Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS PUBLIC BUSINESS

CORNWALL AREA ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

Mr Cleary moved second reading of Bill 102, An Act to protect the Economies of the Border Communities of the Cornwall Area.

M. Cleary propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 102, Loi sur la protection economique des communautes frontières de la region de Cornwall.

Mr Cleary: While requesting exemptions to the proposed tax increases in the 1991 budget for fuels, tobacco and alcohol, this bill is particularly designed to assist the border community of Cornwall.

Merchants in my riding have said that the swarm of across-the-border shoppers has resulted in dwindling sales and job losses. Indeed, as all members are aware, my riding has been particularly hard hit by unemployment.

Frankly, the cross-border shopping frenzy shows no sign of abating. Unprecedented lineups have created traffic jams on the St Lawrence Seaway International Bridge between Cornwall and New York state. It reached such climactic and serious measures that natives on the nearby Akwesasne reserve threatened to blockade the bridge to protect the disruption of their lives.

I believe that shoppers want to support their local economy. People want to shop in Cornwall, Sault Ste Marie, St Catharines, Windsor and all border communities across this province, but first they have to look after their pocketbooks. Of course consumers decide to drive to the United States, where lower prices and lower taxes have become very attractive.

A recent provincial government study showed that retailers in the Cornwall area last year lost $12 million in sales to cross-border shopping. Across the province, this translated into over $500 million in lost revenues. Neither figure includes lost taxes. Increased taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol are the prime attractions for US-bound shoppers and will lead to further increases in cross-border shopping.

In his recent budget, the Treasurer raised the gas tax by 1.7 cents on 29 April and an additional 1.7 cents on 1 January 1992. With the most recent increase half of the price of gasoline is now tax. As a result of the budget, it has been estimated that drivers will pay an extra $36 this year and $73.44 in 1992, based on 20,000 kilometres. On average, a Cornwall motorist pays 56 cents per litre for gasoline compared with 26 cents in the United States.

Cornwall has a problem even bigger than that of other border communities, because it sits near an Indian reserve where there are absolutely no taxes collected. In any case, the cost of Cornwall gasoline is almost 50% more than in the United States.

However, if we look at the cost of just the product itself without taxes, at the price of a litre of gasoline in Canada and the price of a litre of gasoline in Massena, New York, the price of gas before taxes in Canada is 32 cents per litre, compared with 33 cents in the United States. As a result of these differentials, Cornwall retailers are down in volume anywhere from 25% to 50%.

Subsequently, 28 local retailers from our area formed a gasoline and motor vehicle retail association. This group states clearly that the root of the problem is the incredible tax imbalance between the two countries and it feels that tax reduction is necessary. While revenues generated from both the provincial and federal government would decrease per litre of gasoline, a higher volume would be sold, thus offsetting any reduction.

The budget increased the cost of cigarettes. As a note of comparison, a carton of 200 cigarettes costs $40.81 in Ontario and $22.21 in New York state.

The liquor tax: For the recent increases on beer, wine and liquor, a similar comparison may be drawn on the Canadian-American price differential.

Sunday shopping: Many of our retailers in Ontario border communities insist that they must be open to cut their revenue losses and win back shoppers flooding into the United States. For the greater part of the year, there is still an outflux of shoppers crossing the bridge to buy a few goods, filling up the gas tank and stopping for a quick meal while in the United States on any day of the week, all factors which drain our local economy. Local retailers can provide the best customer service, but they will not keep the customers if these are able to get gas and products more cheaply within minutes of Cornwall.

Further, it is not just the consumer going across the border; it is our retailers and our industries. Several factors reflect why the United States may be a more attractive location -- basic economies of scale and geography, lower municipal taxes, lower labour costs, lower overhead costs, tax exemptions and prorated tax agreements and other economic incentives. Canadians must be made aware of the benefits they receive in return for paying higher taxes. But many people do not care or cannot afford to care, given the economic situation.

In fact, after the Cornwall Business Council conducted a study on grocery prices on each side of the Canada-US border, food actually proved to be cheaper in Canada. On a typical food basket, two Cornwall stores came in at $94.41 and $101, while a P&C store in Massena came in at US$93.50, on top of which is the exchange and duty.

I am pleased to report that efforts are being made at the community level to combat the cross-border shopping crisis. I note the publicity campaign to enhance consumer awareness about the consequences of cross-border shopping, in which my riding will participate.

1010

On a more local front, the Cornwall Business Council is busy trying to develop a strategy to deal with cross-border shopping. The first step of the strategy was the Shutter Bug program, which recognizes local merchants who provide super service. In fact, one of my constituents, Bill Willis, has recently been awarded the Loeb Award of Excellence in community involvement.

The Cornwall Chamber of Commerce, the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry business futures committee and the South Dundas Economic Development Commission have initiated a study to identify what goods and services are being purchased outside the area. As well, the mayor of Cornwall is currently involved in a cross-border shopping consultation task force.

Municipal, provincial and federal governments must work together to ensure a more competitive economy, while providing the necessary incentives and support to customers and businesses alike. I would like to stress that commercial and industrial failures, or relocation, causes revenue to decrease. In these exceptional times of hardship and recession, communities now need help. I was extremely disappointed to learn of the recent decision to terminate interest-free business incentive loans from the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. As a recent Angus Reid poll indicated, many Canadians favour tougher restrictions to discourage cross-border shopping.

I will leave the balance of my time for a windup because I am very interested in hearing what my colleagues have to say. I know many of them share the same problems.

Mr Villeneuve: I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Cornwall for his private member's motion. He is certainly addressing a very real problem, not only in eastern Ontario but across all border communities, but particularly in eastern Ontario. I am sorry the member was not able to attend our task force last Thursday in Cornwall. I presume he was still here in Toronto. I would have been very interested in hearing what the mayor of Cornwall and a number of business people had to say regarding the major problem of cross-border shopping.

First of all, the main problem is the cost of fuel, and I think the member for Cornwall touched on it. We had several representatives from the fuel industry at the retail and wholesale levels, and the comparisons are like this: In Massena, New York, which is a five-minute drive from Cornwall over the Seaway International Bridge, the price of a 55-litre fuel fill-up is $20. In Cornwall, Ontario, it is $30.

However, on Akwesasne, an Indian reserve which happens to be right between Cornwall and Massena, the Mohawks, known as Akwesasne, are not Canadian, not American, not Quebecois, not Ontarians. They are North Americans and they are not subject to tax. That same tank of fuel on Akwesasne costs $16, so therein is the problem in a nutshell. The difference brings our Ontarians to Akwesasne to fill up. It is very easy to go to the St Lawrence Mall on the outskirts of Massena, New York, and do some shopping at what are perceived to be advantageous prices.

The business community in the city of Cornwall has done a study, and I was very interested in hearing of that study last Thursday by one of the presenters to our task force. They actually did a study on groceries and other commodities, and would you believe, Mr Speaker, that the price is cheaper in Ontario? However, fuel brings them over; an empty tank of gas brings them over. The perception is: "We will save money. We've saved money on gas. There's no doubt about that. And if we stay long enough to be legal, we can take back a bottle of alcohol and a carton of cigarettes."

I have no great sympathy in that area, but fuel is not a sin tax. This government must realize that before the budget came in, the Treasurer said he would not increase the sin taxes. What happened was exactly the opposite: 1.7 cents a litre. Multiply that by 4.5 to find out the increase on a per-gallon basis. Of course, there are cigarettes and alcohol and you name it: $1 billion of added taxes at a time when the economy could ill afford any increases, particularly in the area of fuel, which is the main catalyst that is bringing people from Cornwall, from Ontario, over to New York state.

I will be supporting without hesitation the motion of my colleague the member for Cornwall. However, do members know what he is talking about really? He limits it to his riding. I find that rather sad. I took the time to look at the situation just across the border to the east of us, in the place called Quebec. It has tax zones. I was not aware of that and I made some notes. I would have liked the member for Cornwall to look at this. This makes a little more sense than limiting it to the riding of Cornwall.

Quebec has five tax zones. If you happen to live within five kilometres of the border, the provincial tax is 6.58 cents a litre. If you live in the next zone, five to 10 kilometres from the border, the tax is 8.36 cents a litre. In the third tax zone, which is from 10 to 15 kilometres from the border, the tax is 10.01 cents. When you live beyond 15 kilometres from the border, the tax is 12 cents a litre. That is addressing the reality of the situation.

You are a victim of circumstance if you happen to have a service station close to the Ontario-New York border. Quebec has recognized that by creating tax zones. I would like my colleague the member for Cornwall to think about that, and I would like the government to think about that. Even if members approve my colleague's private member's motion this morning unanimously in this Legislature, I do not think it will become law. I think the government of Ontario has to look at the zone, at least to provide a degree of protection and recognize there is a problem.

Right now, all the government is doing is blaming the federal government at every turn in the road. It is not above reproach, and I will be talking about that as well. However, in the real world of politics here in Ontario over the last five years, in the five most economically buoyant years, the Liberals increased our deficit by $10 billion. They also allowed us to lose the 10% tax advantage that we had as Ontarians over our colleagues and friends in Quebec.

As a matter of fact, at the task force that heard a number of presentations in Ottawa last Thursday morning, we had a tax consultant tell us that if he were advising a new business sitting in the city of Ottawa whether it should set up in Ottawa or in Hull, he would advise it to go to Hull, Quebec for the 5% tax advantage that it now has. That is compared to five years ago, when we in Ontario had a 10% tax advantage. That is what has happened under two socialist governments: the Liberals and the NDP.

Now I get back to the federal government. It is far from being above reproach. It has grabbed everywhere it could, and it was faced with a large deficit, which we in Ontario are presently creating for whoever follows this government. However, I was listening to the CBC this morning and I heard Sir John A. Macdonald speaking. Sir John A. Macdonald's birthday happens to be today. The actor was Robert Welsh from Manotick. He will be travelling to a small community in my riding known as Avonmore this afternoon. I hope to be there. I hope Via Rail is on time to bring me to Avonmore some time between 4 and 6.

Do members know what the now sober Sir John A. Macdonald will be telling the people of Avonmore? "We do not want our post office to close." Avonmore is a small rural community next door to my small rural community. We will be fighting tooth and nail to retain the post office that has been there for 127 years. I will be doing everything within my limited power as an MPP here in this Legislature.

1020

To get back to the problem of cross-border shopping, the community of Cornwall is suffering terribly from the long lineups trying to get back into Ontario with a tankful of gas, maybe four new tires to be exempt from the $5 tire tax and a couple of cartons of cigarettes and a couple of 40-ouncers of alcohol, as well as groceries and clothing. They are lined up at the border, and it is taking an awful lot of time to get through. Be that as it may, they are over there to shop primarily because the price of fuel is so much cheaper. I reiterate, the zoning of locations in Ontario somewhat similar to what Quebec has done is, I think, inevitable. This government must look at it very seriously.

There is the study done by the business community of Cornwall which indicated that groceries and a lot of commodities were cheaper in Ontario as compared to Massena, New York. I am not telling members that it is cheaper compared to anywhere in the United States, but for Cornwall in comparison to Massena, it is proven; we have the study. It is cheaper in Ontario. The exorbitant cost of fuel here in Ontario is bringing them over and they are spending money while they are over there. Gas retailers cannot win. François Guindon made us a presentation and indeed a plea that the community is suffering very dramatically.

I want to touch on another area. MacEwen Fuels happen to be situated in Maxville, which is my home town. I am pretty proud that they are there because they are pretty major employers. But what would happen if the minimum wage in Ontario were increased by 50 cents an hour, not a lot of money? This fuel distributor has 84 sites, and they are open 17 hours a day, seven days a week. Do members know what that would cost this small fuel retailer and wholesaler? Some $5,000 a week. Multiply that by 52 weeks. The NDP government tells us it wants to protect the workers. They will be protecting unemployed workers, that is who they will be protecting, because no one will be there to employ anyone. It is that simple, and that is not including the added cost of the employer health tax, UI, CPP and all the rest of it; that is just out-of-pocket direct on the paycheque, $5,000 a week.

Second, the 3.4 cents a litre increase -- 1.7 cents the day of the budget, 1.7 cents on 1 January 1992 -- will cost this retailer with 84 outlets $3,060,000 in additional tax. Whenever we say additional tax, that is the 30% that was tacked on by this Treasurer after telling the people of Ontario that he would not increase the so-called sin taxes. That is after trying to tell us that he was going to stimulate the economy.

My colleague the member for Cornwall is absolutely right; the city of Cornwall is dying, and not a slow death any more but a quick death. This government is trying to tell us it is using this large deficit: short-term gain for long-term pain. It used to be the other way around when there was another government prior to 1985 in this province: short-term pain for long-term gain. Now we have short-term gain, crass political gain, for long-term pain that will be paid for by our grandchildren.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Villeneuve: The truth is getting to them, Mr Speaker, and I hope they do not just react in a negative way but take some positive steps.

I see the member for Ottawa Centre here. I think it is a tragedy that she is no longer in cabinet. I think she was doing a good job looking after the interests of eastern Ontario and I know she is probably still doing it from outside the cabinet. However, she has to take the message to the Premier that whenever a tax consultant in Ottawa says, "I would advise my client to go to Hull because of a 5% business tax advantage," there is a clear message there and it is coming from someone who has no political axe to grind. It is pure facts.

In 1985 we had a 10% tax advantage over Quebec. Now we are at a deficit of 5% and falling quickly into the negative.

Mr. Hope: No, that is negative.

Mr Villeneuve: It is absolutely true -- $10 billion this year of deficit, $8.2 billion next year, and by the time their mandate is done, $35 billion additional deficit. I do not know what it is if it is not going further. It is certainly going in the wrong direction. The climate for business is so terrible here in this province. We have not only rumours, but The Bay is talking about moving on. Whenever we have tire companies closing down, a couple of thousand people are out of work. Those are not border communities; those are communities that are not affected by cross-border shopping. Surely we are in deep trouble in this province. It is the time the government recognized and addressed the problem in a positive way.

In conclusion, I congratulate my colleague the member for Cornwall. He is well meaning. I am afraid his motion may not go far. He certainly has our total support, and we are with him all the way. Create some zones and recognize the problem.

Ms Gigantes: It is my pleasure to be able to add a few words on the subject of Bill 102. It is a modest little bill, though to hear members opposite talk about it, you would think it was going to solve the economic problems of the nation. What we are talking about in Bill 102 is relief for residents of the Cornwall area from taxes that affect liquor, beer, spirits, wine, coolers and gasoline. This is proposed to us as a serious measure to help the Cornwall and area economy.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. You had your turn. It is their turn.

Ms Gigantes: Mr Speaker, I appreciate your help. I am quite used to speaking over the babble across the way.

There is no doubt that wide areas of this province, and I speak particularly of the eastern Ontario area, are suffering desperately during this recession. I want to point out to members opposite that it was this party which first voiced concern about this recession over a year ago when the parties opposite would not recognize there was a recession, when the word was not allowed in the political vocabulary of Ontario except from this party. Every hairdresser in Cornwall, Ottawa, Sault Ste Marie and Thunder Bay, every taxi driver in Toronto, every gas station attendant in Windsor knew there was a recession in April of last year, but there was no such thing happening as far the parties opposite were concerned.

We have to take this recession very seriously. When it affects, as it has affected, communities such as Cornwall, to the extent that there is a 16% unemployment rate in that community, that is a pain and a suffering for people in that area which this government takes very much to heart. When we came to government in this province -- to our surprise, to the surprise of a great many Ontarians -- we felt a great responsibility to begin to work on behalf of people who from over a year ago had been feeling the effects of the recession, particularly in eastern Ontario.

1030

One of the first things we did was to announce last fall that we would undertake a $700-million anti-recessionary fund and distribute that money to the areas which most needed it for the development of capital infrastructure which would last for years and serve the public of this province and which would provide, has begun providing and is providing work for 20,000 people in this province.

I want to point out that eastern Ontario has not been forgotten as we undertook those initiatives. Cornwall riding received $5.8 million in provincial funding through that measure. Further, the area of S-D-G & East Grenville riding received $11.9 million in funding.

I would like to underline that, while the average per capita allocation around this province -- in other words the amount of money that went out per person in an area -- was about $80, in Cornwall it was over $100, and in the area of S-D-G & East Grenville it was over $200.

There has been clear recognition by this government that there is a problem in eastern Ontario, and a particular problem in the Cornwall and S-D-G & East Grenville area.

We are not going to solve the economic problems of eastern Ontario, northern Ontario, or southwestern Ontario by setting out tax zones and allowing people to buy cheaper liquor or gasoline. That is not going to solve the problem. Those are very temporary, superficial measures.

The problem of cross-border shopping is contributing to the difficulties people are suffering in the economies in affected areas. In Cornwall it is being felt and has been felt for some time. It is urgent now because of the economic situation in Cornwall. What we have to do is tackle the problem of cross-border shopping.

This government, through the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, has been providing funds to the very groups that have been cited by members opposite who are doing a fight-back campaign in their own communities, on behalf of their own business communities, to help encourage and support those businesses, to help convince people that shopping in the local area is a wise investment, a good social and economic investment. We are putting money into that because we believe it is necessary.

We are also undertaking the first thorough study of cross-border shopping of any government in this country. MITT has been involved in that study now for many months and it will continue that work until its completion in the next few weeks.

When we have the results of that study and can add them to the efforts in the local communities that are so deeply affected, then we are going to be able to come up with policies that perhaps will begin to address the overall problem.

Mr Villeneuve: Are you supporting it, Evelyn?

Ms Gigantes: I am not willing to support a bill that treats this problem as if it is a question of how much money one pays for wine, beer, spirits or coolers in Cornwall. That is not the problem and that is not the solution.

We have to have long-term policies. We need to have regional economic development policies that will deal with the problems of areas such as eastern Ontario, and this government intends to bring those policies forward.

Mrs Fawcett: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to rise and speak definitely in support of this bill. My colleague the member for Cornwall is a very hardworking member who is doing his utmost to represent the concerns of his constituents by bringing this bill forward today.

