking every collective agreement.
Mr Bradley: My first lament is that the member didn't have at least 20 minutes to be able to address his remarks to this very comprehensive bill, because how can he possibly canvass all the issues that are part of this bill in 10 minutes?
I note as well that the member, while he made some early reference to the spending orgy of this government on advertising, didn't get the chance he would have had if he'd had full time to talk about the fact that every time you turn on your television set and see one of those government of Ontario ads, you have to know you're paying for that. Those are your hard-earned dollars that could go to more productive expenditures being spent on government advertising.
The member would be aware that there are a number of user fees which have gone up under this government. Mike Harris, when he was leader of the Conservative Party and not leader of the government, particularly when he was talking about his leadership campaign against Dianne Cunningham, said that a tax increase is the same as a fee, so if you raise fees, you have raised taxes. I think if you look carefully at this government, you will see that throughout the government it has increased its fees rather significantly. While it brings down one tax, it increases fees.
We know that user fees do not take into account a person's ability to pay, and the member would know that, therefore the wealthiest people in the province are quite able to pay fees, whether it's at the local level, a health care fee or something else. The wealthiest people do not find it an imposition, but people of modest income, people who are having these so-called new jobs in the economy, $8-, $9- and $10-dollar-an-hour jobs, would find it mighty difficult to meet those fees. I know the member may want to make reference to that in his wrap-up.
Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): I just wanted to comment on the presentation made by my colleague from Fort York and say, as has been mentioned by the member for St Catharines, that had he had a little bit more time, I'm sure he would have been able to comment further on some of the other pieces in this legislation, the part, for example, that deals with the changes to the Teachers' Pension Act and purports to simply put into legislation the changes that were agreed upon between the government and the teachers' federation with respect to the Teachers' Pension Act, changes which the Ontario Teachers' Federation is now saying to us and to the government they had virtually no time to look at and that they were not consulted in a real way until after the legislation was introduced. They have not had any opportunity to actually look through it, and as they are beginning to look through this legislation, they are worried about the potential impact of some of the changes suggested in here, so they've asked that this particular section be severed.
I'll be interested in what the government says, because I know that my colleague from Fort York would agree with me that the most sensible thing for the government to do would be to heed the advice of the Ontario Teachers' Federation and simply, at the very least, sever the last part from the bill and allow proper time for discussion. That advice is something the government could follow in other areas of policy as well as other pieces of this legislation, but we know that the government intends to proceed with this, so we will wait to see the impact of some of the other changes.
In the fashion that has come to be the norm for this government, they ram through legislation without thinking it through, without letting it go through the normal process of discussion, having bills go out to committee, and then we discover later down the line that they have to bring in a subsequent piece of legislation, as they have done in the property tax fiasco, to fix the mistakes they have made by hurrying as they have in the earlier stages.
Mr Chudleigh: The member for Fort York asked for evidence that tax cuts create jobs. I've got it. Here is the proof - 30% cut in the tax rate: double the growth of the other nine provinces, 440,000 new jobs and going up; revenues up by $6 billion and going up; consumer spending, the highest in years; auto industry, booming; housing starts, the highest in eight years; health care spending, the highest in history; education spending, the highest in history; tax revenues, the highest in history and going up; 340,000 fewer people on welfare and going down; interest rates, going down; unemployment, going down. In fact, everything that should be up is up and everything that should be down is down. Member for Fort York, I've got it. Listen. This is the proof.
The Speaker (Hon Chris Stockwell): Response.
Mr Marchese: Would that the NDP had had these good economic times that these Tories have been blessed with. We didn't have the same blessing.
Mr Young: Here we go: good fortune again.
Mr Marchese: Many of you will know, those of you who have made this casual observation, that unemployment was very high as a result of high unemployment in the country. We had a great deal of cost in welfare. The transfer payments were down. As a result of high unemployment, we had revenues that were down.
The member for Halton North says, "Here is the evidence, income tax cuts," and then he lists a whole series of things that are going on, and by corollary links them magically.
Mr Young: It's all good news.
Mr Marchese: It's not evidence that one is linked to the other. That's the point. Bring in the evidence, Halton Centre.
The member for Northumberland talks about the word "obscene." I will tell you why it is obscene. We borrowed when we were in government to pay for our needs, because the economy was down and we faced the worst recession in the history of Canada, literally close to the worst since 1929. What's obscene is that in the good times these Tories have had over the last three years, they're borrowing billions and billions of dollars for the income tax cut, as a result of which we have the kind of deficit that these people are trying to deal with. The reason the deficit is not at zero is that we have borrowed $20 billion to give out the $6 billion in income tax cuts. That's why it's obscene, because we're doing that in good times. When we should have reduced the deficit to zero, they're borrowing. That's obscene.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Galt: Just listening to the wrap-up of the member for Fort York and some of his comments, I have some empathy for him and his party, because the recession was in place when they took office and it was a result of the tax, spend and borrow policies of that previous government, which had gone hog-wild with their spending, with their taxation. No wonder we were into recessionary times in the early 1990s. But it was only their policies that maintained it. They could have turned it around with the proper economic policies.
Bill 81, the Tax Credits and Revenue Protection Act, completes all the budgetary activities or things that were brought out in the budget back in 1998. The measures in this bill are the result of consulting, the result of listening to the people of Ontario and expressing those concerns in the budget and, as a result, into this particular bill. This bill is about helping the average, ordinary person here in Ontario, the hard-working small business owner, helping the hard-working parents of the province, as well as helping Ontarians with disabilities.
2020
This bill is about creating jobs, and along with many of our other tax cuts, it will create a tremendous number of jobs. In this particular area we're talking about tax credits, a whole wide range of tax credits that will leave capital for the business owner to reinvest. By reinvesting, we'll be able to create jobs. We're not talking about low-paying jobs, as we often hear the opposition say, we're talking about good-paying jobs in the high-tech industries. This is something the Minister of Finance mentioned just the other day, the number of jobs that will be created there, such as digital imaging, computer animation and special effects. These are the kinds of things the tax credit will help to stimulate.
By doing this, we're helping our Canadian culture and some of the things that are happening there. We're providing a boost to the recording industry. It will be one of the largest promoters of Canadian talent. In the movie industry and the entertainment industry, we have a tremendous amount of Canadian talent. We used to hear about our Canadian talent going to Hollywood, to California. That's not necessary today with the kind of films that are being produced right around Queen's Park here in Toronto. This will amount to something in the neighbourhood of a 20% refundable tax credit for those areas that qualify.
There's also a real advantage in this bill for small business. We're looking at ways of developing capital for small business. One is through the community small business investment fund, and this bill will extend the deadline until December 31, 1999. I'm particularly interested in this aspect of the bill, nicknamed CSBIS, community small business investments funds. In my riding we're developing one of the first ones. It's probably the leading one in Ontario. They're working very hard to make it work, to raise the kind of capital that will be of assistance to small business.
Bill 81 is a real help to families. It's going to help keep families intact. We all realize the tremendous stress on families. Often, when their children are teenagers it's a particularly trying time, not only for the parents but also for the teenagers as they're sprouting their wings. Also, we're living in a time when it's tough for some middle-income earners just to raise enough money for clothing and food for the table.
The child tax credit is going to recognize $1,020 per child for each child under the age of seven. I heard the member for Fort York saying that it's not going to help at all. I beg to differ with him. I'm sure that many of those parents are going to appreciate that $1,020 for each of their children. We're talking about not just a few families but in the neighbourhood of 210,000 families in Ontario. It's going to assist those parents in being able to maintain their jobs and help ensure that those children are going to be properly cared for. It's going to actually go further than that by reimbursing the parents for some of the cost of child care.
It's a proactive stance that we're taking in regard to this. It's going to stimulate the construction and renovation of child care spaces here in Ontario. This is the kind of legislation that demonstrates that our government is very committed: committed to the family, committed to the community and committed to people who work hard and who want the very best for the children in Ontario.
I'm pleased to see that in this bill we're also recognizing Ontarians with disabilities. We'll take a proactive approach to helping people with those disabilities by offering a tax incentive. It's looking at businesses. Even if they're not incorporated, they can receive a refundable tax credit. Bill 81 encourages businesses to employ persons with disabilities, and it recognizes disabled people's strengths and potential as contributors to Ontario and the workplace here in the province.
All in all, we have a great record as a government with tax cuts and balancing the budget. Since June 8, 1995, to be exact, we've brought in some 66 tax cuts. This bill will bring in further tax cuts to stimulate the economy here in the province. This is about demonstrating our proof that we're fulfilling the commitment we made when we came to office. We've been cutting taxes through the commercial and industrial education area, the tax rates in those classes. We're also cutting small business corporate taxes by up to half.
This year our deficit is all the way down to $4.2 billion. The previous government was running consistently over $10 billion, at times approaching $14 billion and $15 billion per year. We're talking about the deficit, not the debt. That was the level it was running at.
This bill also demonstrates our commitment to developing a strong economy, jobs and growth. It's helping to fulfill the potential of people who live in this province. We're coming with a balanced budget, lower taxes and spending within our means. It's the elimination of needless barriers to growth, innovation and initiative. It's going to stimulate employment opportunities for all Ontarians.
In summary about this bill, we have been listening as a government to the people of Ontario and we're responding to their concerns. It's a real joy to be part of a government that listens, that consults.
It's interesting to see some of the figures on our government compared to the two previous governments regarding how much consulting has been going on. In the first session our government sat 361 days and passed 89 bills, the NDP sat 385 days in total and passed 163 bills, while the Liberals sat 297 days and passed 183 bills.
If we look at the length of time for something like second readings, in the first session we spent four hours and 50 minutes, the NDP spent one hour and 28 minutes, while the Liberals only spent one hour and eight minutes.
If you look at third readings and how much time they actually spent, the PCs spent two hours and 10 minutes, the NDP spent 48 minutes and the Liberals, on third readings in the first session, spent all of seven minutes. That's the kind of listening, that's the kind of consultation the Liberals were doing.
When they went out on the road on hearings, our government spent 773 hours and 29 minutes, the NDP were close behind with 645 hours, while the Liberals came in at only 349 hours and 45 minutes, less than half the time this government has been spending out on the road listening and consulting with the people of Ontario, yet we hear Liberals standing and criticizing us for not enough consultation.
It's a pleasure for me to be able to speak on Bill 81, a bill that's a result of listening to the people of Ontario, a bill about cutting taxes and ensuring we get the budget balanced here in Ontario.
The Speaker: Comments and questions?
Mr Mike Colle (Oakwood): I want to comment on the member for Northumberland's remarks. The problem with a lot of the members of the Conservative government is that they have a different understanding of the word "listen." In Bill 81 there is a major change for one of the stakeholders, the teachers' pension fund, and you never consulted with them. You arbitrarily changed their pension without asking them. That's called listening?
You think listening is spending $47 million on one-way propaganda on television, spending millions dictating propaganda to people with their own money. You call that consultation. The people of Ontario are fed up with that. They're saying, "Stop spending our money trying to brainwash us, because we don't believe you know what you're doing."
This is another example of a bill which tries to camouflage all the reckless, unpredictable, almost demolition derby type of approach you have to government. You have no respect for people and their ability to have input. You ride roughshod over people over and over again, and in this bill you do the same thing.
This bill does very little for working families. They still have to line up to take their kids to emergency. That's what working families are worried about. They can't trust that their child or their older parent can go to hospital and get decent care. They're saying that a government that has fouled up the hospital and health system so much had better start to pay attention. All the propaganda you put on television is not going to make the people of Ontario forget what you're doing to their families, what you're doing to their hospitals, what you're doing to their schools.
2030
Mr Marchese: The members talk about all the good things they have done, the great things they do. I hear from a lot of people in my riding - and I've got a good mix of people in my riding - who say, "If things are as great as they claim, why are we having it so bad?" That's what they're feeling and that's what they're experiencing. People are saying, "We are working a lot more and longer for less." People in a family are working at wages that are not what they used to be. In fact, two people have to work to make the salary or wages that one person used to make 10 years ago. People are working harder and longer for less.
People are now suffering at the hands of this government as it relates to everything connected to hospitals, everything connected to the care of seniors, of families, of children in our hospital system. It shouldn't be this way. In an economy that is booming, things should be flowing a lot more smoothly, and they're not. The educational system should be flowing a lot more smoothly, and it is not.
If things are so great, why are so many people so unhappy? If the income tax is so good, why are people out there saying: "Why are all these services being cut? Why is everything unhealthy with our health care system? Why is our educational system in chaos if things are so great?" They're beginning to understand that things are not as they appear, that things are not what you want them to believe, in spite of the propaganda that's costing you millions and millions of dollars, which you decried when you were in opposition.
The opposition has barely enough time to debate these bills. We oppose it.
Mr Maves: Speaker, may I compliment you on your shoe selection for this evening.
I just want to congratulate the member for Northumberland. The member for Northumberland always adds very thoughtful contributions to any debate in this Legislature and he's done that once again tonight. The member is always very happy to stand up and talk about the record of this government, whether it be the 450,000 net new jobs that have been created since we took office or the more than 300,000 people off dependence on welfare. He's very quick to bring those points forward.
The members opposite wonder why people out there sometimes seem confused and not understanding the very positive record this government has had, not only the job creation and people off welfare but that the deficit has gone from over $11 billion down to $3 billion and we're moving towards a balanced budget ahead of schedule.
I can compare my own region. Back in 1993, I recall picking up a newspaper and seeing a StatsCan report pointing to 15% unemployment in the Niagara region. It was among the highest in the country at the time. Today we're at 6.7% in Niagara, one of the lowest in the country. My good friend from Hamilton, Mrs Ross, has a little bit better unemployment rate in Hamilton, due largely to the good job that she and Mr Skarica and several others in this government have done. But we're pretty proud about 6.7% and we're getting better.