The devastating effects of cross-border shopping, not only in his community but right across the province, are really unparalleled in recent memory. The member for Cornwall has relayed to our caucus on several occasions the very real concerns he has for the economic wellbeing of his constituency and how this government's lack of action allows cross-border shopping to continue to erode the economic viability of Cornwall.

Yet there are tools at this government's disposal which could help stop the bleeding. As my colleague has suggested in his bill, an exemption from the proposed new taxes in the government's budget for border municipalities would be an excellent start.

I would also suggest the government may want to offer financial assistance to business groups in these municipalities for marketing and advertising to counteract the advertising being done by our neighbours to the south. We continually see their ads in the local newspapers right along the border. This is something perhaps even the member for Frontenac-Addington might want to pursue at the cabinet table to help address the ill effects of cross-border shopping in his constituency, or the widespread ramifications they are having in his colleague's neighbouring riding of Kingston and The Islands.

I was in conversation with my husband last night, who happens to be down at our farm right now on one of the islands he represents, Howe Island, an absolutely beautiful place. He very often has to go into Gananoque and other places for supplies, and certainly the topic of conversation there is the devastating effects that cross-border shopping is having in that area as well, the numerous businesses that are gone or just hanging on by a thread.

The government could look at the issue of cross-border shopping as an opportunity to finally help small business in Ontario instead of taking its normal route of ignoring or bashing them. Government could work with small business to develop plans to improve its competitiveness, something I am sure the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology might want to pursue. I would suggest this government re-establish the parliamentary assistant's committee on small business that worked so well in the past. The first issue that group may want to study would be cross-border shopping.

As has been said, cross-border shopping is slowly draining the economic life out of retail industry in Cornwall. A report prepared by the provincial government estimates that Ontario will lose $1 billion this year alone, and a good portion of that $1 billion will be from eastern Ontario. Will that money ever be found again? My guess is that it will take a very long time for recovery, unless of course we see some very real, concrete assistance from this government, because that $1 billion is lost in jobs, taxation and small business failures as a result of the cross-border shopping. The NDP government has wasted valuable time which could be used to help solve the problem.

I certainly want to commend my colleague for bringing this most important issue to the Legislative Assembly and I urge every member to support him in his efforts to curb the ill effects of cross-border shopping in his constituency. I suggest the government may want to use his fine example as a way to address this issue across the province.

1040

Mr Martin: I am really happy to be able to get up this morning and speak to this resolution. Certainly cross-border shopping is an issue that everybody in this province should be looking at very seriously, particularly those of us who represent communities across the river or land from an American community, or another provincial community for that matter, as we try to maintain and strengthen the economies of the places where we live.

The tack I would like to take this morning in confronting this question is one of trying to put it into some context. The answer to the problem presented this morning by the member opposite could in fact become part of a larger initiative to stem the tide of moneys going across the river in some instances, but I suggest it is certainly not the answer, nor one of the major reasons for the phenomenon happening in the first place. There have always been differentials on varying products over the years as one community competed with another, and what we have today is not that significantly different, as stores and businesses jockey for position in an economy that is always so very competitive.

I would like to suggest today that the cross-border shopping challenge is fundamentally a federal question. It is a question of relationship between two sovereign countries. The attitude the federal government has taken over the last number of years in its attempt to rid us of the borders between us and our neighbours to the south is the major problem we face here, the kinds of things the federal government has tried to foist upon the people of this country under the guise of free trade, the value of the dollar and so many other things that have such a significant impact on our ability to compete across the river.

This is a very complicated and sophisticated problem that is not going to be answered by communities by themselves, businesses in those communities or even the provincial government. There is an answer to this, but it has to be a co-operative answer among all those bodies, particularly leadership by the federal government.

The federal government, in its effort to create what it sees as a level playing field, will stop at nothing to do that. Under attack, in that effort, are all the things we as Canadians hold dear, all the things we value: our social programs, our system of hospitalization, our education system and everything else supported so generously by the taxes of the people who live in this country, who choose to live here because of the things we see as important, the sharing among one another. If the federal government is allowed to continue the agenda it has set out for itself of bringing us down to a level of service comparable to what the Americans deliver, or to share with one another, then we will all suffer.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Martin: We also have to take into consideration the fact that, as my colleague who spoke earlier from the government side said, the country is in a deep recession. This recession was certainly not caused by our government. We inherited the conditions within which this recession gets even deeper as days go on.

The federal government shares a big part of the responsibility there. Certainly the previous provincial government, with its inability to come up with an industrial strategy that projected into the next century in any significant way, can also take some responsibility for the economic condition we find ourselves in in this province right now, and for some of the fundamental challenges that face communities as they try to come up with new economic plans that speak to health and a sustainable prosperity for them into the next few years and indeed, into the next century.

When you put together a federal agenda which is designed to rid us of any border whatsoever between ourselves and the Americans, so that multinationals can become the government of the day with no concern whatsoever for those things that we as Canadians have come to hold as valuable; when you combine that with the recession which was not in any way anticipated, nor were any preparations made by either the federal or the previous provincial governments, we have in front of us, particularly those of us who represent border communities, a problem of tremendous magnitude that is not going to be solved by simply reducing the taxes on things like gasoline, tobacco and other commodities that produce the revenue we need to pay for the great education system, hospitalization system and other services we have come to expect as Canadians.

Indeed, the suggested remedy here re this bill today, as I said when I started, might be part of a larger answer. I commend the member opposite for bringing it forward and for raising this issue, because certainly none of us who represent border communities can in any way ignore this particular problem as the federal government and the previous provincial governments did. So I suggest to the members that fast-laning, express-laning borders is not the answer. This may indeed be part of the answer, but all of us together, all levels of government have to come together and come up with a bigger response.

Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to rise in private members' hour and debate Bill 102, which I believe is a very thoughtful response from my colleague the member for Cornwall.

Private members' hour gives all of us an opportunity to debate issues of the day, releases us in a way to be the member of provincial Parliament from a specific area across this province, to support one another on an individual basis, on a non-partisan basis, when there is a good idea that comes forward.

Frankly, I am a little surprised. I have been in private members' hour over the last few weeks and I have been listening to some of the debates. I know there are a lot of new members in this House who may not realize that this is their opportunity to release the bondage of having to defend the government. They are unfettered in private members' hour to think, to come up with good ideas and to support good ideas that are suggested by other members across the House.

I would say that this is a very good idea. I would point out to all members of the House that the history of cross-border shopping, which is draining the border communities, is not something any of us takes lightly. We know that history is one which has been ongoing for some time, and we also know that now is the time for action and for leadership.

The mayors' task force of which, as my colleague pointed out, the mayor of Cornwall is a member, actually suggested some courses of action that could be taken to alleviate this situation.

I believe the member for Cornwall's proposal in Bill 102 would allow the city of Cornwall, the township of Cornwall and the township of Charlottenburgh to become a pilot for that kind of proposal that was called for by the mayors' task force itself. They called for a graduated tax on gasoline. As critic for Municipal Affairs, I met with that task force. They pointed out to me and to all of us who listened to them in their thoughtful presentation before the standing committee on finance and economic affairs that the reason people who live in border communities cross the border on a regular and habitual basis is because of the difference in cost of gas.

I think the member for Cornwall did an excellent job in documenting this. I will quote from his remarks. He said that the Cornwall Business Council conducted a study of grocery products and found in the Cornwall area that groceries were in fact less expensive in Cornwall than they were across the border. He went on to point out that it was the lure of filling up the gas tank.

That is not only true in Cornwall; it is true in Sault Ste Marie, I would say to the member who spoke against this proposal; it is true in the Niagara region; it is true in Windsor; it is true in all of those communities where so many people live within 15 or 20 minutes of cheaper gas across the border. It is the lure of filling up their gas tank once or twice a week that encourages them to cross the border.

My colleague the member for Cornwall pointed out that, as a result of these price differentials in gas tax, the retailers in Cornwall are finding that their volume is down between 25% and 50%. They are trying to help themselves, but the proposal which would alleviate the Cornwall area from the impact of the gas tax imposed by this budget would give us a chance to study that, to see if it works, to see if it has an impact on cross-border shopping.

1050

I urge the members of this Legislature in the government caucus to be open-minded, to consider this, to give this a chance to go to committee, to allow the mayors and people from border communities to come forward and say whether they feel this is an appropriate pilot that could allow us to examine the effects of a lower or graduated gas tax. I think it is an excellent idea and something that is worth considering.

I want to point out to all members of the House, as the member for Cornwall said, that a Cornwall motorist pays on average 56 cents per litre of gasoline compared with 26 cents in the United States. So we can see and understand why even the most thoughtful resident of Cornwall, even the most thoughtful resident of a border community who would understand the implications of cross-border shopping and would want to support his local community, would be tempted to cross the border to fill up with gas. That is the reason the mayors' task force recommended a gas price differential.

I know it has been dismissed by the government, I know it has been dismissed by the Treasurer and by the cabinet, but it does not have to be the end of that discussion. All members of this House have an opportunity through the passage of this bill, by sending it to committee for discussion, to say to the government: "Here is an opportunity to test it out. Here is an opportunity to pilot, to examine, to see if this will work as the mayors say it will."

I suggest to the members of the NDP caucus that this is their opportunity, in private members' hour, to send those kinds of messages back to the government, to ask it to reconsider that which may be a good idea, which it has cast aside because it was told by some people that they did not think it would work. I think this is worthy of working.

Interjection.

Mrs Caplan: I am very surprised at the interjection of my colleague the member for Ottawa Centre, who is a very experienced member of this Legislature. She knows full well or she should know full well that private members' hour is a real opportunity for private members to speak up, to be advocates on behalf of their own constituency and on behalf of their regions.

Quite honestly, I was quite surprised that a member from eastern Ontario, from a border community, would dismiss out of hand and would engage in the kind of rhetoric and government defence we heard today from the member for Ottawa Centre. She knows that private members' hour can be used for thoughtful and wholesome debate. I was surprised, in fact I was amazed, that she really felt she had to defend and be so defensive. I know it is not simply that members of the NDP caucus feel they have to defend the government, but I was surprised that a member from eastern Ontario would feel she had to do that in private members' hour.

I would point out to all members of this House that in his budget, the Treasurer raised the gas tax by 1.7 cents per litre on 29 April and by an additional 1.7 cents as of 1 January 1992. For the Cornwall area, which is in the far eastern corner of the province, the member for Cornwall's bill would present an ideal opportunity and an ideal community for the government to have a chance to look at a protected area.

By not allowing the new taxes in this budget to apply to the Cornwall area, this government could show it is open-minded. By even allowing this bill to go to committee, we could hear from people in the Cornwall area, and perhaps economists and others from around the province, what impact this might have and whether or not this could be one solution to the cross-border shopping problems we are facing.

I have listened with great care to the debate in this House and I think there is agreement that this is not a simple issue. But what we have seen from the government so far has been failure. The only thing we have seen them do that has been in any way proactive has been to blame. The time for blame has passed. There is no point blaming the federal government. There are things this provincial government can do. They can show leadership. We have seen no leadership from the Minister of Revenue; we have seen no leadership from the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology; we have seen no leadership from the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and certainly we have seen no leadership from the Treasurer.

We know there is an opportunity now for all members of this House, in support of the member for Cornwall's bill, to examine this, to give the government an opportunity to display some leadership by being open to a good idea from a private member who represents an area that is suffering not only because of the recession and the economic impact in this province, but also because of the lack of leadership of the provincial government and the lack of action of the provincial government in addressing the recession and because of the huge impact of additional taxes at this time in that part of the province.

I would say to members of the House that supporting the member for Cornwall in this initiative would also send an important message not only to all regions of the province but to all members of this House that if they come up with a good idea, their colleagues, free from the partisanship and the rhetoric of defensive government, are open to good ideas in this House.

Mr Cleary: First of all, I would like to thank everyone who participated in the debate and particularly the member for S-D-G & East Grenville, who made some fine points on a graduated gas tax. I did have those figures and also the intentions of what they would like to do in New Brunswick, but time is of the essence, and I am pleased that he brought those out.

I would also like to thank the member for Ottawa Centre for her remarks. She mentioned 16% unemployment; I think it is probably over 20%, because a number of people are off unemployment now and their family has to be working and they are not drawing any benefits.

I would like to thank my colleague the member for Northumberland for her fine remarks and also the member for Sault Ste Marie. I do realize they have problems in his community, and I want to tell him that it is not my intention to look only at the Cornwall area if we can get this bill to committee. I hope we would look at all areas of the province, because I do have letters from them and I share their concerns. I would also like to thank the member for Oriole for her remarks.

I think the only way to solve this problem -- I do agree that tax breaks may not be all the answer, but at least if we get to committee and we can get our municipal, our provincial and our federal counterparts working on this, I think the end result will be very rewarding, because the fact remains that 80% of Ontarians live close to the border. I do hope members will give this bill some consideration when they are voting, and I would appreciate it if they support it. I think if we all work together we can solve this problem.

Mr Villeneuve: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I simply want to correct the record. Sir John A. Macdonald, a reincarnated Sir John A., is coming to Avonmore this afternoon on the anniversary of his death, not his birthday.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for S-D-G & East Grenville understands that this is not a point of privilege.

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

Mr Jackson moved second reading of Bill 103, An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime.

M. Jackson propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 103, Loi portant declaration des droits des victimes d'actes criminels.

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 94(c)(i), the member has 10 minutes for his presentation.

Mr Jackson: At the outset, I would like to thank all members of the Legislature for receiving this bill in the same non-partisan spirit in which it was written and has been tabled in this House.

When faced with the issue of treatment of and care for victims of crime, the major political parties in eight provinces across Canada have put aside their differences to work together to establish victims' rights bills. I hope that members of this assembly will today demonstrate their wish to stand by that nationwide example of statesmanship and concern for the plight of victims of crime in Ontario today.

The need for private member's Bill 103, An Act to establish the Rights of Victims of Crime, may perhaps be best understood when we compare how our justice system treats victims with how it treats the perpetrators of crime. Our justice system indeed protects the rights of those accused of crime, and properly so. The accused are automatically provided with specific rights which have been entrenched in law, so as to ensure that the basic principles of due process of law are upheld.

But how does our justice system, how does society treat the victim of crime? Where are the provisions entrenched in law that would regularize police and legal procedures with respect to the treatment of victims of crime who, in the aftermath of a criminal act, must often face the sentence of prolonged suffering? Where is the established legal framework that would provide that victims of crime become not only a part of the process of criminal prosecution but also a part of the equally important process of self-rehabilitation?

Let us remember that under the law, the accused are innocent until proven guilty. Victims of crime, in their pain and loss, never cease to be innocent, never cease to be the victim, and in this is to be found a great injustice, a sad inversion of what we all fundamentally believe about the difference between right and wrong. There has always been a sort of legal fiction that a crime is against the state. That misses out a very simple point, that a human being is actually being hurt by that crime.

It is this injustice which Bill 103 seeks to address and to alter. Studies show that 60% of all information which results in the conviction of a criminal comes directly from the victim. Our criminal justice system actually works because of the direct participation of victims. Still, depending on the crime against them, between 30% to 90% of victims do not report it to police. As Pat Marshall of the Metro Action Committee on Public Violence Against Women and Children indicated to me, surveys show that women who do not report crimes of violence against them frequently cite mistrust of the justice system as their reason for not reporting.

Dr Irvin Waller, professor of criminology at the University of Ottawa, was involved in the design of the United Nations declaration on crime victims. He tells me that victims' rights bills the world over have recognized that declaration and have instituted practical changes which both recognize and appreciate the victim as the driving force of justice.

I might add that Professor Waller has also worked on victims' rights bills for France and Australia and Canada's first bill in Manitoba. I would like to say that Professor Waller has strongly influenced some of the elements of this bill, and it has been in the hands of the Ministry of the Attorney General for the past three years, since I first drafted it. They have had an opportunity to study this bill at first hand.

When I presented this bill in February 1989 and then subsequently on 5 April 1990, unfortunately the bill was supported in the House but blocked from going to the standing committee on administration of justice. It is my fervent hope that such a fate will not befall this bill again this year and that in fact it will be allowed to go to the justice committee.

We must also acknowledge that there are outstanding programs that are available in this province which deal with the issue of victims' rights and compensation. I am sure the government members will be enunciating many of those programs, but the point is that those programs are not available to all victims in all jurisdictions, whether it is an example such as the London family violence program, which is an excellent program but not available in all communities. In my jurisdiction of Halton there is an outstanding victim services program, again not available everywhere. Our Criminal Injuries Compensation Board is an outstanding program, yet only one in 55 eligible victims in Ontario ever applies for compensation, let alone receives it.

Crown attorneys view illegal acts as crimes against society and not necessarily against the individual victim. This view, however, can blind one to the sight of the faces of victims, who are left in situations of prolonged suffering, of continued victimization, and with less assistance and support than criminals are afforded at taxpayers' expense.

Let us consider for a moment that more than 250,000 Ontario citizens will be victims of crime this year. Every day in the newspapers we read about these victims. In the media, they are portrayed as the wronged, as the key players in courtroom drama, and so often become unwilling celebrities in cases which publicize widely their private suffering. Victims, however, are not accorded the same play in the legal system, in the court proceedings.

This bill which we have before us today would be a corrective to that situation in our province. Bill 103 would require that victims receive information about the cases they are involved with, including the dates established for bail hearings for their assailants, including when and how the present victim impact statement would work.

I was informed of another case involving a family in which three children were victims of incest. They were sexually assaulted by their father over a period of six years. As adults, they decided to press charges against their father. When they went and presented themselves at the police station, they were directed to simply sit down in front of a typewriter and type out their statement. Never were they informed that this would be the basis on which the case would be heard in court. At no point were they advised that they could seek a lawyer for clarification, and it was no surprise that the outcome of that case is that the father was given a suspended sentence of three years of community service in a children's playground.

These examples demonstrate why victims feel that they are the ones who are put on trial. Really they are victims twice over, for in addition to being victims of a violent act, they become the victims of a justice system which sometimes appears to apply to them the reverse of the legal procedures reserved for the accused.