One of the things my constituents have always talked to me about for the past three years is, "We like what you do and we like the direction of the government, we like the results, but you need to communicate it better." So we started to communicate to the public the true facts of what's happening in Ontario today. The members opposite don't like that. They did it, but when we do it, it seems to be a problem.
Mr Michael Brown: I want to speak just a little bit about the one section of this omnibus bill that deals with the Ontario child care supplement for working families. In this barrage of $47 million worth of government propaganda, there is one commercial people should be listening to, and that's how to apply for this. I want to tell my constituents that this is real and it will help those working families in Algoma-Manitoulin and along the North Shore. What I should also tell them, which the ad of course omits, is that the funding for this $140-million program is shared in this manner: $100 million from the federal government and $40 million from Ontario.
Mr Klees: It's about time the feds started to be concerned about that.
Mr Michael Brown: The member might say it's about time and it could be true, but all I'm saying is that that is the formula, that's what's happening. A straightforward ad would have told them that the bulk of this program is being paid from the federal treasury. Regardless of whether we want to play partisan politics or not, it is a good thing for many of the people in Algoma-Manitoulin. Contact the 800 line, contact my office, find out how to apply for this and make sure that you're eligible, because the cheque will be meaningful to you.
The second thing I would like to say to the members who are applauding and getting all excited about the great, wonderful economy in Ontario is that that may be true, and we can all speculate on what the various reasons are, but along the North Shore of Lake Huron the unemployment rate is about 15.5%. We have to do something about that, and it's time, instead of getting lots of silly rhetoric around here, that we address that problem.
The Speaker: Response, member for Northumberland.
Mr Galt: It's interesting, the comments from the member for Algoma-Manitoulin and the member for Niagara Falls talking about unemployment. It brings to mind the fact that last month the figures came out in our region and they're down to 4.75%, a drop of some 4% over the last year. I had to double-check; it was hard for me to believe that we were back to 4.75% again.
It was interesting to hear the member for Fort York and some of his comments that people were complaining to him about working longer and earning less. That sounds like a bit of a contradiction when he's also complaining about our tax cuts, when we're trying to help them out and leave more money in their pockets. I was sitting here a little puzzled over that comment when I started to realize that, yes, that does make sense, because here's the federal government increasing payroll taxes - on the Canada pension plan, on unemployment insurance - and that's the reason they're taking home less.
It's hard to believe that the federal government would do that kind of thing, that the Liberals in Ottawa would rip that much money out of their pockets just to build up a fund, for whatever reason I really don't know. The only reason they have balanced their budget is because of the stimulus of the economy by the province of Ontario. I can tell you, there'd be no balanced budget in Ottawa today if the economy had not been stimulated in Ontario.
You see it every day. I'm going to see it when I'm heading home this evening. There'll be a dozen transports in a solid row going down 401. That was not happening in 1995. The transports were scattered. The trains on the CN and CP tracks are more plentiful and much longer than they were before, another indication of the economy being stimulated by things like our tax cuts, that seem to irritate the opposition to no end. I guess it's because they hadn't thought of the idea.
2040
The Speaker: Further debate? The member for Oakwood.
Mr Colle: This is a budget bill. Some of the other members have mentioned that this government is trying to take all the credit for all the good things that are happening in the economy. Certainly the public out there knows that no one government should take the credit, but this government will always do that. They will never share the credit, because they believe that they alone have all the power, they alone do good, they alone know best. The public is sick and tired of that attitude from this government, because the public wants a fair and honest approach.
They know that in previous years, when they had the recession in the late 1980s and the early 1990s, you couldn't put the finger on one government, such as the NDP provincially. Most objective people knew that those conditions were out of the control of the provincial government and out of the control of the federal government. They were worldwide conditions, North American conditions. The public knows better than to just scapegoat or blame one government.
This government comes along and says: "Previous governments caused the recession, they added to it, but we came along and we undid the recession. It was the Common Sense Revolutionaries that turned around this economy, despite what was happening in the United States, despite what was happening in Europe. The Common Sense Revolutionaries are better and brighter than anyone else." That's the attitude the public of Ontario is sick and tired of. That attitude has ended up almost destroying our hospitals. That's what that attitude has done, because they've been so reckless. They haven't listened to nurses, they haven't listened to patients. They just bulldozed ahead, thinking they knew best, and you see what they've done to our hospitals.
There's the record. Go to your local hospital, talk to your local doctors and nurses and find out what they've done to your hospital, if they haven't closed it. In my community they've closed the hospital, almost a new hospital, about 25 years old. This government closed it a year ahead of schedule and, believe it or not, all of a sudden they found emergencies and crises all across Metro Toronto. This government closed six emergency departments in Toronto and they wonder why there are lineups and chaos for people seeking emergency care. They wonder. They said it was the January flu. That's what they said at the time.
This is a government that doesn't think, it acts, then tries to use television propaganda to cover up its mistakes. They spend the money that should have been going into the hospitals, basically doubling the negative impact on the community. They take the money out of the hospitals, they make the emergencies unworkable, and then instead of putting the money back in to reopen the emergencies, they spend that $47 million on propaganda on television.
People are very upset about that. They're upset about their hospitals being destroyed by you and they're upset by the propaganda you're using to try and cover it up with their own money that you should be putting into hospitals, that you should be putting into schools. Instead, what do you do? You pay your friends in the advertising industry to put these fancy American commercials on television. They're sick and tired of you using their money to try and brainwash them. They're telling you to stop. The more you do it, the more you remind people of the havoc you've created in our hospitals, the more you remind them of the chaos you've created in their schools.
You were a government that set up a plan on this ludicrous 100-square-foot formula. You treated children based on a 100-square-foot formula. The people of Ontario said, "This is nuts. Don't treat our kids based on 100 square feet," and you saw what they did. The people of Ontario said, "Enough." They stopped you from closing down their schools. You had to put the money back into the schools. You had to back off. Your own Premier had to come here on a Friday afternoon to Toronto and beg the mayor of Toronto to let him reopen the schools and put the money back in, because the people of Toronto and all across Ontario said you went too far with your reckless approach to education and what you were doing in this province to their children.
Mr Joseph Spina (Brampton North): The biggest whiners in the province with a mayor like Mel Lastman.
Mr Colle: Mr Speaker, do I have the floor?
The Acting Speaker (Mr Carl DeFaria): Yes.
Mr Colle: Thank you.
The parents and the families in this province have seen what you've done to their children's schools. They've seen what you've done in creating the homeless problem. They've seen what you've done in creating affordable housing in this province and city, where people this winter in this city of Toronto will not find adequate housing because you walked away from your responsibility to house people in need: seniors, people with disabilities, people who are unfortunate. You've walked away from that responsibility.
All the categorical rhetoric about how great things are, driving down the highway with tractors wheel to wheel, doesn't sell to people who don't have a place to live, who see their schools about to close and see their hospitals close. They see that as being more important than what you're trying to achieve through your television propaganda. They're saying, "Put those dollars and cents back into the schools, the hospitals and housing the poor." That's what they want to see with their money: Take care of the vulnerable because they need a helping hand and they just don't need television commercials, on which you spend all your time.
Television commercials, then, are going to also help solve the welfare problem and the workfare problem. What did they do? They spent $180 million and wrote a blank cheque to an American consulting firm, Andersen. They basically gave them a blank cheque of $180 million to fix the welfare problem. This is a government that prides itself on watching its dollars and cents and being tough on those welfare people, as they call them, yet Andersen Consulting, a multinational, multi-million-dollar corporation, gets $180 million given to them scot-free. They even are allowed to submit expenses for $1.5 million.
Hon Janet Ecker (Minister of Community and Social Services): No, they haven't. Check your facts over there. Liberal research strikes again.
Mr Colle: I know the minister who gave them the money is heckling over there. She wrote the cheque. I would be ashamed if I were you.
Hon Mrs Ecker: They don't have that much money. They didn't get it.
Mr Klees: On a point of order, Speaker: I think you'll agree that this is in fact a point of order, because it's important for members in this Legislature to know -
Mr Michael Brown: Time.
Mr Colle: He's taking my time.
Mr Klees: - that the member misspeaks himself when he says that Andersen Consulting received $180 million.
Mr Michael Brown: That's not a point of order.
Mr Klees: They did not, and that is a fact.
The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order. Member for Oakwood.
Mr Colle: Can I have my time back? He took my time.
I know the member stood up to defend Andersen Consulting and the minister is trying to defend Andersen Consulting, but the people of Ontario were disgusted at seeing their hard-earned money that could have been spent on hospitals -
Mr Michael Brown: The Provincial Auditor says that.
Mr Colle: The Provincial Auditor had about 15 pages of it. I know the members didn't want to read the auditor's report, but there was money that could have been used in schools and hospitals, helping to house the elderly and the sick. Instead they wrote a cheque for $180 million to a consulting firm that was supposed to fix the welfare problem. That's what this government's priorities are. They're into protecting people like Andersen Consulting. The bigger you are, the more they'll protect you. But if you're an elderly person who's trying to pay for your prescription drugs, they hit you with user fees. Every time they go for a drug that they need prescribed by their doctor, they get hit by a tax.
That's what this government fails to realize, that they should spend more time protecting the elderly, who need some help. Not that they want it all the time, but when they're sick they deserve some help in hospitals. They deserve some help in paying for their medication. They don't deserve user fees, they don't deserve to be treated like second-class citizens when they go to their local hospital, and they don't want their hospitals to be closed.
2050
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Silipo: The member for Oakwood is quite correct to criticize the government for having the wrong priorities when it comes to the people of Ontario, for spending millions of dollars on what is really nothing more than partisan advertising that goes way beyond the nature of any advertising that other parties in power have ever done in the past and which is clearly of much more of a partisan nature.
I was struck by the response from across the way when he talked about the issue of Andersen Consulting. It's true, and I think we have to say this to the government, that the $180 million hadn't all been paid out, but the question we have to ask ourselves is, what would have happened if the auditor had not reviewed that particular program? That money would have been paid out far beyond what is reasonable for the services that Andersen Consulting provided.
I'd be very happy to listen, in response to the member for Oakwood, to government members, whether it's the Minister of Community and Social Services or anybody else who wants to stand up and tell us, to this day, after the report of the auditor has come out, after all the questions we have raised and others have raised in this House, what the minister has done to recover all of those overpayments that have gone out to Andersen Consulting. She's quite quick to deal with overpayments, and she should be, with respect to the situation in the welfare system, but what about the great overpayment that was made to Andersen Consulting? How much of that has been recovered? I suspect not a great deal of it yet.
Hon Mrs Ecker: It doesn't have to be. There wasn't an overpayment that should have been recovered.
Mr Silipo: Oh, "It doesn't have to be," the minister says. It was paid far more than should have been paid. The auditor himself said that. Here's the minister today: On the one hand, she has been saying that, yes, she acknowledges the program was not the best program set up, and now she says that money does not have to be recovered. That's exactly the kind of attitude we continue to see from this government.
Mr Maves: It's always a pleasure to rise and comment on the member for Oakwood's comments. He didn't talk about Bill 81 at all, so I guess that means I don't have to either. I enjoy the member. I know right now he's on to the cheap ticket deal that the city councillors in Toronto I think have going with basketball and hockey and some of the theatres. I understand he's going to go after that, make that a little public. That's good, and I'm glad to see him doing that.
Over the past couple of years I know that member opposite has done a few things like that, and I've really enjoyed that he would take them on, but the very reason this government finds it necessary to communicate with the public more is because of the rhetoric that member spewed earlier on in his comments, the whole idea of the $180 million paid to Andersen Consulting. He was corrected by the parliamentary assistant for that ministry. That indeed wasn't spent.
The very honourable member for Dovercourt, whom I have a great deal of respect for in this Legislature, got up and clarified that indeed the $180 million wasn't paid out, yet the member for Oakwood continually stands up and uses the figure, and he knows it's not true. That's why people at home get confused and that's why people at home say, "What's really happening?" When you go out on the hustings and you go door to door and you talk to people they say, "Why don't you communicate more, tell us more of what's happening, explain what's happening in health care, explain what's happening in education?"
That's exactly what this government is doing, and we're not alone. Don't anyone ever think that we're alone. The NDP government before us and the Liberals before them all spent a heck of a lot of more money on advertising than this government ever has. It's important to communicate with the public.
The members opposite are upset because they think that we shouldn't communicate what's happening, that we should let them continue to spew rhetoric forward and let the public just believe in that rhetoric, but things need to be clarified. The public is owed that type of communication.
Mr Bradley: I'm surprised to hear the remarks of my friend from Niagara Falls about the advertising, because it's simply indefensible. The government members who say nothing are better off, because when you think of it, if you want to know what people are about, you would have said, "Mike Harris wanted to be about cutting and about getting rid of any frivolous spending," and he has been the one who has engaged in the worst orgy of partisan political advertising I've ever witnessed in this province.
The members keep bringing forward information which is simply not true, not correct, because what you don't consider is that when we talk about the $50 million you're spending, we don't count your advertising outside the country for the purposes of tourism, we don't count how much you're spending on tenders that you must put in the paper, or committee hearings and things of that nature. That's what you put in when you talk about the other parties. We do not count that. We're dealing only with what we consider to be, and listen, a lot of Tories consider to be, a frivolous waste of taxpayers' money.
You already have lots of money in your coffers. You've catered your policies to the richest and most wealthy people in this province. They have paid back many times by attending your fundraisers. I understand that. Your party has millions of dollars to spend, and yet you're not content with that; you're taking taxpayers' dollars, every penny of that, to spend on it.