In 1988, amendments to the Criminal Code under Bill C-89 helped to accomplish a form of compensation which was channelled from the federal government through to each of the provinces. That bill dealt with victims' surcharges against convicted criminals. These funds are sent to this province for the express purpose of having them applied to improve victims' services, and that is where some of the money would definitely come from in order to pay for the enhancement of victims' rights in this province.

This bill would also put into law the right of a victim to be provided with ongoing information regarding his case. Victims should have the legal right to be informed by the police of the progress of the investigations related to their case and of charges laid in connection with them. In addition, victims should be routinely informed by police of the protection available to them to prevent unlawful intimidation.

It would also establish the right of victims to make representation to the prosecuting crown attorney before plea bargaining, sentencing or interim releases are considered for their assailants. Among other provisions, the bill would ensure that victims are informed whenever their assailants leave or have escaped custody. Under this bill, and upon request, victims of sexual assault would have the right to be interviewed by a police officer of the same gender.

In terms of compensation to victims, this bill would make offenders directly liable for damages to their victims as plaintiffs in a civil action, including those undertaken for emotional distress and bodily harm. Most significantly, this bill would provide a presumption that victims of sexual assault, attempted sexual assault and spousal abuse have suffered emotional distress, thus eliminating the requirement on the part of victims to prove this obvious fact before the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board or before a civil court.

Victims of crime in Ontario deserve the best care and support our society can offer. Victims then deserve more than what currently is provided for them under Ontario law. Let us not inflict on them a further injustice by allowing this bill to become a victim of politics itself. Therefore, on behalf of the victims of crime, I ask all members of the House to join with me in passing Bill 103, a bill of rights for victims of crime in Ontario, and referring it to the standing committee on administration of justice of this House.

1110

Mr Wessenger: I would like speak in support of the principle of this bill. I think it is a matter which all members of the House are concerned about and all members of the House support in providing additional services and protection for victims. However, I would like to add a few comments with respect to some of the details and difficulties I see with respect to the specifics of the bill.

First, with respect to the whole question of the statement of principles in section 2, there is some ambiguity with respect to the bill as to whether these principles are to be binding or whether they are guidelines only, because of the use of the word "should." I am not certain how that ambiguity is to be construed by the mover of the bill. If it is a matter of "should," then of course it may raise expectations for victims which cannot be met. If it is a question of being a matter of law that the principles must be followed, first, there would be significant financial implications for the ministry to meet all such standards and, second, there are some cases where the investigation and/or the prosecution would be jeopardized if there was compliance with a particular standard. The Attorney General has policy directives to crown attorneys and the Solicitor General and municipal police forces have directives to police officers which are already addressing many of the principles contained in the bill, so I would say that in most cases the standards are now being met by policy directives.

Second, with respect to section 2, paragraph 5, I would suggest that the crown attorney is in effect meeting this objective. The crown attorney system provides special training programs on wife assault, child assault and sexual assault, in addition to regular, wide-ranging training on legal issues. We have the victim/witness assistance program, located in 12 locations in Ontario, which is funded through the Attorney General by the Ontario women's directorate, and the crown attorney's system itself provides three types of designated special prosecution co-ordinators in each office in the province. For victims of sexual assault, child abuse and wife assault, specially trained prosecutors serve as a source for prosecution staff in each office, providing additional information on the unique difficulties faced by these kinds of victims, in order that the prosecutor assigned to the case has an enhanced understanding of the complexities of these kinds of cases.

Section 2, paragraph 6, provides, with respect to consultation with the victim, that the victim should have an opportunity to make representation to the prosecutor before final arrangements are made with respect to a plea. Currently, information to victims and discussion with victims during plea negotiations is provided in many cases.

Section 2, paragraph 7, requires that victims be given an opportunity to make representations to the prosecuting crown attorney. I would point out that victim impact statements are used in many cases across the province, and affected ministries are currently preparing to reach a final agreement on a province-wide system of impact statement programs, in accordance with the provisions contained in Bill C-89.

There are some aspects of the bill that I find quite interesting, and I might point them out since they were not mentioned. Section 3 and section 5 of the bill provide for damages for emotional distress in the case of a victim of an assault, if the victim is or was a spouse of the assailant, a victim of sexual assault and a victim of an attempted sexual assault, and section 5 of the bill provides that proof of conviction shall be taken as conclusive evidence in the case of civil actions. I think these certainly are matters which are good points, and I commend the member for raising them for future action.

In summary, the bill's statement of principles is a good statement of principles, but it may give rise to expectations that cannot be reasonably carried out, despite good intentions, and it might be unfair to victims to promise and/or guarantee services or remedies that cannot be honoured.

The bill, as I indicated earlier, covers information and procedures that crown attorneys observe in many respects. Further improvements could be made in expanded guidelines for crown attorneys.

With respect to sections 2, 6 and 7, these sections are not practical in every case, given the daily flow of cases through the courts of Ontario, particularly in large urban areas, and the bill also blurs the role of the crown attorney. The crown attorney is not the lawyer for the victim, nor is he or she the lawyer for the police. The crown is an independent assessor of the facts and all interests in making an independent decision.

As indicated earlier, I like the proposed changes with respect to changing the civil remedies. My minister does support the principles of Bill 103, but does not support special legislation, especially when it does not change the current state of remedies for victims.

Mr Curling: I first would like to commend the member for Burlington South for his persistence and --

Mr Sorbara: One of the best members.

Mr Curling: Yes, one of the better members of the Conservative Party. But I would just be very short on that, because many members of my party feel very compassionate about this bill, and we of course hope that the government side, over on the other side, supports this wholeheartedly.

Society, as members know, is judged by the manner in which it treats the most vulnerable and the most disfranchised. As elected members of Parliament, it is our responsibility to make sure that all human beings are protected and are treated fairly.

As one of my colleagues pointed out to me, the Criminal Code always seems to be there to punish the offender, and somehow there is no sympathy there for the victim. I think it is about time that we focus ourselves and our attention on some of the abuse and the psychological situation that the victim goes through.

The point I would like to make is that there should be some consistency in this bill across Canada. Although of course we approach it here in the province, we should know that the House of Commons is debating this very actively. But we could set an example here by passing this bill. It would be unfortunate if someone being abused in the province, the victim, would be treated better here than elsewhere, whether it is in Quebec or British Columbia, so there should be a national consistency about how we treat victims of crime.

One of the points that grabbed my attention very much in the member's bill was the victim's right to be informed whether his or her assailant has applied for parole or day passes, been granted bail or escaped lawful custody. It is important. We know the fear that goes through one's mind that an individual is being released, whether or not that individual will be around, and how one should protect oneself. I think it should do that so the caution and the psychological accommodation that is needed can be done.

The right for sexual assault victims to be interviewed by an officer of the same gender: I think there is some -- I am trying to find another word -- comfort zone, a way for one to speak easily and openly about the affair and about what he or she feels could be done. I think it would be very helpful to the system.

I want to strongly support the member's bill and I hope that the members on the other side see it that way, although I heard the other member pointing out where certain things have been taken into consideration already under the Criminal Code. I know they are acting in that direction, but there is no bill that is perfect and I think this one brings it to the point if we examine all aspects of the bill and protect the victims in this situation.

1120

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to have the opportunity to make some comments about Bill 103. This bill is long overdue. The statistics show us that 250,000 Ontarians suffer loss, injury and emotional trauma every year as a result of being victims of crime. The victims have essentially been left unprotected by legislation. They are only protected by the good intentions of those who work in the fields of law enforcement and court prosecution. A victim today receives by way of obligation no explanation of court proceedings. A victim receives no explanation regarding compensation for victims of crime. A victim has no rights to privacy and protection and his right to reparation is ignored.

Police officers, health professionals, lawyers, crown prosecutors and judges need legislative guidance to ensure help to victims of crime. Legislation for this particular protection exists in every major jurisdiction in North America except Ontario. I point out that the better prepared a victim of crime is in terms of understanding the court procedures, in terms of being protected by the system while he goes through the court procedures, the higher the rate of success of the criminal justice system to deal with the prosecution of people charged with serious criminal offences.

I have taken a look at Hansard from 5 April 1990. The member for Welland-Thorold spoke at length about the Victims' Bill of Rights Act, and it is interesting, because his experience in private life was that of a criminal defence lawyer. His job was to try to protect and defend those charged with criminal offences. Here is what he had to say about this particular subject:

"It is important that victims of crime can know that they are not going to be subjected to the whim of an institution as to whether or not they are involved in the process; that indeed they have a right to be involved in that process.

"It is important for victims to know and understand that it is not a matter of being extended a mere courtesy when they are regarded in a particular light, but it is a matter of having a right to be regarded in that particular way."

What the member quite correctly was saying was that police do what they can to ensure protection for victims of crime, but there is nothing mandating them to do that. Judges as well bend over backwards to be sensitive to victims of crime, to listen to impact statements, to listen to what victims say about sentencing and to listen to what victims' positions would be in the case of interim release, but there is no legislative obligation to do that. It is a common courtesy which sometimes, in an overburdened system, is lost.

Crown attorneys face the same difficulties. They try to be sensitive when dealing with victims regarding sentencing, interim release, or even the plea bargaining aspect of the criminal system, but there is no legislative obligation, and, again, in a system that is overburdened, it is sometimes difficult for them to act in the way victims would expect the justice system to act related to the plight that they find themselves in.

I heard the comments of the member for Simcoe Centre, and of course this act is not perfect, it can be improved, and I would hope that the members of this Legislature will refer this to the standing committee on administration of justice to make those improvements, but to make this law now, rather than wait any longer.

The bill certainly sets out the general principle that I think no one here would take issue with. Victims should be treated with courtesy, compassion and respect for their personal dignity and privacy.

The bill also sets out the obligations of the various parties involved in the justice system. It says that victims should have access to social services, health care and medical treatment, counselling and legal assistance responsive to their needs. It sets out the duties of the police. Victims should be informed at the time of the investigation of the crime by the police of the services and remedies available to victims of crime and the provisions of the Compensation for Victims of Crime Act, and victims should be informed by police of their investigations and of the charges laid. Victims should be informed of the role of the prosecutor and the victim's role in the prosecution, the court procedures that will relate to that prosecution, the dates that all of these various procedures will be occurring on, and the outcome of the various procedures should be explained to the victim.

The Askov case has caused considerable difficulty to the justice system in this province and we have heard in debates in this Legislature what some of those difficulties have been. Chief Justice Dubin, in his recent court decision on the appeal of the Askov matters, stated that the Askov case has done more to undermine the public's confidence in the justice system than anything that has occurred. It is therefore incumbent upon this Legislature to try and restore some of the confidence that has been lost because victims have seen cases being tossed out of court and they do not understand why.

This particular bill can help re-establish the public's confidence in the justice system. Victims will know that they are being protected, that there is an obligation to protect them and that they will at least understand how the justice system works. I urge everyone in this chamber to consider the provisions of this bill. I acknowledge that the provisions may not be perfect, but we can send this bill to the justice committee, we can fine-tune it and we can have a piece of legislation that will bring back confidence to the public's perception of the justice system, and I think we can have a bill we will all be proud of.

Mr Winninger: I rise in support of this Bill 103 in principle, and I am just sorry that when this matter came before the justice committee last February and the Attorney General and the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board were hearing submissions from witnesses at the same time in regard to compensation for victims of crime, the member for Burlington South had not called quorum on that day so that the merits of that particular bill could have been considered earlier by the justice committee.

Certainly the member for Burlington South's bill complements several important initiatives that have already been taken. The victim impact statements have been mentioned, which assist a judge in determining an appropriate sentence or disposition for a convicted suspect; the surcharge which is imposed to help fund the witness assistance program; the prompt return of stolen property, so that a photograph can now take the place of an item of stolen property. There is the rape shield law, which has caused a lot of controversy but allows a victim of a sexual assault not to be subjected to demeaning cross-examination by defence attorneys; the child screen law, which allows children to testify behind a screen or by videotaped evidence, and finally, a limited form of restitution that is offered under the Criminal Code.

1130

In Ontario, many initiatives have certainly been taken at the administrative level. Information is provided to victims of crime where violence, death, financial loss or personal safety is concerned. Same-gender interviews are encouraged so that a victim of a sexual assault can talk to a member of the same sex about it. Special training, as has been mentioned by the member for Simcoe Centre, has been initiated for crown attorneys in wife, child and sexual assault cases. The victim witness program exists in several centres across the province to encourage intensive emotional support for victims of crime. Information on the court system and liaison services is available to severely traumatized victims of crime. There is the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board. As been mentioned already, in London, the child witness projects provide emotional support for children, counselling, desensitization to the court system and information regarding the court system. In London, we are also pleased to have the police family consultants, who are police officers specially trained in domestic violence so that they can deal with victims in a sensitive fashion.

I have no problem with enshrining a so-called bill of rights for victims, as other provinces have done. I do, however, have some reservations. First of all, in regard to the provisions to seek civil damages and what is called a statutory presumption that sexual and spousal abuse gives rise to emotional distress, these create some problems in that a civil action may prejudice a criminal action or a criminal action can prejudice a civil action. We have to look at the interaction of the civil and criminal procedures very carefully indeed. Also, we do not want to see the criminal process used to collect a civil debt. Further, we do not want two different rules of evidence to apply in a civil case and in a criminal case in regard to the emotional trauma and the damages claimed for emotional distress in a criminal and also in a civil context.

While the views of victims are routinely solicited in matters of plea bargaining and sentencing, and especially where safety is concerned, problems can arise. The Askov decision has been mentioned, and there may be many circumstances where the victims of crime cannot be readily found. We would be loath to see any delay in the trials due to that. Furthermore, the crown attorney is not just a lawyer for the victim of crime; the crown attorney is acting in the public interest, and the victim's view is a very important factor in the interim release and sentencing, but certainly cannot be a decisive one.

As been mentioned by the member for Simcoe Centre, certainly there are no new sanctions in this bill to protect victims' rights. It is a declaration of principles. Perhaps the member for Burlington South should be looking at sanctions that might be imposed to ensure that victims of crime are protected.

These standards of conduct are certainly laudatory and perhaps represent the optimum standard for crown attorneys as they currently act them out. I certainly support strongly the fair treatment of victims and witnesses laid out in this act. We may have to seek some alternatives in the way the criminal justice system is at present responding to victims' rights. We have to ensure that the pendulum does not swing too far back the other way, so that criminal suspects who are presumed to be innocent until proven guilty are not prejudiced by the manner in which we protect our victims of crime. There is a fine balance, and I hope we can find that.

Mrs Fawcett: I would like also to commend the member for Burlington South for the work he has done in the last two years to bring attention to the plight of the many victims of crime.

His bill before the House this morning, Bill 103, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act, would enable the government to enforce the statement of the bill's principles and make it easier for victims to bring charges against their assailants.

While we know that crime has no bounds, knows no bounds and can happen to anyone at any age, as the critic for women's issues, I feel it important to make a few remarks this morning because women, we know, can be particularly vulnerable when it comes to crime.

Certainly, there is no doubt that much time and attention and many dollars must be spent to deal effectively with the perpetrators of the various crimes, and I certainly have no quarrel with that. But what really is being done for the helpless victims who are very often women and children?

The horrible fear, trauma and devastating physical harm all victims go through surely deserves the serious attention of all here. This bill gives rights to all victims so they can be sure of assistance in putting these horrible experiences behind them and getting on with their lives.

The bill sets out certain principles that are to apply to the treatment of victims of crime. It also creates certain protections to apply to victims of crime when they are plaintiffs in civil lawsuits against criminals, and it recognizes criminal convictions in the civil actions. All of this we know is definitely needed. We want to prevent victims, if at all possible, from being treated perfunctorily or even abused or manipulated by the criminal justice system. It is sad that we have to even think in these terms, but we know of instances where this is definitely so.

It is the policy position of our party that we definitely support in theory the terms of this bill, and certainly we want to see some concrete actions. In fact, there have been references to the victim/witness assistance program, which effectively carries out the same functions as maybe the first part of Bill 103. This was the program established by the Ministry of the Attorney General in 1986 on a pilot project basis. Certainly the program does allow the ministry to take an active role in preventing the double victimization of victims and witnesses, thereby improving the effectiveness of the criminal justice process, as these persons would now be willing to co-operate in the process.

It also has the effect of improving the public perception of the criminal justice system, and I think Bill 103 then takes that one step farther. We certainly want to see fundamental steps taken to place trained individuals into the process with a specific role of addressing the needs of victims and witnesses.

The service provision was to have been expanded in 1991 to give more specialized and intensive services to groups such as children, the elderly, immigrant and sexual assault victims, who all need our definite support.

The expansion was to be taken in response to the increasing demand for the provision of victims' services expressed by victims' groups, the judiciary, the police and the crown attorneys, who all support these kinds of actions. Certainly, we would want to see the police mandated to inform victims of their rights. So often they are the forgotten element in the crime, which this bill does address.

Right now, these pilot projects certainly need to be expanded province-wide so that all victims across this province can know they are being treated fairly and in a safe manner.

I think this bill takes great strides by allowing victims to inform the courts of their emotional, psychological or physical suffering, which can allow them to contribute to the sentencing and early release eligibility of the accused, alleviating to some extent that sense of exclusion and bewilderment they so often feel. Such initiatives may be a stepping stone to the wider acceptance of victims as an integral part of the criminal justice process. As I said, it is easy to forget the victim in all of this because, naturally, so much effort must be put forward in dealing with the criminal.

I think we know that legislation alone is not enough. What is most important is that there be an improved awareness program to ensure that victims of crime are aware of their legal rights and other recourses that are open to them. Urgently, right now, we need that public awareness. Primarily, I think we want to see widespread acceptance of the victims as an integral part of the process, as well as greater public awareness of the various recourses available to them.

Again, I am pleased to see this bill being brought forward and I know all of us in this party are happy to support it.

1140

Mr Carr: I am pleased to rise and add to the debate here this morning. Like the other people, I would like to commend my colleague the member for Burlington South for bringing forth this bill and allowing us to debate it. I think it is a worthwhile bill. I was very pleased by some of the elements of this bill.

Some of the things, of course, that have been talked about are things like sexual assault victims' rights to be interviewed by an officer of the same gender. I was fortunate enough last week, during Police Week, to spend time in Metro Toronto with the squad that handles sexual assaults. I had an opportunity to go into the room and I actually participated. They gave me questions, just as they would one of the victims, to see exactly what it was like. I was very pleased to see the fine work that is being done out there. But this is not happening in all jurisdictions, and I think it should. As part of this legislation, I think things like that would be happening.

I believe one of the key elements also will be the victim's right to consult with police and crown attorneys about proceedings and to present a victim impact statement. All too often in our justice system, the victim is the individual who gets left out. Unfortunately, that is the case, and this bill would go a long way towards eliminating that.

It is my hope that as a result of this, the standing committee on administration of justice -- and I see some of my friends from the other side are here from that committee -- will get a chance to go into detail with this bill. I hope that what happens all too often in this House, that when good legislation is tabled it dies on the order paper, will not happen. I would like a chance to take a hard look at what is going on and to hear the fine testimony that would be out there, because there is a long line of people who would like to come forward and explain their particular positions on this.

I think what we are talking about in the basic principles of this bill is really that the victim should be treated with the courtesy, compassion, dignity and privacy that should be there. All too often, because of the way our criminal justice system operates right now, the victim gets left out. This bill would ensure that does not happen. Victims should receive formal, prompt and fair redress for the harm they have suffered.

In some of my other activities, I have gone out with the police. I have said that when a person is robbed, for example, and the police arrive on the scene, they find that sometimes the robbery is the most traumatic thing that has ever happened to that individual. In my area of Halton, we have two officers who go out and work with victims, and I think that needs to happen right across the province.

I think this is a good bill. I will be supporting it. Hopefully, the government opposite will allow it to go to the justice committee, where we can get into fine detail and put in some fine testimony from the people who would like to come forward. It is a bill that is long overdue. Let's move ahead; let's got on with it. I believe this is a fine piece of legislation, so I will be supporting it.

I would like to leave a couple of minutes for my colleague the member for Waterloo North to speak as well on this.

Mr Mills: It is a pleasure to rise this morning and speak to Bill 103 from the member for Burlington South. He has put an awful lot of effort and time into this.

I would like to say that no one is more sensitive to the issues of the victims of crime than this government. I would like to take an opportunity to read some of the things this government is doing to aid victims of crime.

The Police Services Act embodies the importance of respect for victims of crime and an understanding of their needs in a declaration of principles. As part of the Ontario sexual assault prevention program, the government has given core funding to 21 rape crisis sexual assault centres and the Ontario Coalition of Rape Crisis Centres, and it has been increased to over $2.5 million.

There has been new funding for 10 new centres at a price of $425,000; new funding for crisis counselling at $1.7 million; diverse community outreach funding at $670,00; enhanced regional services to rural communities of $553,000; assistance for program administration at $651,800; data management at $120,00; interdisciplinary and discipline-specific police training on issues related to sexual assaults at $110,000.

On 28 February 1991 in this House, the Solicitor General announced that $4.2 million of the $700-million anti-recession package will go towards victims' assistance. The program areas included a wife assault education program, organizational support for sexual assault centres, victim services support and northern Ontario and native community outreach services.

Police/community victim assistance services, such as the victim crisis assistance referral service, provide victims with short-term emotional and practical support and with referrals to needed services. Regional consultative services regarding community-based victim services are being added. The total cost of that is $629,500. I am proud to stand here this morning in my place and speak to the wonderful efforts this government has taken, is undertaking and will continue to undertake in furthering the unfortunate victims of violence and crime.

In conclusion, I would like to commend the member for Burlington South. The bill's general direction conforms to existing ministry and government commitments to the victims of crime, and the stated principles reflect current legislation, current programs and current policies.

1150

Mrs Caplan: I would like to start by thanking the member for Durham East for the very clear listing of initiatives of the government, most of which were started and begun over the last five years by the previous government. What it shows is that in fact these issues are not partisan issues.

I want to reiterate, as I speak in support of the principle of this bill, the fact that private members' hour, as I said when I was speaking to an earlier piece of legislation, is an opportunity for members of the Legislature individually to think. This is not the time when they have to come and defend the government. This is not the time when they are bound by caucus discipline. This is the time when, if there is a good idea brought forward by a member of the Legislature, they have the opportunity to think about it, speak about it, vote on it in principle, send it to committee, explore it.

Our rights as individual members are to represent our constituents, to act and speak about the public interest, to act in the best interests of the people of Ontario. Today members have seen an example of two bills, one by my colleague the member for Cornwall, a very good suggestion that would give us an opportunity to explore what would happen if we encourage the government to implement a graduated gas tax in the Cornwall area by exempting it from the budget initiative. Here my colleague the member for Burlington South has brought forward again a proposal for victims' rights legislation. Ontario is the only province in Canada without that legislation.

Today's approval in principle would allow this bill to go to committee for further discussion, for further exploration, for refinement, and I will say very clearly that I believe the piece of legislation we see before us today needs significant improvement, but in principle I support it. I think it is a good idea. I think having a chance to discuss this and debate it at committee would be in the public interest of my constituents in the riding of Oriole and in the public interest of the people of Ontario.

I would urge all members of this Legislature, especially during private members' hour, when we can free ourselves from the partisanship of our caucus discipline, to think about the proposals that are coming forward and not just feel that they have to defend the government record --

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: Whether it is the record, I say to the member for Durham East, of the previous government or the government before that or the present government today, they should not feel they have to defend to the death the promises their party made during the election, which nobody else in their caucus is feeling the need to defend.

The members opposite have the opportunity as members of this Legislature to stand up and support good ideas when they come from any member of this House. I have been really disappointed in the last few days during private members' hour that members have not done that, that the members of the government caucus seem to take the opportunity in private members' hour to defend the government. It is not necessary to do that during private members' hour.

This is a good idea that the member for Burlington South has brought forward for debate in this House. This is the kind of initiative that members during private members' hour can put forward for thoughtful debate. My colleagues have put on the record, I think, some very sound statistics and data and initiatives and programs that could be helpful, and I would hope that as private members, the members opposite would give this their consideration, their thoughtfulness and their support.

I would hope we will see improvements over the course of the next few months and years as we work together in this Legislature in the kind of attitudes -- I see members opposite laughing. This is not funny. These are serious issues of debate. I see the member for Ottawa Centre laughing about this. She cares about victims' rights, or she should care about victims' rights. I thought she cared about victims' rights and here she is today laughing during a debate in private members' hour rather than seeing this as an opportunity to deal with a difficult and important issue.

Mrs Witmer: I would like to take this opportunity to speak to Bill 103, the Victims' Bill of Rights Act, 1991. I want to congratulate my colleague the member for Burlington South, who has been committed to the principle of a victims' bill of rights since before 1989. I also want to express my appreciation to him for the tremendous consultation that has taken place. There has been consultation and changes made to this bill. He has consulted with victims' organizations, women's groups and members of the legal community throughout Canada and Ontario.

We have before us today a bill that for the first time in Ontario's history would entrench the rights of victims of crime into the province's justice system. This is a very important bill for women in this province, and as the critic for women's issues for my party, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to support this bill. It is especially important for those women across the province who have suffered from sexual assault and spousal abuse. Unfortunately, their numbers are far too many.

We need to make the justice system in this province much more responsive to their immediate and ongoing needs, and in talking to these women in my own community and across the province, this is not happening at the present time. They do not have the assistance and the support that is so desperately needed at a time of crisis. Women throughout this province deserve our support. We should support today Bill 103. We cannot turn our backs on those women who suffer daily from sexual assault and spousal abuse.

Mr Jackson: I would like to thank all members who participated in today's debate on Bill 103. I would like particularly to thank those members who have been here before and seen this bill on two previous occasions tabled in the House. Many of them are frustrated that the entrenchment in law of its principles has not become a reality in this province.

I am reminded that when the New Democratic Party was in opposition, the then Attorney General critic, the member for Welland-Thorold, referring to my bill: said" "We applaud this legislation. It is long overdue. It is important that it be pursued diligently by the government." That is to say, that it not be set aside and put on the back burner and be the subject of delay.

I am pleased to advise the House that when I talked to the new Attorney General for the government he said he would support it going to the standing committee on administration of justice. I am now advised by several members of the NDP caucus that they have been instructed to vote against that.

I am quite disturbed and concerned that victims across this province are going to see yet another delay in the entrenchment of rights for victims in this province. The last province in this country to have a government working on this bill is this province of Ontario, with 10 million people.

I can only say that for all those victims who have approached me to share with me their own personal pain and to allow me to understand what they are going through, to allow me to bring forward this bill, I am hopeful that in their name the members of this House will set aside their partisanship and will think about their constituents and consider bringing forward this kind of legislation, which is long overdue. Their cries for justice and compassion should be heard by all members of this House. I ask all members to bring in a victims' bill of rights for Ontario and have this referred to the justice committee of this House so it can become a reality this fall.

1200

CORNWALL AREA ECONOMIC PROTECTION ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA PROTECTION ÉCONOMIQUE DE LA RÉGION DE CORNWALL

The House divided on Mr Cleary's motion for second reading of Bill 102, which was negatived on the following vote:

La motion de M. Cleary pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 102, mise aux voix, est rejetee :

Ayes/Pour -- 21

Arnott, Bradley, Callahan, Caplan, Carr, Cleary, Cordiano, Cunningham, Daigeler, Fawcett, Harnick, Jordan, McClelland, McLean, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, G., Sullivan, Turnbull, Villeneuve, Witmer.

Nays/Contre -- 34

Abel, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Duignan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Haeck, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Laughren, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mammoliti, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, O'Connor, Perruzza, Silipo, Sutherland, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, F., Wilson, G., Wood.

VICTIMS' BILL OF RIGHTS ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LA DÉCLARATION DES DROITS DES VICTIMES

The Deputy Speaker: Mr Jackson has moved second reading of Bill 103.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Mr Jackson: Mr Speaker, I request that the bill be referred to the standing committee on administration of justice.

Clerk Assistant and Clerk of Committees: Mr Speaker, the majority is not in favour of it going to the standing committee.

The Deputy Speaker: The majority of the House not being in agreement with the request of the member, this bill is referred to the committee of the whole House.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est defere au comite plenier de la Chambre.

Mr Jackson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Could Hansard record that it was all NDP members who stood against referring this to the standing committee on administration of justice?

Mr Mills: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I believe the third party asked for it to be on the record that the NDP is against victims of violence.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. I will not entertain any more points of order. Thursday mornings are normally nice and quiet. Let's keep it this way.

The House recessed at 1211.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Callahan: On 9 August 1990 the member for York South, now the Premier, visited a small community in my riding called Huttonville to rail against the Liberal government about the lack of capital education funding allocated in my riding to address the problem of portables at Huttonville Public School. Indeed, the headline in the Toronto Star over the account of his visit was, "Liberals Shortchanging School System."

The member informed the public that the Peel Board of Education is the largest board in Canada. He is quite right: It is 93,000 strong and 18,000 of these children are in portables. The figures are even higher this year, but the member for York South said that although Peel asked for $81 million for new schools and additions, it received approval for only $31 million. It seems as though the Premier, on his way to Huttonville and to the premiership, is not honouring the promises he made there.

While we are at it, I wonder how the students and teachers at Cardinal Leger High School, the first Catholic high school in Brampton, feel about the Premier's promises. Although they were ranked number two on the priority list of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, the Minister of Education, in her usual way, interfered with the autonomy of our local Catholic board, knocked Cardinal Leger out of the funding and replaced it with a school lower down on the list. The ministry is becoming more centralized and heavy-handed, and as we have seen with Dufferin-Peel and in Windsor, she is not beyond intervening and setting local board priorities rather than leaving it to the elected officials to do so.

TRAFFIC SIGNALS

Mr Arnott: The subject I want to bring to the attention of the Legislature today pertains to the urgent need for traffic signal lights at the intersection of Highway 9 and Allan Road in the village of Clifford. I first raised this issue with the Minister of Transportation in a letter dated 10 October 1990, in which I expressed my profound concern about the safety of this intersection.

At my first meeting with the minister on 23 October 1990 I raised the matter again, expressing my concern. This was followed up by another letter to the minister on 24 January 1991. In response, in a letter dated 11 April addressed to the village of Clifford, some three months later, the minister indicated he would not provide a special subsidy for these traffic lights.

Highway 9 is a connecting link highway in a major route for provincial traffic travelling to the cottage country and the Bruce Peninsula. It cuts the village of Clifford in half. During the summer months the volume of traffic using Highway 9 increases dramatically, and as a result local residents of the village are sometimes forced to wait up to 20 minutes to get across the main street of their own home town.

To illustrate the frustration and inconvenience this causes to local residents, I would like to quote from a letter I received from a five-year-old girl, Megan Douglas, who wrote about the weekend traffic situation:

"Last Saturday afternoon me and Matt were trying to cross the road. Cars were coming. We waited for a long time. So we had to turn around and go home. I was mad cause I wanted to see my mom who was working at the municipal office. The dog was with us."

Some day a child like Megan is not going to turn around and go home, but will attempt to beat the traffic, very possibly with tragic results. Those who have dragged their feet on this issue will be responsible.

SERVICES FOR THE DISABLED

Ms M. Ward: Last Friday I had the pleasure of visiting the Hugh MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre in North York. Today I would like to pay tribute to the management and staff of the centre for their excellent work and innovation. The centre serves Ontario children and young adults who have physical disabilities.

I was particularly impressed by the augmentive communication services. A charming young man of age five told us a story using Blissymbolics. Microcomputers are also used extensively as a communication and learning tool for the disabled.

The centre has a shop which builds wheelchairs and other mobility devices tailored to the needs of the clients. The staff explained how important proper seating is, since the chair becomes an extension of the person.

The centre also designs and builds artificial limbs and orthotic brace devices. One client, who was there for a final testing of an artificial hand, to be mounted on his wheelchair, demonstrated to us how he would operate this using movements of his forehead.

It was by coincidence that my visit followed the announcement by the Minister of Citizenship of $400-million funding to improve services for young people with speaking and writing disabilities. The Hugh MacMillan Rehabilitation Centre is one of 15 centres to receive this new funding. The centre is doing excellent work to improve the lives of the disabled and increase their independence. This is proof that the funds are well spent.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr Curling: It is becoming increasingly clear that this government does not intend to deal seriously with the problems at the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is now obvious that this government has no plan to get the commission back on track so that victims of discriminatory practices will have reasonable access to a fair hearing and redress.

It is also evident that the minister responsible for the Ontario Human Rights Commission has not read the reports on the commission to which she so often refers. If she had, she would be aware that they all cite the need for additional staff as an indispensable prerequisite for the resolution of the case backlog problem.

The NDP has always insisted that the commission was underfunded. They had a chance, in their first budget, to address this. They did not. Instead, they froze funding to the commission at last year's level. Now, as of October of this year, the commission likely will have 10 fewer staff to deal with the case backlog. The NDP decision to freeze funding makes addressing the key recommendation of several independent reviews, staff enrichment, next to impossible. Increased funding under the previous government resulted in the hiring of new staff and the development of a case management plan, which has helped the commission to make some steps towards dealing with the backlog.

This minister has done absolutely nothing to deal with this important justice issue, nor has she addressed the troubling reports of discrimination within the commission itself. The provincial Ombudsman, in a recent report on the Ontario Human Rights Commission, expressed great concerns about the backlog and called for the government to take immediate action. When will the minister take meaningful steps to ensure that the Ontario Human Rights Commission can fulfil its mandate?

DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Mr B. Murdoch: Yesterday, I brought to the attention of this House the issue of the Minister of the Environment ignoring the advice of her staff and overruling their decisions. But I would like to point out that it is not only she who is at fault. The matter would never have reached the point it has without the contribution of a very inept staff of the Ministry of Agriculture and Food.

This House will remember that Noah and Linda Pierce applied fpr a development permit to build a home and create a working farm for their daughter and son-in-law. They proposed to build on the part of the land which was designated as class 7 land and allow the children to keep the house, barn and good farm land in one unit. The hearing officer on the appeal noted that this proposal would secure a farm home for the young couple in which they could start a family and continue farming, both his parents' property and this farm, at a time when it is very difficult for young farmers to become established.

One would think that the Ministry of Agriculture and Food would be encouraging such ventures. It appears they are not. The OMAF representative said the case did not comply strictly with Food Land Guidelines, but the hearing officer stated that it does comply with the spirit and purpose and, in any event, the guidelines are just that, only guidelines, not regulations. After reviewing this case, I am astounded that the Ministry of Agricultre and Food, which supposedly speaks for farmers, could make such a serious error in judgement.

SHELTER FOR WOMEN

Mr Winninger: I am pleased to speak today of an initiative in my riding that has been greeted with welcome anticipation, the creation of an additional women's shelter that the women in my riding will have convenient access to. For many years, Women's Community House, a shelter in London for battered women, has had to place many women outside of London simply because there were not enough beds in London. Now a second centre has been announced to serve women and their children fleeing from violent situations.

The new centre, with 12 bedrooms, will provide an additional 30 beds for London. Women's Community House is raising $500,000 for the project. An additional $480,000 for construction is coming from the federal government. The operating costs will be shared by the provincial government and the city of London. This is a fine example of how all levels of government can work together to provide refuge to victims of domestic violence.

As members know, this government, in its budget, has committed an additional $12 million for new beds and enhanced services in emergency shelters and other improvements to services for women who are victims of domestic violence.

As a concrete example of this government's dedication to protecting the lives of women, the Minister without Portfolio responsible for women's issues announced on 8 May that in the coming year a $2-million increase in funding will be made to reduce the long waiting list. I am proud that Women's Community House in London has taken active steps to meet this challenge.

1340

PARKDALE COMMUNITY FESTIVAL

Mr Ruprecht: It is with great pride that I would like to tell the members of this Parliament about the Parkdale Community Festival sponsored by the Parkdale Village business improvement area. This will be the largest street festival in the history of Parkdale.