The last thing I mention is that I didn't know about this article in Eye magazine when I was talking about why the province won't enter into the suit. But here's the province of Ontario: It will not enter the suit, along with the government of British Columbia, against the major tobacco companies. There's somebody you could really take on. That's somebody big and that's somebody tough. I'd like to see you bully them around instead of the small people.
Mr Klees: I too have a great deal of respect for the member for Oakwood. Typically, when he debates in this place, he brings forward, with some clarity, issues that relate to the legislation before the House, which he failed to do this time, and he typically is very objective. We will often not have the same view on issues, but he will, on most occasions at least, represent the issue fairly. He didn't do that, in my opinion, in the debate this evening.
He continued to misrepresent numbers and figures that quite honestly, as my colleague just indicated, are the very reason why our government has no choice but to communicate effectively with the people in this province, to let them know in no uncertain terms what this government is doing, to ensure they know that the funding formula for education is fairer today than it has ever been in the history of Ontario; to let them know there is more being spent, and more effectively and more efficiently, on health care than ever before in the history of this province; to let them know there are more low-income people in Ontario today who qualify for support under the Ontario drug program than ever before in the history of Ontario; to let them know that for the first time in 10 years this government has announced in Ontario new long-term-care beds. The previous governments failed to do any of that, and it's about time that the people of Ontario -
Mr Bradley: That's fine, nothing wrong with that. This is the place to do it.
Mr Klees: Yes, and we'll do much more of that. We have a responsibility to advise the people of Ontario what is happening in this province and how the finances of this province are being dealt with. They're being dealt with efficiently, effectively and honestly, which is much more than I can say about the previous two governments.
The Acting Speaker: A reply, the member for Oakwood.
Mr Colle: I want to thank the members for Dovercourt, Niagara, St Catharines and York-Mackenzie for their comments; it certainly does add to the debate.
It's important for the public to understand that here we have government members complaining about the fact they can't get their message across. Here are the government members who have the power and the millions of all their ministries behind them, all the thousands of ministry staff and political staff they have at their fingertips, and they're complaining they can't get their message across.
They are asking for sympathy, and there they are -
Mr Steve Gilchrist (Scarborough East): You complain when we advertise - Liberal flip-flop.
Mr Colle: There they are, the member for Scarborough East crying in his seat because he can't communicate, that he needs more money, and the problem is that they want the taxpayers' money for more political propaganda. They just don't understand that the public is saying: "You've got enough employees in the ministry in your control, you've got all those millions you spend with your ministries, but don't spend our taxpayers' dollars to tell us that our health care is so good and our education is so good, because we see something different when we enter our hospitals and we see something different when we visit our local school."
2100
You can't pull the wool over the eyes of the people of Ontario. They're not going to take your complaints about the fact you don't have enough ministry officials and enough money at your disposal to communicate. You've got more than enough, more than anybody else has ever had. You've got powerful vehicles and you don't need the taxpayers' money that should be in the schools, in the hospitals and in the hands of the seniors who need the money; it shouldn't be in your hands. You've got enough money there.
The Acting Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Silipo: I'm pleased to have an opportunity to speak to this bill, even for the short 10 minutes that are available.
Mr Derwyn Shea (High Park-Swansea): Will you be sharing your time?
Mr Silipo: I won't be sharing my time with anybody at this point. I think 10 minutes I can manage. I don't tend to want to speak for a long time on things unless I think I have something to say. Quite frankly, 10 minutes on this is probably either too much or will never be enough.
This is one of those bills that comes out of the budget that has a whole array of pieces in it, and that in itself is not unusual. It's not something to be critical of, the fact that a bill has changes that incorporate a number of the measures that the government put forward in its budget bill. So I'm not going to criticize them for having in this bill changes to a number of different pieces of legislation. I think there are 11 or 12 different parts in the bill. That is not something that I want to particularly criticize.
What I have some criticism of the government on - there are a couple of pieces in the bill that I actually support and I want to be clear in my comments on that as well. Overall, I would say that one of the things I find troubling with this legislation, as I unfortunately find with most pieces of legislation that the Mike Harris government brings forward, is that it is not particularly well thought out. They come too far into the legislative process with a view and an attitude that says: "We have to get this done. We have to get this passed because the time lines are upon us. The legislative session is about to end." We'll be here another two weeks, with extended sittings even beyond the 9:30 time that we are sitting to tonight, to midnight for the next two weeks, to try to deal with the rest of the business that the government wants to set forward.
This is a bill that arises out of the budget, the budget that I want to remind members was presented last spring, so there were lots of opportunities and there was lots of time between then and now for the government to have come forward with these changes. Instead, what they've done is not introduced this bill until just a few days ago, earlier this month, and then we again see this attitude that we have seen all too often from the government where they say, "We have to get this done."
Because it's a budget bill, they of course don't say the real reason, which I think more and more is becoming the reason: that we may not come back as a Legislative Assembly after we break for Christmas. We may very well be into a provincial election in the early spring, and I'm not complaining about that. I'm actually quite eager for that to happen, the sooner the better, I say, but that is the real reason why the government is trying to clean up all the pieces of legislation they want to get done. In that rush, in that hurry they are again, as they have done in the past - dare I mention the property tax situation? - making mistakes.
One classic example we have is what they are doing with respect to part XI of the bill. Part XI incorporates into this piece of legislation changes to the Teachers' Pension Act that come about as a result of an agreement that the Ontario Teachers' Federation and the government made. There is a partnership agreement that governs the teachers' pension plan across the province and they have come to an agreement about how to deal with the unfunded liability, because there's been an actuarial surplus accumulating for the last few years. There have been arrangements made for some of that money to be used to help pay for early retirement of teachers and some of that to be used by the government in other ways.
The government is now coming forward and saying that they want to incorporate those provisions into the legislation, which seems to make sense. As an objective, the teachers' federation doesn't have any particular problems with that. However, as I said earlier, this is supposed to be a partnership agreement between the teachers' federation and the government of the day. What do we find when the teachers' federation looks at this? First of all, as we understand it, they weren't told until a few days before the legislation was going to be introduced that this was even being contemplated. They were allowed to see in private, I gather, some of the proposals and some of the changes. They were not given an opportunity to study those and respond. They did not really have an opportunity to deal in any significant way with looking at the changes until after the legislation was introduced which, as I say, only happened days ago.
Now they find themselves in a situation where they are saying: "We don't disagree with the intent here, but we think the government may be causing problems by what you are actually putting into this legislation, because you may be first of all going far beyond where you need to go. By putting some of these things into legislation, you are removing some of the flexibility that we need and want to have to continue in the future to negotiate some of these things and discuss these things in the partnership context in which they should happen."