Our community is turning the corner on drugs and crime. In fact, the president, Mr Stancheson, will be presenting some awards to the 11th and 14th police divisions for their commitment and good work to keep our streets safe from drug pushers, pimps and criminals. Our men and women in blue deserve a lot of credit, especially in the Metro area, as they place their lives in danger while helping our communities to stay drug-free.

I am pleased to invite all the members of this House to participate in the opening ceremonies in order to experience the quality and friendly personality of Parkdale's residents and businesses.

ONTARIO SCHOLARSHIP AWARD

Mrs Cunningham: It was with shock and disappointment that we learned yesterday of the government's plan to eliminate the monetary award that accompanies the Ontario Scholarship Award Certificate. Since 1959, when the Ontario scholarship program was established by the Progressive Conservative government, it has provided an incentive for thousands of Ontario high school students to work harder and obtain a high standing in their final year.

Today in the member's gallery are four students from the riding of London South who are visiting the Legislative Assembly. I would like to advise the Minister of Education of their comments:

"The $100 was a symbol that we were being recognized by the Ontario government for excelling in academics. The elimination of this will discourage students from pushing a little harder for excellence." The next student said, "Although the $100 is not a lot of money in today's society, every bit helps when you're trying to put yourself through school." The third student advised us: "We weren't consulted. I heard it for the first time on the news last night." The final student said: "It was an incentive to do well. It encouraged us to excel."

An Agenda for People did not include disincentives for young people to excel. The people's agenda promised an opportunity for input and communication. Students are now preparing for their final exams. The Minister of Education's announcement could not have come at a more unfortunate time.

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Bisson: I would like at this time to give congratulations to the Ministry of Education, along with a few other things.

As many members are aware, the capital allocation programs were announced last Friday for a number of communities around Ontario. A couple of very long sought after programs in schools that the communities and the boards of education were trying to put together for years finally came to fruition, one in particular being O'Gorman High School, basically known as the portable high school. There were some 20 portable rooms utilized in that high school.

The allocation program will realize a dream of the students, the community and the parents, who were very concerned about the state of their particular school. As well as that, there was another bit of good news about another program that, for some 60 years I might say, the Timmins Board of Education was trying to get. It was the creation and building of an English public school in the region of Mattagami. It was something that was long sought, and I tell members it came as very good news.

Along with that, there have been some interesting developments within the riding itself. We are seeing some renewed optimism within the riding because of the types of programs this government is doing in attacking the recession by putting the bucks where they are needed, in our infrastructure. Now the mining sector is looking at some more development up in our region and I hope to be able to come back to the House with some very positive announcements on the mining sector on my next occasion.

VISITOR

The Speaker: I would like to invite all members to welcome to our chamber this afternoon the former member from the former riding of Halton-Burlington, Don Knight, who is seated in the members' gallery west.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RENT REGULATION

Hon Mr Cooke: It is my pleasure to be introducing legislation today that fulfils this government's commitment to provide real and permanent rent control for the tenants of this province.

The Rent Control Act, which I am tabling this afternoon, is the result of broad consultation with tenants, landlords, municipal officials and many others across the province, ranging from representatives of the building trades and financial institutions to antipoverty groups. I appreciate their participation in the development of Ontario's new rent control system. I certainly recognize the genuine emotion this issue elicits and I thank the tenants and landlords who shared their personal experiences and ideas with me.

The formal consultation started in February. I released a discussion paper designed to draw out people's views on how rent control could best be brought to this province. More than 20,000 copies outlining various options on the implementation of rent control were distributed. All members of this Legislature received the options paper, which was tabled with the standing committee on general government.

We also sent out a newsletter to nearly one million households explaining in plain, everyday language what the rental control options were all about. The newsletter included a questionnaire which more than 17,000 people filled out and returned to the ministry. This provided valuable information about the everyday concerns of individual tenants and landlords.

Then, in well-attended public meetings and smaller roundtable sessions in 20 communities across the province, some 1,300 people participated in a discussion about the principles and proposed specifics of a new system of rent control for Ontario.

I personally hosted seven public meetings and a number of smaller roundtable discussions. More than 300 people shared their ideas, concerns and experiences directly with me, with my parliamentary assistant, the member for Niagara Falls, and with my caucus colleague the member for Wentworth North.

We also had some 25 meetings with groups having a special interest and expertise in rent control issues. Ministry staff also met with members of these groups to get their input into the proposed system.

The legislation I am tabling today shows we have listened and responded to what we heard during the consultation process. I believe the product is a fair and workable system for everyone.

We have listened to tenants, and we will address their fears of high rent increases and poorly maintained buildings. We have heard the concerns of landlords of small buildings, and the legislation recognizes their situation. We have heard the frustration of landlords and tenants who want a simpler, more understandable system which responds more quickly to their cases.

We have listened to municipalities, building trades, landlords and tenants, all of whom have impressed upon us the importance of capital repairs in maintaining this province's aging rental housing. We have heard about the problem of supplying much-needed rental accommodation in communities across the province.

We have listened and we will now act. We will provide a rent control system that can work in Ontario.

I would like to outline the most important features of the proposed legislation.

At the heart of this legislation are measures intended to ensure that tenants are protected from high rent increases. These measures also provide more certainty for both landlords and tenants who want to know, "How much will the rent go up?"

Under the new system of rent control, annual rent increases will be based on a rent control index. This index will reflect the inflationary costs of running a rental property and will be updated annually. It will be averaged over a three-year period to lessen the impact of sudden increases in inflationary costs.

The index will provide the basis for setting an annual rent control guideline. The guideline will combine the rent control index I have just described and a 2% allowance for expenditures on major repairs, usually called capital expenditures. I will repeat, the rent control guideline will consist of an index based on inflation plus a 2% allowance for capital repairs.

1350

Landlords will be allowed to raise the maximum rents by up to this guideline without applying to the ministry. We will calculate two guidelines each year, one for large buildings and another for small buildings. The guideline for small buildings, those having six units or less, will be higher. This is because we know that small buildings are more expensive per unit to operate than larger buildings. This is the first time that rent regulation legislation has recognized the different realities facing owners of small and large buildings. We think this approach is fair and innovative.

Here is an example of how the new guidelines would work. If the two guidelines had been calculated for this year, the 1991 guideline increase for large buildings would be 4.6% and the guideline for small buildings would be 5.4%.

What about increases above the guideline? There are only five situations in which the landlord can apply to increase rents by more than the guideline, and any increase permitted will be moderate -- no more than 3% above the guideline in one year. Let me make this point clear. In Ontario, the increase in maximum rent will never be more than the guideline plus 3%. Ontario tenants will have the best protection in Canada. The days of 15%, 20% and 50% rent increases are over.

Rent will be allowed to rise above the guideline for the following reasons: significant increases in municipal taxes or in the cost of heating, hydro or water. The fifth and final reason is capital expenditures.

Under the new system, increases for major capital repairs will be allowed only if they are for the following: to maintain the structure and soundness of the building; to meet health, safety and environmental standards; to maintain plumbing, heating, mechanical, electrical, ventilation and air-conditioning systems; to provide access for people with disabilities, or to increase energy conservation.

When landlords apply for rent increases to pay for such significant repairs, they will have to demonstrate that the repairs are not the result of neglect. Tenants and landlords may agree to do other improvements in individual apartments, but rent increases will not exceed 3% above the guideline.

When landlords apply for rent increases above the guideline, they must demonstrate that the 2% allowance for capital expenditures provided in the annual guideline is in fact being used for capital expenditures. In other words, rents cannot increase above the guideline if the landlord does not use the money she or he already received for capital repairs.

Landlords will be allowed to carry forward to the next year rent increases resulting from excess capital costs. Owners of large buildings will be able to carry forward for one year only; owners of smaller buildings will be able to carry forward capital costs for two years. The total rent increase for any one year, however, cannot exceed the guideline plus 3%. This means tenants will no longer be required to finance luxury renovations such as new marble lobbies, as they have had to under the old rent review system.

The 2% allowance for capital expenditures included in the annual guideline plus the annual 3% increase that landlords may apply for provides enough funding for the necessary repairs to Ontario's rental housing. I believe this provision speaks to the fairness of the legislation.

In just a moment I would like to speak about the maintenance of apartments, but at this point I would like to touch briefly on how the new legislation treats capital expenditures done during the transition from one system to another. We heard a lot about this issue during the consultation and we have responded. In moving from the current system to the new one, we plan to allow landlords to claim for capital expenditures which have been substantially completed during the past 18 months. The rent increases which will result will be limited to 3% above the guideline.

I want members to know that this new legislation will not allow landlords to use most of the reasons they have used under the old rent review process to pass on costs leading to high rent increases. I am talking here about such provisions as financial loss, economic loss and increased financing costs. We know these were often used to make tenants pay for the cost of landlords' investments. The Rent Control Act I am introducing will not permit rent increases above the guideline for any of these items. I believe that apartments, rented town houses and so on are people's homes, not simply someone's investments or real estate holdings. Our legislation reflects that view.

We know tenants are worried about high rent increases, but we also heard concerns about inadequate maintenance. As well, municipal officials and many responsible building owners were annoyed and even embarrassed that certain landlords do not feel obligated to provide decent accommodation. So we have decided to get tough about maintenance.

Under the new system, landlords will not be able to claim even the guideline rent increase until they comply with outstanding work orders against their buildings. I am confident that landlords who act on their work orders -- and I would suggest that means most of the landlords in this province -- will agree this is a significant and welcome improvement over the previous law.

The legislation I am introducing today will bring about important changes in administrative and enforcement procedures. Simply put, we are trying to make the rent control system more flexible and responsive.

Under rent control, landlords and tenants will have the right to resolve their differences through a hearing if they so choose. The new system will also provide them with the option of an administrative review without a hearing if they prefer. A decision made by a rent officer may be appealed to the courts on a matter of law only. This will make for a quicker decision-making process for both landlords and tenants.

We see a strengthened role for the rent registry under the new system. The registry is already gearing up to provide more comprehensive information to landlords and tenants about legal rents. As well, the legislation strengthens rent control enforcement by creating tough penalties and new offences.

Now I would like to address the concerns about rental housing supply which were raised by the development and construction industries and the financial institutions. As most members know, there is a real need for more rental accommodation in many parts of the province. While our government is committed to alleviating the shortage through activities in the not-for-profit sector, we also acknowledge private industry's essential role in providing rental housing. To encourage future investment in this area, we have decided to exempt new rental buildings from rent control for a period of five years. This exemption will apply to rental housing built under a building permit issued on or after today. The five-year exemption period will start on the day the first unit is rented.

Let's be clear. The exemption is only for the first five years of any new building, but we believe this will give landlords a chance to establish viable rental housing and help rent levels settle in. This opportunity gives those wanting to build a chance to go for it. It can stimulate much-needed investment and employment in the development and building sector and create more homes for people to rent.

Before concluding, I want to talk about what is not included in the legislation and why.

Many people came forward to talk about whether so-called care facilities should be covered by rent control. Thousands of older people who live in rest and retirement homes are affected. This is a complex issue. Dr Ernie Lightman is already studying it. We will wait for his report before we make any decisions in this area.

Concerns about rent control coverage for people living in social housing were also raised during the consultation process. Our government intends to deal with those questions through avenues other than rent control legislation.

This is landmark legislation for the people of Ontario. This streamlined rent control system will bring certainty, security and stability to the rental housing market. It will bring us closer to reaching the goal of affordable housing for all, and ultimately to fighting poverty in this province.

Allow me to recap briefly: Tenants will have real protection from high rent increases. Landlords will have a system that allows them to plan for and provide the capital repairs that buildings need. If costs go up for taxes and utilities, landlords can get relief. Stricter enforcement of standards will lead to better-maintained rental housing and the preservation of existing stock. The private sector will have an opportunity to create new rental housing accommodation. Everyone will benefit from a responsive decision-making process.

Nearly three million people are looking to this Legislature to make decisions about rent control that affect their homes, their wellbeing, their security, and these are important decisions. They deserve the immediate attention of members of the House and a review of a standing committee of the Legislature.

The legislation I am tabling today is the result of an extensive consultation process. People across the province have had a real opportunity to participate in the creation of this government policy. I believe the product of that consultation members have before them today is fair to tenants and landlords. The legislation protects tenants and responds to some of the concerns of landlords and the financial community. I look forward to discussing its merits with members of the Legislature for second reading and during the summer. I would like to invite members to study this legislation and I hope and expect to hear positive suggestions for any improvements.

I would also like to personally thank the Ministry of Housing staff who have worked flat out on this legislation for months across the province, and my own personal political staff.

1400

Hon Mr Wildman: Mr Speaker, I have a short, important statement that may not be quite finished at the end of the statement time. I ask for unanimous consent that I could complete my statement.

The Speaker: Is there unanimous consent for the minister to continue beyond the 20 minutes?

Mr Eves: On that point, provided we are getting an appropriate amount of time, that would be quite acceptable.

The Speaker: If it is agreed to, of course, I will keep a sharp eye on the clock and allow an appropriate additional amount of time to both opposition parties.

Agreed to.

NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT

Hon Mr Wildman: I am extremely pleased today to tell this House that the government of Ontario and the first nations in Ontario have reached an historic accord on aboriginal self-government.

We and the first nations will now deal on a government-to-government basis under the terms of our new Statement of Political Relationship which I am providing to members of this House. The statement was approved yesterday by the chiefs of the first nations throughout Ontario, meeting at the 17th annual All-Ontario Chiefs Conference at Ohsweken in the Six Nations of the Grand River territory.

Many members will be aware that the Premier and I spent several hours at the conference on Tuesday discussing this statement and related matters. We are now making arrangements for the formal signing of the document that is without question the most important development to date in Ontario's relationship with the first nations.

Through the Statement of Political Relationship, Ontario now formally recognizes the inherent right of the first nations in Canada to be self-governing, and Ontario is committed to facilitating the exercise and implementation of first nations government.

As members will know, this government has endorsed the concept of aboriginal people having an inherent right to be self-governing. We have also adopted the recognition of the inherent right to self-government as a major principle of our native affairs policy. At the same time, we have committed ourselves to negotiating statements of relationship with aboriginal people to guide us in the negotiation of self-government and other matters.

Today we see the result, the first such statement negotiated with the chiefs of Ontario as the representatives of the first nations of Ontario. This statement is a very powerful document. It will dispel any doubts about the relationship of the first nations with Ontario. In the statement, we recognize that first nations are distinct nations, with their governments, cultures, languages, traditions, customs and territories, and we recognize that our statement with the first nations will be based on aboriginal rights, including aboriginal title and treaty rights affirmed in the Constitution Act, 1982. These include rights formally recognized in the Royal Proclamation of 1763, through which the British crown recognized aboriginal title to most of what is now North America, and in other treaties and agreements between the crown and aboriginal people.

We agree with first nations that their inherent right to self-government flows from the Creator and from their occupation of the land for many centuries before non-aboriginal people arrived in what is now Canada.

We also agree that under the Constitution of Canada, the first nations have the inherent right to self-government within the Canadian constitutional framework, and we are committed to working within the constitutional framework to make that right of self-government a reality. We will institute self-government arrangements with the first nations through treaties both old and new, through constitutional and legislative reform and through agreements negotiated with first nations.

The Statement of Political Relationship recognizes that Ontario's authority is subject to constitutional limits. We are not attempting to replace the government of Canada in the lives of the aboriginal people. The statement does not affect Canada's responsibilities nor interfere with the special trust relationship between the federal government and aboriginal people.

There are many areas where Ontario can and does play a major role in the lives of aboriginal people. There are issues involving crown land and natural resources, health care and social services over which Ontario has authority. Within that authority, we can make fundamental differences in the quality of life of aboriginal people. This includes a transfer of powers in certain areas in order to allow aboriginal people to once again make decisions in the day-to-day matters that affect the most basic aspects of their lives.

Our recognition of the inherent right to self-government within the constitutional framework underscores our determination that aboriginal people will be at the table in future constitutional talks. We believe the first nations must be accorded the status of an order of government which warrants a full partnership in Confederation.

We now have a framework which will enable the first nations of this province to regain a large measure of the respect and control of their own lives which has been taken from them. In return, we shall have a fairer, richer and more equitable society.

The Speaker: Now that we are all relaxed and happy, there are two items of business. First I draw to members' attention that we used an additional one minute and 23 seconds. I will add one minute to each of the opposition parties, giving a total of six minutes instead of the customary five.

VISITOR

The Speaker: At the same time, I invite all members to welcome to our midst this afternoon the former Prime Minister of St Kitts, Lee Moore, who is seated in the members' gallery east, if Mr Moore would stand. Welcome.

1410

RESPONSES RENT REGULATION

Ms Poole: First of all, I would like to thank the Minister of Housing for arranging a preliminary briefing just prior to the announcement. I do appreciate that courtesy.

The biggest surprise about today's announcement from the Minister of Housing is that he has attempted to give the old rent review system a tune-up rather than deliver the new vehicle he promised, because what the minister has announced today is not rent control, it is still rent review. In fact, it is the very system he has denounced and reviled in this House many times. I have already decided on my first amendment to the legislation, to change the title of the bill from the Rent Control Act to the Rent Review Act, Part II.

The minister is aware that for a number of years I have supported a tightening up of the rent review system. In particular, I have supported a cap on cost pass-throughs for major necessary repairs, so I am personally very pleased and commend the minister for following this particular route. I am sure much of the debate over the next few months will revolve around whether a 3% cap is indeed appropriate. Will it protect tenants from excessive rent increases and at the same time preserve our aging housing stock?

The worst problem the Minister of Housing is going to have to deal with is the very real sense of betrayal over broken rent control promises the tenants of this province are going to feel today. When he was opposition Housing critic, both before the election and during the election, the Minister of Housing promised that the NDP would deliver -- and I will quote -- "real rent control: one rent increase per year tied to inflation, and nothing else."

So imagine the shock of tenants across this province when the new system is unveiled and the minister will not or cannot deliver on his election promise. Imagine the surprise of our party, which has always supported encouraging the private sector to build, but never believed the NDP would exempt new buildings from rent review. Imagine the surprise of tenants who find that the NDP, which has always promised full rent control, has introduced rent legislation that does not cover new buildings.

The Minister of Housing must now admit that when he made this election promise, either the NDP was incompetent, it did not know that its platform was unworkable because it had not done its homework and did not know very much about the housing field; or, if it rejects that particular hypothesis, then it has to admit it was opportunistic, that the NDP knew its promise was unworkable but made it anyway to get votes and to win the election.

So what a choice. It has to choose. Was it incompetent or was it opportunistic? Your choice, Mr Speaker.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Come to order, please.

Ms Poole: There are several promises we in the Liberal caucus expect the minister to keep. First of all, the minister has promised us a simpler system that everyone can understand and legislation that everyone can comprehend. So we will be monitoring this legislation very carefully to see if it meets the minister's promises to reduce the bureaucracy, cut through administrative red tape and to provide rules that will be clear, fair and not open to misinterpretation.

Already, there are signs the system will not be simpler. In fact, as the minister just announced, the legislation proposes two different guidelines, depending on the size of the building. This will only add to the confusion.

The other thing the Liberal Party will be insisting upon is a meaningful consultation process with full public hearings and with the government willing to listen. I said meaningful, not the mockery we endured in Bill 4, where 150 people were left on the waiting list for public hearings, and not the travesty of the pre-consultation process for this legislation.

In conclusion, housing is of critical importance to the people of this province. They will be the ones to ultimately decide if this has been a successful D-Day for the Minister of Housing.

NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT

Mr Elston: Just a brief response to the continuation of the efforts of this minister who, it has to be said, has put real effort behind reaching a consensus with the first nations of the province. I would like to say that while I have read the Statement of Political Relationship, there are all kinds of political relationships that speak much more directly to the real issues that have to be dealt with in a real and timely way.

During the course of our time, we had an opportunity to begin new programs to assist the first nations. We in fact reached a settlement on Manitoulin with respect to land claims, and we are expecting there will be a timely consideration and continuation of those efforts. While they have been enumerated by the minister -- native economic development, resource agreements, social service provision and land claim settlement -- really we hope now they can be forged ahead on by this minister, who we regard as being in the vanguard in his party in trying to reach settlements.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Tilson: To the statement of the Minister of Housing: This legislation is not rent control, as will be said over and over. It is rent review. It is worse than the last system created by this government over here, the previous government, the Liberals.

When most jurisdictions are looking for ways and means to encourage freer and more open systems while protecting citizens, our socialist government at Queen's Park is shutting down Ontario. It is relying on more bureaucracy and centralized planning to dictate policy.

Earlier this week the minister announced his overall housing policy. That document, taken with this legislation, means that there is no longer a provincial housing policy that applies to the majority of the people in Ontario. There is only rent review and non-profit housing in the provincial focus. I emphasize to him that he does not have rent control. He has rent review, with all the bureaucracy that goes with it. This is what he promised to get rid of. The small landlord will now have to hire an accountant, a lawyer and a consultant just to figure out what he has done.

The Minister of Housing has made profit a dirty word in this province. There is no element in this legislation whatever for profit. He has now created two guidelines for the bureaucrats to work with, guidelines that are more confusing and more expensive. This is even more expensive than the previous Liberal legislation.

The increases do not even keep up with the rate of inflation, which was one of the government's promises in its agenda for power. Hypocrisy surrounds this government. It promised the people of Ontario a simpler system, less bureaucracy and one rate of inflation. Now he has two guidelines, more bureaucracy and chaos.

This law is even more confusing than Bill 4. People will not only have to build to get rid of rent controls; the five-year exemptions for new building will only encourage building on the higher end. The building will be for the rich. The minister has created a monster in Bill 4. The monster of his proposed bill is now moving and it is out of control.

It has been quite clear from the figures that have been given by the minister and the ministry that there is $7 billion in renovations required in this province, and yet he is going to allow 3%. It will not even get close to solving the $7 billion in renovations that is required and which will improve the way of life for our tenants in this province.

Except for the 3%, the minister is maintaining the status quo. Already it is a government out of control. It is an old government. He is saying he is allowing a transition period for capital expenditures. He is going to allow 3%. Big deal. He is too late and it is not enough. It does not even help those landlords who have gone bankrupt because of Bill 4 and the thousands of jobs and contracts that were lost because of his policies. They are broke because of his policies and he is not going to help them. He simply is going to give them 3% for those few landlords who are surviving.

He is not only the minister of slums; he is the minister of bankruptcy. He put me and the members of this House through closure on Bill 4 by not allowing us and the members of the Liberal opposition to put forward amendments. One of the amendments he had to do was the capital expenditures agreed to by the tenants and landlords. That was one of the amendments we wished to debate, and now he is putting this through with a cap of 3% guideline, clearly not enough to solve even an agreement between tenants and landlords.

The other amendment we suggested was for capital expenditures. He would not allow us to put forward an amendment on that. He would not allow us to debate that and try to help him in creating his legislation, and it is clearly not enough. What he says is, "Do it our way or not at all." After all the months of Bill 4, he still will not listen. His policy is not only laughable; it is sad.

NATIVE SELF-GOVERNMENT

Mr Harnick: I am pleased to see this statement by the government; however, I am somewhat confused by it. On page 2 the statement indicates that Ontario now formally recognizes the inherent right of the first nations in Canada to be self-governing. I am pleased by that. I thought that was always the position of this government and I am surprised that it has brought out a statement now to say that again. It is something they have said over and over. It is nothing new.

However, the fact that an agreement has been made has raised expectations that the government will now begin to execute all the very important things that it put in this statement. It includes social services, health care, natural resources, schools, the justice system. I put it to this government that I am glad to see that it recognizes what the obligations are and I am glad to see that it is going to try to move forward, but the expectations are now raised by this agreement to a higher point than they have ever been raised before. It is now incumbent to deliver on them.

1420

ORAL QUESTIONS

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Mahoney: I truly regret that I must direct this question to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General has said to us in the past on numerous occasions, "I did not sign the letter, I did not authorize the letter and I did not see the letter." He finds it difficult to understand that we do not truly understand how that could be in a constituency office.

Mr Mammoliti: Old news.

The Speaker: The member for Yorkview, relax.

Mr Mahoney: The Solicitor General finds it difficult to understand why we do not understand his answers, and in a spirit of fairness I would like to ask him some very simple, basic questions in the hope that he can give us some very simple, basic answers that we will understand.

We realize that he did not sign the letter, but he did authorize his staff to sign the letter on his behalf. He says he never saw the letter, and we have to believe, because he is a gentleman, that this is the case. Mr Speaker, you can appreciate this. You run a constituency office and you can imagine, on Fridays when he goes back, or in the evening, and he meets with his staff, that they would perhaps present before him as a member documentation that they had sent out on behalf of constituents. They would have a file that would say, "For the eyes of the minister to see for his approval."

Hon Mr Pouliot: What about the simple question?

Mr Mahoney: What the minister is suggesting is that they would have another file -- I am getting to that -- that would say, "Not for the eyes of the minister," sent on his behalf but not for him to see. Is he truly expecting us to believe that when he goes back to Cambridge to his constituency office his staff would withhold information from him, letters that they had sent out on his behalf?

Hon Mr Farnan: Yesterday, the Leader of the Opposition made comments concerning editorials in a Cambridge newspaper. I would like to read from a Cambridge newspaper of last night, the Cambridge Times: "Two things have emerged crystal clear from this protracted charade. Neither Farnan nor his employees deserve the abuse they have suffered, and the only ones with anything to gain by prolonging it are the opposition parties themselves. What has happened in the Legislature recently is an example of partisan blood lust at its worst, a deliberate attempt by opposition MPPs to destabilize the new government for the most spurious of reasons."

Mr Mahoney: It is very unfortunate, Mr Speaker. What I had said in my opening remarks and the reason I took some time with your patience was that I wanted to give the Solicitor General an opportunity to answer some very simple questions. What does he do? He stands up and reads an editorial from a newspaper. I did not ask him what was written in the Cambridge newspaper. I asked him about his procedures.

If I might indulge your patience for just one moment, Mr Speaker, the minister has told us from the very first day he became minister -- and I am sure his constituency staff were extremely proud of him, with great justification, when he showed up as minister -- that, in his words, he preached the gospel of separation. Some time following this sermon, a number of constituents contacted his staff. All three of the staff in the Solicitor General's constituency office were asked for help by these constituents, and even though they had been told, through his sermon, about the gospel of separation, all three of them did help in one way or another and sent letters off to judges.

They acted on his behalf as his staff in a very serious matter. Then when he came into his constituency office, we are asked to believe they did not tell him about it. They did not tell him they were meeting with his constituents on behalf of fixing a parking ticket.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

Mr Mahoney: They did not tell him they had written a letter with his name attached to it. Does the Solicitor General expect us to believe that his staff did not communicate this? If so, what are his constituents in Cambridge to think: that his staff do not tell him about their problems, that they do not share what they have done on behalf of constituents or that he truly does not care about their problems?

Hon Mr Farnan: Again, I would like to quote from the Cambridge Times of yesterday, last night's editorial, "The conduct of the opposition parties in this affair has been utterly shameful and inflicted an enormous" --

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members will realize that the standing orders do not prescribe what nature the responses will follow. They do not have to be responses to questions asked. It is out of my control, but I would appreciate it if members would allow the person responding to be heard.

Hon Mr Farnan: The quote reads: "The conduct of the opposition parties in this affair has been utterly shameful and inflicted an enormous personal toll on Farnan and his workers. While people like Harris and Nixon have much to say about the government's inadequacies, it is clear they have a lot to learn themselves about the legitimate role of opposition politicians. It is time now for this partisan bullying to end. As Farnan himself has noted, there are many more pressing matters of the public interest that the opposition should be concentrating itself on these days."

Mr Mahoney: Even though that did not answer either my first question or my supplementary, I have some sympathy with some of those words. There are more important issues that we should be addressing, and if we could simply get answers to our questions -- I am trying not to be obstreperous. I am trying not to be difficult. I am simply trying to ask about the procedures in an MPP's office, an MPP who happens to be the Solicitor General, and all I am getting are quotes from a newspaper. I am trying to ask him straightforward questions. Let me try again, and hopefully he will not need the newspaper to deflect away from the answer.

The Solicitor General informed all of his constituency staff that they were not to contact members of the judiciary, yet two of these people have said they never heard him say this.

The Speaker: And your supplementary?

1430

Mr Mahoney: I am coming to it. He says he repeated this sermon time and time again, but he also admits, "Because one transmits a message does not mean a person hears it." Is the Solicitor General asking us to believe that his staff do not listen to him, that they ignore him, that when he tells them they should do something, they do exactly the opposite? Is that what he expects us to believe?

Hon Mr Farnan: I will repeat again, the member continues to question the circumstance around a $35 parking ticket when a part-time member of my staff made an honest mistake after phoning the clerk of the court and getting directions to phone a justice of the peace.

There are literally thousands of people who have not been in Toronto when they have been issued a parking ticket. The reality of the matter is that there is a problem with parking tickets. One of my staff, trying to help an 82-year-old man clear up that wrongfully distributed ticket, made a mistake.

An RCMP investigation has exonerated both myself and my staff. I think it is time for the opposition parties to get real and get on with the business of Ontario.

Mr Mahoney: I will say that at least that was an attempt at an answer and was not simply quoting from a newspaper, and I at least appreciate the attempt. I think there is an underlying principle that even the Solicitor General would have to agree with, and that is that it is absolutely incorrect for members of this Legislature to try to interfere with the independent workings of the justice system. This would clearly be the principle behind the gospel of separation preached by the Solicitor General.

He has told us that a senior member of his staff clearly followed his instructions in this regard. I must take just a very brief moment to share with members from the summary of the RCMP report referred to by the Solicitor General. It reads:

"Staff member 2, who attempted to assist constituent 2, wrote a letter to a justice of the peace. Staff member 2 is a receptionist in the constituency office. She did not have any written guidelines or directions in relation to corresponding with the judiciary." That is the receptionist, one of the junior people.

"Staff member 3 wrote to a justice of the peace on behalf of constituent 3." This person was a probationary staff person, three weeks in the employ.

The key point is that he refers to his senior staff person:

"The staff employee who attempted to assist constituent 1 was staff member 1. She wrote to the Attorney General of Ontario requesting some assistance on this issue. The response on behalf of the Attorney General was prepared by a member of the office of the director of criminal law policy."

The Speaker: The interrogative part?

Mr Mahoney: The interrogative part would be that staff member 1 is a junior and number 2 is probationary. There are three people in the office. It would lead me to conclude that the senior member of the Solicitor General's staff actually wrote to the Attorney General asking the Attorney General to fix the parking ticket.

The Speaker: Your question, please.

Mr Mahoney: Did the Solicitor General instruct his senior staff person appropriately with his gospel, and is he willing to admit that the senior staff person ignored those instructions and simply did not write to a judge but wrote to the person who appoints the judge and asked that person to fix a parking ticket?

Hon Mr Farnan: There are probably about 10,000 people who are involved in my ministry: police officers, correctional officers, probation and parole officers. I just say that to give the members of the House some idea of the magnitude of my job.

Certainly I have a political staff, a ministry staff. All of the quotes that are being made -- person 1, person 2, person 3 -- are not on my ministry staff. So now we are talking about somebody back in the constituency office, a part-time member. Okay. A mistake was made trying to help an 82-year-old person with a parking ticket that was wrongfully given to that individual.

It is very clear indeed that the people of Ontario want the opposition to get on with business. In fact, I will tell you a little story. As I was walking along Main Street in Cambridge, a constituent came up to me and said, "You know, Mike, those Liberal ministers, didn't they contact the police, didn't they do something themselves?" I said, "Yes, they did." The constituent said, "Isn't that the whole point, that these guys got involved?"

I did not phone a judge. I did not tell my staff to write a letter or phone a judge. The obvious answer is that there is a distinct difference between the actions of the Liberal Solicitor Generals and this one.

Mr Mahoney: I did not ask about the 10,000 employees in the Solicitor General's office. In fairness, I did not even mention that. I was very specific, Mr Speaker, and in fairness to you, I did not read all of the quotes from the summary of the RCMP report.

This is like a game show. I referred to staff 1, a junior. I referred to staff 2, a probationary. I referred to staff 3. You can only assume as a fair deduction that if there are three people and number 1 is a junior and number 2 is probationary, the third member of the staff would be the experienced, senior member of that staff. That a reasonable conclusion for anyone to make. That person wrote to the Attorney General.

I have the letter here to the Attorney General. It is not a figment of my imagination. It is not a manufactured document. It is a letter on Mike Farnan, MPP, letterhead to the Honourable Howard Hampton, Attorney General, "Will you solve my constituent's problem with regard to a parking ticket?"

The interesting thing is, what we cannot find is the response letter from the Attorney General back to that office.

The Speaker: I am trying to find a question.

Mr Mahoney: Apparently the executive assistant has said the letter has been misplaced or they cannot find it. Apparently the Attorney General wrote back --

The Speaker: Will the member place his question, please.

Mr Mahoney: -- and either instructed the staff that they were out of line or, horror of horrors, said, "I'll be happy to fix the ticket," but we will not know that.

The Solicitor General has been most co-operative up to now in supplying us with documentation, in going through the RCMP report.

The Speaker: Would the member quickly place his question.

Mr Mahoney: Will the Solicitor General make available to the public the letter written from the Attorney General back to his constituency office in reply to the letter of 25 February addressed to him?

Hon Mr Farnan: If that letter is desired by members of the opposition parties, they would apply to the Attorney General. He informs me it is a form letter and he would be happy to make it available.

Mr Mahoney: We have already asked for it.

Mr Ferguson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Standing order 26 fairly clearly spells out what has and has not been permitted in questions to date. I want to point out that, although there is not a time limit in the standing orders with respect to questions, the opposition has routinely taken well over two minutes today to put a question.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. I am most aware, and I ask all members to co-operate in trying to observe our self-imposed time restraints. Would the member succinctly place his supplementary.

1440

Mr Mahoney: My questions could be substantially shorter if I would just get an answer that was remotely connected to the question. I again am trying to be fair in allowing the Solicitor General to answer these very simple questions. I have asked him to produce a letter. We have asked his staff to produce the letter. The letter was sent to him. We have asked him to produce it. I do not know why he is refusing to produce it.

He also has difficulty understanding why we cannot accept these answers. My final supplementary is again very simple, and really, if the Solicitor General is fair about this, he will want to clear the air.

We have an RCMP report that puts a great deal of confusion into the matter. We have letters floating all over the place to judges and Attorneys General and everybody else. Will the Solicitor General today ask the Premier to refer this entire matter to the standing committee on administration of justice so that we can find out, so that we can clarify it so we can clear his name? Frankly, I would think he would want to do it so we could clear the name of all staff in his constituency office.

Hon Mr Farnan: If I may quote again from the editorial of the Cambridge Times --

Interjections.

Hon Mr Farnan: The member made reference to the RCMP report. In direct answer to his reference to the RCMP report, I would like to quote. "The recent RCMP report into Farnan's conduct even took the extraordinary step of lavishing praise on the Cambridge MPP, calling him a man of high integrity."

The member is quite correct. I have been absolutely open to the RCMP and to this House, and if the opposition parties want to continue asking questions on this issue for the next two weeks, I will answer the questions. But I say to them that they do it at their peril, because the people of Ontario are fed up.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Harris: I have a question for the minister of rent review. The minister has, over the past nine months or so, spent a considerable amount of money, in cash, in studies and in staff time, studying, as he has told us, all of the options available to provide protection for tenants and to try and increase the supply in this province.

I would like to ask the minister two things. First of all, can he tell us just how much money has been spent over the past nine months to come up with what he has presented to us today? I would also like to ask him if he considered an option that has been put forward by virtually every major newspaper in Ontario, by virtually every landlord association in Ontario and by virtually every business person in Ontario, and that is an option of phasing out rent controls altogether by increasing supply and replacing them with shelter subsidies to those who actually need help.