They are saying to the government, "Take out this part of the bill, because you don't need to pass these changes now to put in place the effect of the agreement that was reached." I don't know what the government is going to do, but I'll be interested to see if they at least on this piece understand and acknowledge that in their rush to get this piece of legislation through, by waiting and waiting and then introducing it at the last moment and saying, "We've got to get this through before the end of December" - this is another example of what happens when legislation is dealt with in this way. You don't make good decisions, you make bad decisions, and you force bad decisions on citizens across the province, in this case on the teachers of the province, but consequentially on other citizens in the province.
That is the attitude we have seen far too often from this government. I was at a meeting last night and somebody was commenting on the Common Sense Revolution as we were talking about the impending school closures and what is happening there. Let me say to the government that despite the changes they've announced, they haven't fooled anyone. Those changes are (a) permanent and (b) long-lasting, beyond the next election. In fact, parents are still very worried about what is going to happen in future to their schools and their children's education.
The point I wanted to bring to members' attention tonight was that somebody was commenting about the Common Sense Revolution, which has been the catchphrase the Harris government used into the election and since the election. This parent said: "You know, what I find striking about the Common Sense Revolution is that there has been a lot of revolution. But in that revolution, I haven't found a lot of common sense." That summed it up for me so well in terms of the attitude and the actions of this government of just bulldozing ahead, believing that they above all are right, that nobody else had any good advice to give them, and then finding themselves in a situation where time after time they had to come back to this House and admit - although of course they never actually admitted it; they never actually said, "We made a mistake." But that is what happened time after time, whether it was on the property tax issue or many other issues.
When I look at the content of this bill, there are a couple of provisions that I think make sense; for example, the piece that's in here dealing with the Estate Administration Tax Act and changes in the Estates Act. I agree wholeheartedly with why the government is doing this and with the government doing this. I know some members of the House, some Liberal members and others, have been critical of the government for in effect enacting into law legislation that says all the fees that have been charged dealing with estates -
Mr Bradley: They criticized you for the rates.
Mr Silipo: It's not a question of criticizing us for the rates, because this is not about the increases in those rates. The court decision - I particularly wanted to pursue this in the briefing, which I thank the ministry officials for providing. The issue here is not the question of whether these fees have been raised over the years, because all parties in government have raised these fees at one point or another.
The issue is that the fees as charged, in all their amounts, from the original amounts of 1950 to the most recent amounts charged today under the current government, have been found to be unconstitutional for the very important reason that the highest court of the land has said that you cannot impose what they believe is a tax - and they have deemed this to be a tax because it's something that goes beyond simply recovering the cost of the service, therefore they define that as a tax - by regulation. You have to impose that by an act of the Parliament of Ontario. So we have here in this legislation a piece that enables and makes legal all those changes and all those fees that were charged. I think that's the most sensible way to go.
2110
I could raise the question here, and I will only briefly, about what is going to happen to other decisions the government has made with respect to, for example, the issue of the whole property tax system as it applies to education. I know that issue is before the courts. We'll be quite interested to see what comes out of that morass as the court tries to deal with that.
If time permitted, I'd be happy to talk about some of the other provisions in here, particularly the issue of the child tax credit. I will be eager to see the government finally spend some money in this area. As much as I would want them to go even further than they are doing here, I'm looking forward to them at least finally spending some money in this area, after three different attempts at pretending to spend money in this area and not in fact spending very much. Maybe with this particular change we will actually see some money in the hands of parents who need it.
The Acting Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr John O'Toole (Durham East): It's a pleasure to follow the member for Dovercourt. I want to drive the message home very clearly that Bill 81 is an act to implement tax credits. Really, it's reducing taxes.
This is a technical bill. There are 12 parts to it. There are measures in here for community small business investment funds - very important to small business. There are Corporations Tax Act changes in part III - very important. We're looking at the taxes to Ontario computer animation and special effects, a growth industry where we're providing the right kind of incentives for the creation of high-tech jobs. The Employer Health Tax Act changes are also important for small business. It's accelerating the exemption from paying the Liberal employer health tax.
Clearly, Mr Harris is on the record as being the Taxfighter. He always has been. This bill is further proof that this government is not just talking; we're acting.
There are changes to the income tax. The member for Dovercourt mentioned it. It deserves some attention here. The Ontario child care supplement comes into effect - I think it's important here that you listen. An application will be made by eligible participants to receive payments directly from the province of up to $85 a month for children under seven years of age, a very important measure for the hard-working people. Arguably, Mr Silipo is saying, they are overtaxed. This is a way of giving the tax back to a hard-working low-income group.
There's another part in here, the Pension Benefits Act, section IX. Some of the long-time members in here will know this may have some provisions for them in the future, as they try to access their pension fund.
There are some corrections here to the Teachers' Pension Act. They've been running a considerable surplus and there have been discussions on that since the Liberals were in government.
There's important recognition of the Tobacco Tax Act. In that small section there's an ability for those people who are illegal traders in tobacco to be fined very heavily.
The Speaker: Questions and comments? The member for St Catharines.
Mr Bradley: When I was listening to the member for Dovercourt, he was being very moderate tonight. The point I was making about the probate fees was that I can well recall that when the government of which you were a part increased the probate fees substantially in 1992, they were very critical. Mike Harris led the charge, and the person who is sitting in the Speaker's chair at the present time was very critical on that particular occasion. What I find out now, what the Speaker would be perturbed about, is that Mike Harris is not only confirming those fees for that period of time but he's going to maintain those fees. He's going to continue to charge what he thought was an exorbitant rate for probate fees, and fees, as we know, are taxes.
The member appropriately pointed out as well that making tax decisions by regulation, behind closed doors, is not going to be suitable. He said the education tax, which you now control and levy, is not something debated before this House but is decided in the backrooms, where the Premier and his advisers and members of cabinet are there to deliberate. The elected representatives of the people on all sides of the House do not have an opportunity to do that.
The member, in 10 minutes, didn't have time, but I was wondering if he would comment on this article that was in Eye magazine. It says: "Will Ontario join the big tobacco lawsuits? Don't hold your breath." I had heard the member for Simcoe Centre, who always points the finger somewhere else, say, "Why doesn't the federal government do something?" Here's an opportunity right here, as it mentions, to join the suit against the tobacco companies, but nobody over there wants to do it.
Mr Maves: It's always a pleasure to rise and speak to the comments made by the member for Dovercourt. I said he was an honourable member in my previous two-minute discussion and I would repeat that.
Just a juxtaposition between himself and the Liberal Party: When he talks about the correction of the problem with the probate fees in the legislation, he rightly says it's the proper thing to do. When we first brought it in and when the courts ruled that probate fees through regulations were inappropriate, the province, after charging those for 30 or 40 years now, was in a situation where we could have owed billions of dollars to people going back into the 1950s. The members from the Liberal Party wanted to say: "This is a new tax. Isn't this terrible, billions and billions of dollars." Rightly, tonight the member for Dovercourt stands up, explains the situation with the probate fees and the tax, and then says it's the proper thing to do. It's always a pleasure to get up when someone has integrity like that, instead of trying to fool the public and trick the people, like the Liberal Party seems to want to do. Members from the NDP are at least straightforward.