I wonder if the minister can tell us how much time, effort and money was spent studying that option, the total cost to the government, the impact on new supply, the impact on tenants, versus the route that he has chosen to go, the total cost of non-profit housing, the total cost of the bureaucracy to run the system, the growing waiting lists as rent controls have been tightened -- the list is getting longer -- if he spent any time analysing that option.

Hon Mr Cooke: I will get the leader of the third party the exact figure of what the consultation process cost. Those figures were tabled with the standing committee on general government when we initially announced the consultation process, and I will get him a figure that is completely up to date.

In terms of the option that he outlined of how much money was spent looking at the option of deregulation and his argument that we should look at that option because landlords' groups and editorial boards support it, I would point out to the leader of the third party that landlords' groups and editorial boards took that position in the mid 1970s when the Davis government brought in the first system of rent regulation in this province.

His party back then, when it was progressive and understood that tenants needed to be protected, came to the conclusion that tenants deserved this type of legislation and needed protection in this province because affordable housing was a basic human right. I am very sorry to see that the Tories have abandoned that basic principle.

Mr Harris: I think the government refused to spend one cent studying it because it was afraid the results would show there would be less increases for tenants, there would be more supply, it would be less cost to the government, and for that reason, because it did not fit into its philosophy, it refused to even look at the option. I suggest to the minister that is the reason.

I want to quote from the Agenda for People, where the Premier said that if he were elected, his government "would bring in a system that is simple, that is fair and that avoids the bureaucracy which has frustrated both tenants and small landlords."

I wonder if the minister could tell us how his system is simpler than the Liberal system, and if he could tell us how much bureaucracy it is going to avoid and how many people will be laid off, and how big the cost saving passed on to the taxpayers of this province will be as a result of a simpler, leaner, more efficient bureaucracy in the Ministry of Housing.

Hon Mr Cooke: I do not believe the leader of the third party understands the inconsistencies of his questions. For the last several weeks we have heard from the Conservative Party that the government has to show fiscal responsibility, yet its suggestion is to do direct rent subsidies to all the private landlords across the province at an expense of hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars. I do not know how they can make that kind of commitment and that kind of approach here in the Legislature today, when for the last several weeks they have been telling us we need to cut back on government spending. Do they not understand the inconsistency in their silly approach?

Mr Harris: I suggest to the minister that we are dealing with a serious issue, we are dealing with billions of dollars of taxpayers' money. I assume the minister refusing to answer the question means this will not be simpler, there will not be less bureaucracy and, in fact, it will be just as complicated as the Liberal system the member for York Centre is babbling on about even as I speak.

I asked the minister if he would study. I suggested to him, and I stand by it, that he was afraid to study the option of how many hundreds of millions might be required for shelter subsidies versus the billions being spent on non-profit housing, average cost $1,700 or $1,800 per month per standard two-bedroom box when the government builds it. However, he did not want to study that.

Under the Liberal plan they allowed 1% of the increase to go for profit. It is not surprising to me that the private sector built virtually not one unit, based on being able to pass through a rent increase to get 1% of it for profit. Landlords, builders and developers said: "That doesn't make sense. We're better off having our money in the bank, in Canada savings bonds, in Treasury bills of the province of Ontario" -- probably not now -- "and safe things like that."

I wonder if the minister could tell me how his proposal to go from allowing 1% for profit to zero, nothing for profit, is going to encourage, entice, allow anybody to want to invest funds in new rental housing in Ontario?

Hon Mr Cooke: I would suggest that the leader of the third party does not understand the proposal we have put forward today. I also think he needs to take a look at what has happened in other jurisdictions, for example in British Columbia, where the Social Credit government did decide to phase out rent controls. They do not have construction in the private sector happening, and they do not have any regulation of rents. Now they have the highest average rents in the country and they have no private sector housing being built.

We have decided in this government to put together a housing strategy, part of which is rent control, part of which is supply, and we have created, with our non-profit housing announcement in the Treasurer's budget, 20,000 jobs. I think that is a good program and does a good job for the people of this province.

1450

MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY

Mr Harnick: My question is for the Solicitor General. We are concerned that police and the public have confidence in the chief law officer of the crown. What kind of nincompoop would allow a part-time or probationary employee to sign his mail?

Interjections.

The Speaker: All members will know that we do not have a dictionary of parliamentary/non-parliamentary language. However, is that the term the member wishes to use?

Mr Harnick: It is. On the strength of the answers that we have been receiving the last couple of months it is the only apt term that comes to mind.

Hon Mr Farnan: I think when questions are phrased in an appropriate way I will be prepared to answer them.

Mr Ruprecht: Mr Speaker, on a point of order: As you can see, before this degenerates any further I would simply place it to you that perhaps it should be in your judgement that the member should step aside or resign in the interim until this matter is resolved.

The Speaker: That is not a point or order.

Mr Harnick: Mr Speaker, "nincompoop" is indeed a parliamentary word. The NDP have used this word in the past and I submit to you that the question was proper and it should be answered by the minister if he has nothing to hide.

The Speaker: Supplementary question.

Mr Carr: Mr question is also for the Solicitor General. His ability to manage has definitely been in question over the last few weeks. There has been the outrage over the oath to the Queen. There have been the letters to the justices of the peace and that scandal. As late as yesterday there was the Sunday shopping law, which was condemned by all. The minister obviously, with three portfolios, is finding it difficult to undertake the tasks that are needed in this province.

Will the Solicitor General be prepared to admit that three ministries are too much for him and recommend to the Premier of this province that he be allowed to stand aside and that the Premier appoint a new Solicitor General for the province of Ontario?

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Farnan: I am so pleased the member brought up the question. I am very proud of the record I have achieved as Solicitor General, Minister of Correctional Services and as the minister responsible for the provincial anti-drug strategy. We had the proclamation of the new Police Services Act. We have the most progressive regulations in employment equity of any jurisdiction in North America. We have met our commitments by bringing forward legislation for a common pause day for Ontario. In the anti-drug secretariat we have had visions for the 1990s. We have had an interministerial committee tour the province with a very significant blueprint for the future of substance abuse in Ontario. We have set up a committee that changes the total approach to the appointments of commissioners of police. Instead of the old patronage system, we now have a system where appointments are made with input from policing services and from the community. This is a record to be proud of.

Mr Carr: I am glad the Solicitor General read some of the report from the Cambridge newspaper. I will read one from a Toronto paper, which said, "Provincially, the only people who do not seem to realize the Solicitor General, Mike Farnan, has no credibility left in the great parking ticket affair are the Premier and his trained socialist seals." Papers across this province are saying the same thing and have called for his resignation.

Something as simple as his ability to communicate with his staff is in question. There is a rise in crime in this province like never before in our history. We need strong leadership. Very clearly, in the next cabinet shuffle he will be moved out anyway. Why does he not ask the Premier to step in and possibly even appoint his parliamentary assistant to take over as Solicitor General so we can get some credibility back to a ministry that needs some credibility in Ontario?

Hon Mr Farnan: One is reluctant to blow his own horn, I suspect. As Solicitor General, I have taken an approach of working very closely with policing services. I have undertaken foot patrols with 52 Division along the Yonge Street strip. I have been with a young officer as we drove on Highway 401.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Will the member for Oriole come to order, please?

Hon Mr Farnan: I have been in the company of a young sergeant as we went out in response to a gun call.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for Oriole, come to order.

Hon Mr Farnan: I have visited officers who have lost their sight in the line of duty. I am working with policing services because I respect the fine men and women who serve this province by giving us the best protection at their own risk. I am proud to be the Solicitor General. I enjoy the trust of my Premier and I am going to do the job.

Mr Mahoney: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I just want to let you know that under section 33(a) I am dissatisfied with the answers given by the Solicitor General and I will be asking for a late show.

Interjection.

Mr Mahoney: If the government House leader does not mind, I will do it, thanks very much.

The Speaker: I take it the member will file the necessary paper with the table.

PLANT CLOSURE

Mr Offer: I have a question to the Minister of Labour. The minister will be aware that since his government took power, 224,000 jobs have been lost in this province. Almost a quarter of a million jobs have been lost since the government took power on 1 October. Uniroyal Goodrich in Kitchener is planning on eliminating between 1,000 and 2,000 jobs. Algoma Steel, working in concert with the Premier's task force, has tabled a plan which calls for the elimination of 3,500 jobs. Plans for the takeover of de Havilland by a foreign corporation call for the elimination of 1,700. Abitibi-Price is closing a plant for two years at a loss of more than 400 jobs.

Why is it that the minister's government seems to be the easiest patsy in the western world when it comes to companies closing doors?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member across the way must have been reading some of my speeches when I was in opposition. I just want to say that, yes, I am aware and concerned, and I am very pleased that he is finally aware also of the kind of devastation we have in our industries.

Mr Offer: The Minister of Labour has done absolutely nothing since he was appointed in terms of creating jobs in this province. The job loss figures will be released by Statscan tomorrow. Since his election, he has had a number of job losses and plant closures in the province, and what has been his reaction? He has just recently shown a deficit of almost $10 billion. There have been almost a quarter of a million jobs lost in the province, and the budget does not create one single new job.

The workers in this province have told us that they want paycheques more than severance cheques. The minister has not done anything to address the one overriding issue that counts in this province, that of job creation for the unemployed.

When will the minister start to work with both business and labour to in fact create jobs, because to date the minister has done absolutely nothing?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member across the way is well aware that the budget has created probably better than 70,000 jobs. If it were not for the moves, including the $700 million in capital up front, we would have another 70,000 or 80,000 people out of work in Ontario today. If we had in place some of the mechanisms that might deal with plant closures and justification, we might have been able to deal with it quicker. As it is, that is exactly what we are working on putting in place in the province, and we will do that as quickly as we can.

1500

LABOUR RELATIONS

Mrs Witmer: My question is for the Minister of Labour. The minister is no doubt aware that just as the wage protection fund created a great deal of concern and apprehension in the business community, there is also that same apprehension and concern about the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act, concern and apprehension that are leading more companies to re-evaluate their future in this province and could cost more workers their jobs. What assurance can the minister today give this House and the workers in this province that he will listen to the legitimate concerns of the business community before he introduces any legislation implementing these new labour relations proposals?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I think the member is well aware that we were listening, and I told her in answers to questions almost two weeks ago that we were listening and aware of the concerns that were being expressed in terms of the wage protection bill. Her party still seems to think it is irresponsible legislation, even though it is there to protect workers who have earned wages and not received them, and I can tell her that we are as responsive, and will be, in terms of OLRA amendments in Ontario.

Mrs Witmer: I would just like to indicate to the minister that we were very pleased with the amendments to the wage protection fund. However, we are equally, if not more, concerned about the proposed changes to the Labour Relations Act.

I would like to point out to him what the president of the St Catharines Chamber of Commerce said on Tuesday, "If the investors perceive that legislation in one specific province is more restrictive, they are not going to go there, and companies here will re-examine their ability to manage and take whatever steps necessary." He then stated that those steps may include pulling up stakes and relocating.

Will the minister today give a commitment to this House that before any legislation is introduced he will release draft legislation and allow it to go through an effective and meaningful public consultation process, that he will consider all of the options and concerns that are raised and that when the legislation is drafted it will include the viewpoints of all the consulted parties?

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I find the implication that we might not want to go through any kind of process a little disquieting. It seems to me that what we already have out there, the initial request we made for information back from both sides, has been taken as an accomplished fact in what we are doing in the way of legislation. There is no legislation before us whatsoever. We have asked for consultation. We will be asking for further consultation on this legislation in Ontario.

I want to make it clear that our goal is not to chase away business, and I do not think fair legislation for workers chases away business. Our goal is to establish a partnership that does away with some of the confrontation and brings us back to a much more co-operative mode in the province, and that is exactly what we are trying to achieve.

DECENTRALIZATION OF GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

Ms Haeck: My question is for the Minister of Transportation and relates to the relocation of his ministry to St Catharines. The St Catharines YMCA is anxious to relocate to a downtown area in St Catharines in order to be more accessible to the community and is interested in negotiating a co-tenancy agreement with his ministry. The YMCA has proposed that it provide onsite child care for ministry employees in exchange for office space. I believe this arrangement could benefit ministry employees and an important community organization in my riding. What action is the minister undertaking at this time?

Hon Mr Philip: I am pleased to tell the member that we welcome community involvement in the move of our ministry to St Catharines, a community that is considered one of the 10 most desirable cities in which to live in Canada. My staff today are meeting with the executive director of the St Catharines YMCA to discuss the proposal, and I am hoping we will be able to come up with an arrangement that will be satisfactory to my ministry and to the YMCA. Certainly our government recognizes that the YMCA has played an important role in St Catharines with regard to services to children as well as services to adults in the way of education, fitness, recreation and so forth.

TAXATION

Mr Bradley: My question is for the Treasurer. Today the Liberal budget task force is hearing from people in the city of Thunder Bay who are being hurt by his NDP budget. The task force heard from Keith Milne, of a local emergency shelter. Mr Milne said his shelter is having trouble meeting emergency demands. The normal procedure of going through government for funding always takes too long to meet what he refers to as emergency demands and needs, so Mr Milne has traditionally gone to local businesses for more immediate donations.

He is encountering what a lot of people who have gone to business for donations for various reasons are encountering today, resistance from the business community, because of the fact that they are paying so much in the way of taxes in Ontario that they cannot afford to give money, as they have in the past, to charitable or recreational organizations.

Can the Treasurer inform the House what measures he is prepared to take in terms of withdrawing any taxes in the budget on that business community, and what further incentives he can provide so we can have that business activity in the province, so the business community will be able to continue contributing as it has in the past to worthwhile causes such as this?

Hon Mr Laughren: I thank my friend for the question. I do not know why the member or a business person in Thunder Bay would imply that we had imposed any kinds of substantial new taxes on the business community. We did not raise the corporate income tax whatsoever. As a matter of fact, we did not raise the personal provincial income tax at all. We did not touch the retail sales tax at all. I find it very strange that the member should suggest that we reduce taxes that were imposed in the budget, thereby increasing the deficit even more. I must say I am not prepared to do that.

1510

Mr Bradley: As the Treasurer, being the economist that he is, will understand, the fact is that when you allow for tax decreases or when you do not increase taxes, you tend to have a stimulating effect on the economy, whether it is the provincial economy or the national economy. In fact, in that way, particularly in the medium and long run, not only would the Treasurer be providing businesses with the opportunity to do well in Ontario and be able to make those donations as they have in the past, but he would also get increased revenue because of the increased business activity.

Would the Treasurer not agree that by agreeing with what I have contended -- that is, keeping taxes low or eliminating some taxes -- he could have a stimulative effect on the economy and still get the revenues he needs to bring down the ever-growing deficit in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: Oh, were it so easy. What the member for St Catharines is proposing is basically supply-side economics, which was practised by Ronald Reagan in the 1980s. Back in the 1980s the federal debt in the United States was, as I recall, somewhat under $1 billion, around $900 million. Now I think it is around $3 trillion, over $3 trillion.

The member should be very cautious about making the assumption that when you lower taxes, you stimulate the economy to the degree that it makes up for the loss in taxes because of increased economic activity. Evidence elsewhere does not suggest that.

Finally, the member should appreciate, since he is considered one of the more progressive Liberals -- at least I always thought he was up until this very moment, as a matter of fact -- that the tax base that is out there now, much of which was put in place by the former government -- and I do not say that in a critical way -- provides the province with the quality of life the United Nations has determined is number two in the entire world. Personally, I think it is number one.

POLICE SERVICES

Mr J. Wilson: My question is to the Solicitor General. On 25 April, I brought to the Solicitor General's attention the need for 24-hour policing throughout my riding of Simcoe West. As he knows, the village pharmacy in Creemore had, at that time, been burglarized twice in the span of a month and some five times over the past year. The burglaries occurred after officers from the Stayner OPP detachment went off duty and went on call. After I raised this issue on 25 April, the Creemore pharmacy was robbed once again. How many more stores and individuals will need to be robbed before this government agrees to stop dragging its feet and restore 24-hour policing to the areas of this province that need and deserve this service?

Hon Mr Farnan: I agree with the member that the resources available to our fine police services are stretched to the limit, but I also want to add that they are doing a magnificent job every day in order to provide the best possible policing services to the people of the province.

After a decade of benign neglect of policing services in the province, this government has come in and is making a very full assessment of the consequences of the benign neglect of previous administrations. I have the first draft of a first stage of the report in my possession. I am studying that with my officials. It is certainly our intent to address it, but there are real structural concerns that have to be addressed. It is not going to be an easy problem, but I know that, with the kinds of men and women who make up our forces and the kind of commitment this government has, we are going to solve the problem.

Mr J. Wilson: The minister should be aware that some three years ago, his predecessor for the Liberals, Joan Smith, made a promise to restore 24-hour policing within weeks. Clearly, that promise was not kept. The minister's credibility is again in question in the exchange we have had over this issue. When I raised this issue with him on 25 April, he told me his excuse for inaction at that time was that he was waiting for a province-wide OPP staffing report before he could address this issue. Surprisingly enough, in response to a question this past Tuesday from my colleague the member for Wellington, he admitted he had that staffing report in early March. That calls into question the response he gave me in April, when he said he did not have the report, yet it is confirmed by himself that it was on his desk.

Second, in response to a letter to me dated 25 May, he said both he and the OPP commissioner, Thomas O'Grady, had corresponded with the owner, John Smart, of the Village Pharmacy in Creemore.

It should not come as any surprise to the minister, given his credibility record to date, that I have talked to Mr Smart very recently. He has not heard from the minister, his staff or the OPP commissioner. My constituents do not know whether to believe him or not, given these contradictions. I want to know today whether he is going to commit to restoring 24-hour policing to the Stayner OPP detachment and other areas around this province. He has studied it enough and he has played ping-pong with this issue and we are not satisfied. I demand an answer today.

Hon Mr Farnan: The member almost clouded the question in all of the absolute nonsense he surrounded it with, but I have been able to sift through it and have found his question. Now I am going to repeat it for him so that I know we are talking about the same thing. He is talking about 24-hour police service for that area. There are areas of the province that have perhaps 18 hours of service, and then a local service is on call for the remaining six hours.