He talked about us being a little bit bullish in enacting our Common Sense Revolution, and we were. We got elected on a mandate. We'd had that platform out for over a year and, yes, we did want to repeal some of the taxes that the NDP had brought in and the job quotas and the taxes that the Liberals had brought in before them. We ran on that and, yes, we wanted to implement those and we did go ahead and implement those, very much like the NDP did when they were in office, and the Liberals, when they brought in all kinds of huge budgets with huge deficits and really didn't pay enough attention to a lot of people in the business community, who said: "That's going to kill jobs. That's going to kill the economy." We reversed that because we think they went completely in the wrong direction.
The Speaker: I'd like, more importantly, to note that not only is the member for Middlesex in the government members' gallery, but the member for Middlesex's parents are in the government members' gallery. Welcome.
Questions and comments?
Mr Colle: Just commenting on the member for Dovercourt's speech, I think he raised a very interesting point about the taxation and the constitutionality of imposing fees without any kind of legislative debate. As you know, one of the things this government did on Bill 160 was quite unprecedented. They took the power to tax for education purposes into the backroom, so there's no debate, no questioning of how high the tax rate should be, what it should be, and the public has no input into setting that rate. The government has stopped any questioning of that tax and they do it completely without any input.
This is why I think the court ruled that a probate fee was a tax and it should be a tax. That was the court ruling. It will be very interesting to see down the road what happens when they look at this government's removal of the right of the public to have any hearing on millions and billions of dollars they're setting on to property taxpayers for education purposes without any scrutiny whatsoever.
This is an unprecedented attempt by this government to cut off any debate on their authority to tax, and this is essentially one of the most horrendous things about the way this government works. It takes major functions that traditionally have been part of the give and take of the public process and they arbitrarily hide them behind closed doors, so now you don't know who's setting the tax rate and you can't question them. That is why I think it's important for the public to be aware of what's in all these bills, including Bill 81.
2120
The Speaker: Response, member for Dovercourt.
Mr Silipo: As always, I accept both accolades and reprimands whenever I speak in this place, as we all should.
I just want to say in response, particularly to one of the comments made by one of the government members with respect to Mike Harris as the Taxfighter, maybe in your rhetorical dreams, to the members of the government, because Mike Harris, if he ever believed in it, seems to have forgotten what that actually meant.
I remember the days, Speaker, and I know you remember them well, when Mike Harris used to go around the province reminding people and talking to people about the fact that there was only one taxpayer. What he himself said at the time that meant was, whether you called them taxes, whether you called them user fees, whatever tag you put on them, they were taxes. If you took money out of the pockets of people, they were taxes.
All of a sudden Mike Harris gets in government, and what does he do? Yes, he proceeds with the 30% income tax cut which provides a tax cut for the wealthiest citizens in the province in terms of the benefit, but what does he also do in order to partially find the money to pay for that tax cut? He raises property taxes, he raises tuition fees, he raises the drug benefit copayment fees, all of those things and many more that I could mention that Mike Harris, by his own definition, says are taxes.
There goes the Taxfighter. The Taxfighter is lowering taxes for the wealthiest citizens in this province and he's increasing taxes for Ontarians of low-income and middle-income family groupings. That's what the Mike Harris government is all about. It's about shifting money and power from all of us into the hands of those few Ontarians who are already well off and quite frankly don't need those tax cuts.
The Speaker: Further debate?
Mr Spina: Well done, Speaker. It's getting a little late and sometimes we get a little punchy. Sometimes we have to remind the opposition that you all live in a glass house, folks, so don't start throwing rocks, because you've been there before and you didn't do the job. Now we are. You don't like it, do you?
I'm going to speak to this beel - this bill.
Mr Silipo: Beel or bill?
Mr Spina: It's a bill.
Mr Shea: Go easy, I'm sitting in front of you.
Mr Spina: Sorry, Speaker. I have more help than I need.
I want to focus on two specific elements: the greater access to capital for small business and support for small, growing firms for job creation in the millennium. This is of particular interest to me simply because, as many of you know, I was the parliamentary assistant for small business and I was involved in a program, along with now Minister Sampson, which was co-chairing a committee on the access to capital. Some of the recommendations that we brought forward we're very pleased to see have been carried through in the last budget and into this bill.
This bill supports job creation, as my colleagues have indicated, by reducing the payroll tax burden, and that phase-in of the $400,000 EHT exemption is now being accelerated by increasing the exemption in 1998 from $300,000 to $350,000 for employers and self-employed individuals. In 1999, the tax on self-employed individuals will be completely eliminated and we are pleased that this measure was actually enacted with Bill 47 in 1996.
Let's get to the access to investment capital for small business. In 1997, we introduced the community small business investment fund program, the CSBIF, because government loves acronyms - and we like to call the opposition LWs or NDPWs, you know, Liberal whiners, NDP whiners.
This is a CSBIF program to promote greater access to investment capital for growing businesses with $1 million or less in assets. Incentives were provided to encourage the labour-sponsored investment funds and financial institutions to participate in this initiative. To further expand the pool available for investment capital for corporations, trusts and pension funds, they will also be eligible to invest in the CSBIF but they will not receive an incentive.
The deadline for registering one of these funds and the investment period during which an investor can contribute to the fund is extended from December 31 of this year to December 31, 1999. If an LSIF set aside funds for investment before May 5, 1998, then that period is being extended through to December of this year.
There are a few other technical amendments that are being added to that, but I'd rather move on to talk to some of the highlights on this. I agree with one of the opposition members - I believe it was the member for Dovercourt - who said if you can't make your point in 10 minutes, then you shouldn't be up speaking. I agree with him.
I want to talk for a moment about the LSIFs, the labour-sponsored investment funds. The bill will implement changes that were announced in September of this year to support the role of LSIFs in providing venture capital to small and medium-sized businesses. Frankly, I'm not sure it goes far enough. I'd prefer a little more independence for the community-sponsored investment funds. Nevertheless, at least we've had the opportunity to implement them and carry them forward under the wing of the LSIFs.
This bill would enact the February 19, 1998, announcement stating that individuals affected by the ice storm in eastern Ontario in January of this year would have an extra month, to the end of March 1998, to invest in an LSIF, and they can claim an RRSP deduction for the 1997 tax year.
Now let's talk about encouraging job creation for the new millennium. To encourage job creation and growth in high-technology, knowledge-based industries, this bill proposes tax incentives to support the interactive digital media, sound recording, computer animation and special effects industries. The neat thing is that these initiatives will help businesses in these industries grow and contribute to the development of long-term, internationally viable Ontario industries with jobs for the future.
This is of particular interest in my riding, because we all know that Sheridan College has gained a worldwide reputation for computer animation and in fact recently received some substantial contracts to do work for probably the leader in computer animation in the world, Disney. This just augments the whole process to expand jobs for these young graduates coming out of Sheridan College. It doesn't just expand it for these graduates to get jobs; it expands the opportunity for them to get jobs in Canada, and we won't experience that brain drain for them to go down south.
Mr Young: It's in my riding.
Mr Maves: Do you want to share your time?
Mr Spina: I apparently have to share my time with the member for Halton Centre.
Anyway, I want to talk about the Ontario interactive digital media tax credit. This proposes a new 20% refundable tax credit to corporations for qualifying Ontario labour expenditures incurred to create interactive digital media products in Ontario.
In the 1998 budget, Minister Eves announced that qualifying corporations would be Canadian corporations with revenues no greater than $10 million and total assets no greater than $5 million. As a result of those consultations, the incentives will be expanded to include corporations with revenues of up to $20 million and total assets of up to $10 million. That really gives smaller businesses a great boost.
The enrichment of the computer animation and special effects tax credit eliminates the annual tax credit maximum of $500,000 per associated group of corporations and extends the credit to OCASE television productions of under 30 minutes.
There are a number of elements to this particular bill, and I'm pleased that it addresses a number of different areas. It addresses the issues that my colleagues have spoken about, in particular the areas of assistance and accessible child care for working families with children, help for people with disabilities to get jobs, and overall a fairer tax system. I say to the members that there are a number of elements in this particular act that are truly beneficial to the incentive for business to start up, to grow and to expand in Ontario. That's the critical element that we are trying to develop here: to create jobs.
The previous governments had a philosophy that if it moved they taxed it, if it still moved they kept taxing it, if it still moved they regulated it, and when it stopped moving they subsidized it. That's what we are trying to end. We talked about the endless cycle in welfare. This was the endless cycle in government functioning.
I'm getting close to my time, so I'll wind up my comments and allow people to make their comments if they so choose.
2130
The Speaker: Questions and comments?
Mr Bradley: The member for Brampton may be surprised by this: I want to compliment him on his speech. It's because the member delivered what I consider to be an appropriate speech on the bill. He got a little bit of a shot in at the end, and that's fine. He didn't spend his time, as I've heard some other members do, ranting about the federal government. He didn't spend his time ranting about other parties. He didn't blame municipalities. He talked about the provisions of the bill. He's a government member and he's proud of the provisions of the bill.
Once in a while I like to put a compliment in. I thought the member delivered, on this particular bill, the kind of speech that should be delivered, and I want him to know that. I don't necessarily agree with all the content, but that, to me, is the kind of speech I like to see. It was a fair-minded one, a positive message and things of that nature.
Having said that, I want the member to explain to me, because I know he'll want to do that, why it was that the Premier, who was so very critical of the probate fees charged by the previous NDP government, decided to maintain it. I think you said you were parliamentary assistant at the time and you have some inside information on this. I'm wondering if the member knows why, instead of reducing the fee down to where it was even when the previous Conservative government was in, the member decided to have his Premier raise that fee to where it is now. I think that's a legitimate question and he may be able to help me out with that because, as I say, he has the inside access - not the same inside access as the whiz kids, but he does have some inside access, and I look forward to that.
Anyway, I want to compliment him. I liked his speech tonight.
Mr Silipo: I wasn't sure whether we'd get a chance to comment on the speech from the member for Brampton North. Like the member for St Catharines, I too would like to compliment him on his speech. I find that whenever I'm in the House with the member for Brampton North, he tends to leave some of his more voracious attacks for late night sittings, and in this case he chose to do them on the sidelines, not even during rebuttals when he was talking earlier. But his speech was in fact on the issues, on the bill. I think he's quite right to want to claim credit for some of the tax credits that are in this bill, which I'm sure will be helpful.
As I had the chance to indicate earlier, there are some other provisions of this bill that are not as well thought out. I hope the member will apply and encourage his colleagues to apply the same kind of approach they used in the pieces he talked about, the various business tax credits, and make sure they deal with, for example, the concerns of the Ontario Teachers' Federation; that they take out the provisions that don't make sense in this bill, that could use further study, that could use further consultation. I hope the same kind of common sense that the government purports to have will be used in dealing with this and other problems in this legislation.
Mr O'Toole: I too would like to add my praise to the member for Brampton North for doing a remarkable job, clearly one of the most competent and capable members who's graced this House and who is parliamentary assistant in a number of roles.
I have to say also that I am going to seek some clarification on where exactly Sheridan College is. Is it in Halton Centre or is it in Brampton North? I think that was brought up. It wasn't left very clear for the members.
I'd also put on record that the member for St Catharines and the member for Dovercourt seem to be accepting the idea of a tax cut. They were complimentary in a personal sense, but I think your arguments were so well put that they were supportive of it. Clearly, tax cuts do equal jobs. I think you explained that in somewhat technical detail when it came to the aspects of the new technology industries. I served on the access to capital committee with the member for Brampton North, and I know there was a lot of work done.
In conclusion, for real people, that's each and every one of us, there were two important things: the child tax credit aspect and the accessibility issues, where there is funding from the province for people with special needs to find their way into the workplace.
There's no one here from any party who wouldn't want to do more for that, and certainly those tax credits for the corporations of I think up to $50,000 are important steps as part of the Ontarians with Disabilities Act. It's part of the rollout of that whole initiative on the part of the government to do something for accessibility issues.
I'd like to thank the member for Brampton North for explaining the details and for the wonderful, insightful comments he made here tonight.
Mr Michael Brown: I also quite enjoyed the speech by my friend from Brampton North. I find it a little difficult, though, to understand how the government can move the former probate fee into an inheritance tax, one they violently opposed back when the New Democratic Party government increased, actually tripled, the probate fee.
One of the issues around that, members should know, is that in the court ruling, which was brought by some Ontario residents and eventually affected every province in the country with the exception of Quebec, the interesting thing was that one of the tests was that there needed to be a relationship between the cost of the service and the revenue that was brought in. In other words, if it was just covering the cost of providing the service, you could call it a fee and apparently it would likely be all right. This, of course, was not a fee; the court ruled it was not basically because it was really a revenue grab and therefore needed the assent of the Legislature because it was, in the definition, a tax.
What I find quite amazing and quite astounding, and I'm sure my friend from Brampton North will want to talk about this, is how his Premier, who was totally opposed to this fee when he was in opposition, who didn't want it tripled and who thought the New Democratic Party government was doing something wrong when they did that, decides immediately after a court ruling, "Well, it's okay if it's another three-letter word; it's a tax, I'll make it a tax."
The Speaker: Response?
Mr Spina: I have only a couple of comments on the question why we are not reducing the probate fee. What assets would you like us to sell off to be able to pay for what the last government implemented? I'll give you that question.
On the other hand, I just want to thank all of the members for complimenting me on sticking to the bill. We'll try to do it again in the future.
The Speaker: It now being past 9:30 of the clock, this House stands adjourned till 1:30 of the clock on Monday, and we're there till midnight.
The House adjourned at 2139.