I want the Conservatives to listen very carefully. They have been demanding more service and more programs. They are demanding more spending. They are demanding that more money be spent, and at the same time they are going out on their public campaign and saying this government is spending too much. They cannot have it both ways. We are determined to look at the situation and to come up with realistic solutions. It is going to be province-wide. It is not going to be simply --

Mr Harnick: You are a disgrace.

The Speaker: Just a moment. That is unacceptable.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Harnick: The answer is unacceptable, Mr Speaker. His answers truly are unacceptable.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, come to order. Every member in this House has a right to be heard and will be given that right. Will the Solicitor General conclude his remarks.

Hon Mr Farnan: As I said, I think it would help all members of the House if we understand that there are individual problems because of stretched resources. We are not going to deal with them one little piece at a time. We are going to have a structural approach which addresses the whole problem. I will be bringing the details of that forward at the appropriate time.

RENT REGULATION

Mr Malkowski: My question is to the Minister of Housing. Under the new rent control legislation, how will tenants be protected from paying the costs of landlords flipping and then reselling their buildings?

Hon Mr Cooke: That was certainly one of the areas of great concern to our government and to our party when we were in opposition. The previous rent control legislation introduced by the Liberal Party encouraged resales and sales of buildings because they knew that the increased financing costs could always be passed through the system and rents would go up to cover those costs. We are very pleased to say that this is simply not provided for in this legislation, because we want stable rents and we want real protection for tenants.

Mr Malkowski: In the past, tenants have been forced to pay for luxuries that they really did not want or ask for. How is this changed by the new legislation?

Hon Mr Cooke: This was one of the areas of concern expressed by groups across the province, and we have put a section in the permanent legislation that says very clearly that capital expenditures will be allowed, but only necessary capital expenditures. Those necessary capital expenditures are defined in the legislation. I believe very strongly that while previous governments have said it could never be done, we have done it, and tenants will as a result be adequately protected.

1520

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Phillips: My question is to the Minister of Health. It is a follow-up to a question that was raised here about six weeks ago, and it has to do with hospital bed closings across the province. As I think the minister will appreciate, we are hearing reports now from right across the province of hospital beds closing, some on a permanent basis.

The numbers that we have are for Metropolitan Toronto, where I understand about 1,000 beds will close over the summer and perhaps 500 to 600 of them will remain closed permanently. The net result of that in Metropolitan Toronto is that out of 17,000 beds, about 2,500 will now be permanently closed. That, by the way, is the equivalent of five major hospitals being closed. Those are the numbers we have for Metropolitan Toronto. We do not have the numbers across the province.

How many beds across the province will be permanently closed, and does the Ministry of Health, in the monitoring which it promised it would be doing, support those permanent closings?

Hon Ms Lankin: At this point in time we are in the process of reviewing many of these proposed budgets from hospitals. Not all hospitals have submitted them to us at this point, so it is not possible for me to give the member a final answer.

Where we are at with the review does suggest there will in fact be bed closures. We expect that; we know that will happen. At this point in time, from the statistical review of what is needed in the province, it appears to us we will be able to continue to meet that, primarily because of the shift in focus in health care services from long-term stays in hospital to shorter-term stays and more ambulatory care.

We will, however, watch this and monitor this with great caution. I think it is important that as each hospital brings forward its budget, we look at what it is proposing, look at the areas. Where we see problems, we will be discussing them with the hospital.

Mr Phillips: We raised this six weeks ago with the minister and the minister assured us she, along with staff, would be monitoring it. I would like the minister's assurance that over the next month the ministry will be monitoring this and that we will have a report on beds that will be permanently closed. I can understand beds closing for health reasons, but if they are closed for budget reasons I think we all have a problem. We would like an assurance from the Ministry of Health that the beds that are closed are closed for health reasons.

The third thing is, we can only have increased community-based care if this government will come forward with its long-term care plans and its community-based care plans. There is no sense closing beds in anticipation of community-based care and the minister holding back on that. That would be the third part of the assurances we need from this minister today, that we will have, before the House rises, the long-term care, the bed analysis from the ministry and the assurance that the bed closures are done for health reasons, not for budget reasons.

Hon Ms Lankin: I would like to remind the member that in terms of the transfer payments to hospitals, we did increase those by 9.5% this year. In fact, that is over $600 million more money out there in the system. So there has been an increase in funding.

Now having said that, at this point in the year -- and I know the member knows this and the former Minister of Health knows this -- when hospitals go through their budget-setting process, there is inevitably the rash of stories about closures. Until we see those plans, until we review them with the hospitals, we cannot give those kinds of assurances. We do not have all of the budgets submitted yet.

I do indicate to the member clearly, however, that I will keep him informed as we do those reviews and we will take the measures that are necessary to ensure that the proper level of care is being provided out there.

With respect to the issue of transference to reliance more on community-based care, I think this is a very important issue that the member raises. In fact, as we do our consultations around a shift to more community-based care, it is going to be important that we build a consensus that there will be also a shift in resources from institution-based care to community-based care.

On the member's last point -- and I am not disappointed; I knew as he got up to speak that he would raise the issue of long-term care -- I am hopeful that we will be able to answer his question very soon on that.

MOTION

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

Miss Martel moved that Mrs Cunningham and Mr B. Murdoch exchange places in the order of precedence for private members' public business.

Motion agreed to.

PETITION

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr McLean: I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

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

"Whereas the French Language Services Act, 1986, Bill 8, continues to elevate tensions and misunderstandings over language issues throughout the province, not only at the provincial but also at the municipal levels; and

"Whereas the current government disputes its self-serving select committee and intends to encourage increased use of French in the courts, schools and in other provincial services to ensure that the French Language Services Act is working well to the best of their concentrated efforts; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of government to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the duplication of departments, translations, etc, to comply not only with the written but also the unwritten intent of the French Language Services Act; and

"Whereas the spiralling costs of education to the taxpayer are being forced even higher due to the demands of yet another board of education -- French-language school board;

"We, the undersigned, request that the French Language Services Act be repealed and its artificial structures dismantled immediately, and English be declared as the official language of Ontario in governments, its institutions and services."

That is sent to me from Linda Field in Englehart, Ontario, and there are 37 names on that petition.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION AND PROTECTION OF PRIVACY STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LES LOIS CONCERNANT L'ACCÈS À L'INFORMATION ET LA PROTECTION DE LA VIE PRIVÉE

Mr McLean moved first reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend the Law related to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy.

M. McLean propose la première lecture du projet de loi 120, Loi portant modification des lois concernant l'accès a l'information et la protection de la vie privee.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptee.

Mr McLean: The purpose of the amendment to the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1987, and the Municipal Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, 1989, is that it authorizes the head of institutions to disregard a request for access to records if the request amounts to an abuse of the right to access. Persons whose requests for access are disregarded are entitled to notice of the head's decision and are entitled to appeal to the commissioner.

RENT CONTROL ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LE CONTRÔLE DES LOYERS

Mr Cooke moved first reading of Bill 121, An Act to revise the Law related to Residential Rent Regulation.

M. Cooke propose la première lecture du projet de loi 121, Loi revisant les lois relatives a la reglementation des loyers d'habitation.

1532

The House divided on Mr Cooke's motion, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de M. Cooke, mise aux voix, est adoptee :

Ayes/Pour -- 66

Abel, Allen, Boyd, Bradley, Buchanan, Callahan, Caplan, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Curling, Dadamo, Duignan, Elston, Ferguson, Fletcher, Frankford, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Lessard, MacKinnon, Mackenzie, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, O'Neill, Y., Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Phillips, G., Pilkey, Poole, Pouliot, Rizzo, Ruprecht, Silipo, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, Wilson, F., Winninger, Wiseman, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 13

Carr, Cousens, Cunningham, Eves, Harnick, Jordan, Marland, Murdoch, B., Runciman, Sterling, Stockwell, Tilson, Wilson, J.

NOTICE OF DISSATISFACTION

The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to standing order 33, the member for Mississauga West has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to his question given by the Solicitor General concerning letters sent to members of the judiciary and the Attorney General regarding constituents' parking tickets. This matter will be debated at 6 o'clock.

1540

ORDERS OF THE DAY

ONTARIO LOAN ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 SUR LES EMPRUNTS DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Laughren moved second reading of Bill 81, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

M. Laughren propose la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 81, Loi autorisant des emprunts par le Tresor.

Hon Mr Laughren: I think members opposite will understand the need for this bill, since it allows us to borrow money on the markets to finance programs and to finance the provincial deficit as well.

This 1991 loan act authorizes the government to borrow up to $12 billion in the period ending 31 December 1992. The period of the loan act has been extended from 30 September to 31 December.

The Deputy Speaker: There is too much noise in the House. I cannot hear. Order, please.

Hon Mr Laughren: I was having trouble even hearing myself.

The period of the loan act has been extended from 30 September to 31 December to allow adequate time for passage of this subsequent loan act and to reduce the need to ensure passage by the end of the spring sitting, in order to continue an orderly borrowing program.

For members who wonder about these kinds of things, such as loan acts, I thought I could provide some details which perhaps would obviate the need for a large number of questions later. But who can tell?

The bill will authorize us to borrow up to $12 billion, as I indicated before. The composition of the $12 billion -- because members might wonder, since we are projecting a deficit of only $9.7 billion, why we would possibly need authority to borrow up to $12 billion -- is as follows: For the benefit of the members, the 1991-92 deficit is predicted to be $9.7 billion, as most members will know. There will be, during this period of time as well, retirements of outstanding debt of about $600 million, which means that the 1991-92 borrowing requirements would be about $10.3 billion for 1991-92.

Then we have to build into the loan act estimated borrowing requirements for 1 April 1992 to 31 December 1992, which is the expiry date of this bill, so if we compute the nine months of the 1992-93 period, namely from 1 April to 31 December 1992, and prorate the deficit for that period of time, that comes to $6.7 billion, and then we add retirements during that period of time of $0.9 billion or $900 million. That comes to $7.6 billion for that nine-month period. If you add to that a contingency -- it is quite normal to have a contingency number under loan acts as well -- and the 1991-92 borrowing requirements along with the 1992-93 nine-month period, that will come to $18.4 billion.

However, I caution members not to jump to conclusions about that number, because the authority already available under existing loan acts, the 1990 loan act, is $4.2 billion, under the 1989 loan act $0.4 billion and the 1988 loan act -- going back to then -- $0.2 billion. That totals $4.8 billion. Then we also have the Financial Administration Act, which allows for refinancing authority of $1.6 billion. Therefore, when that is subtracted, the 1991 loan act requirement is $12 billion. I know it is a bit tortuous getting to that number, but I thought I at least owed members an explanation of how we reached the number of $12 billion.

I hope members will appreciate the fact that it is necessary to have in place a loan act that will allow for the orderly borrowing that is required in Ontario. Members will understand, as well, particularly those members who have been around here for some time, that Ontario re-entered the public bond market at the end of last year. Prior to that, members will recall that our requirements were met by borrowing from the public pension plans in the province and the Canada pension plan as well. But that has now changed and we are now back into the public borrowing market in a fairly substantial way, as the member for Oakville South will appreciate.

With those few opening remarks, I look forward to the comments and contribution of the members opposite.

Mr Bradley: It is a good opportunity for me to raise some issues that are of great concern to the constituents of St Catharines and to the people of Ontario as they relate to the borrowing policies of this government and the need for the borrowing that the Treasurer has outlined to members of the Legislature.

This is the advantage, of course, of having a task force going around the province. The government initially resisted the opportunity to have a committee of the Legislature go around the province to hear submissions on the budget, but the two opposition parties have conducted such an exercise and have allowed the people the direct input they desire to have on budgetary matters in this province.

The mayor of Thunder Bay said that when they go to do their borrowing for their purposes -- and sometimes they have to borrow offshore just as the Ontario government or the federal government has to borrow offshore -- one of the things they encounter is a bad image for Ontario in terms of economics.

It is making it difficult for them to secure funds for their own borrowing purposes, and to secure them at a rate they desire for their municipalities. Part of this, of course, can be attributed to the fact that the provincial government is borrowing so heavily that it will have a deficit of about $10 billion this year, and I suspect when all is in the deficit will be in excess of $10 billion.

We all hope we are out of the recession. No one in this Legislature, for partisan or other reasons, hopes the province would stay in a recession. One thing we can say about members of the legislative bodies in this country is that while we are prepared to indicate our opposition to certain policies, everybody hopes for the best for our province and our country, and let the chips fall where they may in terms of the credit or the blame in that regard.

There is a concern out there that yes, we have a $10-billion deficit this year. It is higher than most people anticipated and it is higher than we in the opposition think is necessary, but again I differ from some who indicate that there is no need for a deficit and that we should be balancing the budget in this year. That is impossible to do and maintain the programs that members of this Legislature from all sides consider important.

What is of particular concern, and this gets into borrowing, is the future deficits. If one could see a reduction coming in future years of some significant proportions, one could have more confidence. About $9 billion is anticipated next year, about $8 billion the next year and about $8 billion after that. I know the figures vary just a bit from that.

That is the concern. There is an anticipation and a hope, certainly, from most of us watching the economy at the present time that we will pull out of the recession and therefore will not have to incur the kind of deficits that we see the government this year has decided to incur, as it says, to fight the recession, or at least to meet the expenditures it would like to have.

There are some reasons why the government should be spending money in this province. I do not think anybody realistically says the government should get out of everything it is doing at the present time. We would like to see them spend wisely. We would like to see them establish priorities. We would like to see an emphasis on efficiency as much as possible.

There have to be programs that the government is engaged in. Members of the opposition get up from time to time. Today, one of the members of the Conservative Party indicated that he wanted to see more expenditures in the field of policing. I have been in the House and raised the issue of a need for another computerized axial tomography scanner machine in the part of the province I represent, the Niagara Peninsula. That is an important component of the health care system there. There is a need for certain of those expenditures and I am not one to stand and rail against the government when it makes the necessary expenditures for Ontario.

I recall very vividly some of the things said in opposition, and I sit with a smile on my face some days. Sometimes I am prompted into being even more vociferous and calling it to the attention of the government members. But I often smile benignly at the fact that the government is giving some of the same answers previous governments gave, and the opposition are asking some of the questions that used to be asked. It is an important part of the process. There are those who become cynical about it. One has to recognize, however, that this is the role of the government and that is the role of the opposition.

If the Minister of Health were to rise, for instance, next week in her seat and say, "I recognize the need for another CAT scanner machine in the Niagara Peninsula," I would say that is a reasonable expenditure on the part of the government. That costs them nothing in terms of the capital costs; that is raised locally. The entire cost is raised locally and the folks in the Niagara Peninsula are quite prepared to participate in those fund-raising campaigns to have the CAT scanner put in for diagnostic purposes, so that we do not have to send people to the United States for those services at a cost to the government, at a cost to those people. We would be saving money if we invested in that regard. There are times when the government can invest in certain ways and actually be saving money in the long run.

1550

The standing committee on public accounts, of which I am a member, is looking at the whole problem of cross-border shopping for health services in terms of drugs and alcohol. Many people in the province have headed south of the border because they believe that there are better services, or at least that there are services available. Some have been lured there by promises that they are going to get well without their neighbours knowing about it; let's put it that way. There is some kind of stigma attached, unfortunately, to people who are trying to recover. There is a place where there can be some savings. I hope the public accounts committee can be helpful to the government and the people of this province in making some recommendations that can be implemented by the Ministry of Health.

The member for Scarborough-Agincourt raised an interesting issue today in terms of the ability to meet obligations. He said there are many hospitals which are closing beds. I remember when the member for Windsor-Riverside, the former Health critic for the NDP, used to rise in the House quite often and make comments about those bed closings and be critical of the government for bed closings. I do not see members of the governing side standing up to make those representations now. Frankly, in fairness to them, I do not expect they are going to do it. They will do it in caucus, in individual representations to the minister. That is the way the system works. I would be very surprised to see them rise in the House and chastise the minister publicly. That is something people hope will happen, but I am realistic enough to recognize it is not going to.

We also recognize a need for educational facilities. The Minister of Education has come forward with a program to provide some of the funding and continue the program of the previous government, providing some capital funds for educational facilities, eliminating the need for some of the portables in this province. It is again a reasonable expectation that a government is going to provide funding for those purposes.

We also know that the unemployed help centre in many areas has been looking for some funding. The unemployed help centre plays a significant role at all times. Where it plays an even more significant and vital role is in times of recession. The federal government has offices which provide counselling and assistance to people. There are some provincial offices that may do so. But many people are intimidated by government and government offices and feel more at home and at ease going to an unemployed help centre. Often they have a little extra time to spend with those people and some empathy, because many of the people who work there have themselves experienced unemployment.

I have noted with some interest and certainly with some regret that the Ministry of Labour is not providing the funding the St Catharines Unemployed Help Centre was looking for to assist people in the area. We have some people there who have provided some good counselling and who have helped families that have been in some crises because of the unemployment situation they were facing. They have helped people with resumes. They have helped people to go out in a tough job market to look for the job that is going to provide some money for them.

The St Catharines Unemployed Help Centre and the labour council in St Catharines have made representations for that money. Unfortunately, the government has not seen fit to do so. I received a copy of a letter from the Minister of Labour to the local labour council, where he indicated the reasons why not. I do not think they were compelling or satisfactory to me. I understand what the Minister of Labour is saying, but there again is an investment which I think is quite reasonable. People working there could provide a good service and I hope the government will give that some reconsideration.

I discussed this with the Treasurer this morning in committee. We were talking about cross-border shopping and the fact that revenues are down because of that. We instead see the government implementing new taxes which, in my view, are going to drive people further across the border in greater numbers and certainly making the kind of purchases they might not have contemplated previously.

The member for Niagara Falls was there at the time and she was making some representations as well. We noted, I think, that in years gone by the cross-border shopping problem was confined to our part of the province, the Niagara Peninsula, and to a lot of the border areas. Today, we have people going for a drive from an hour or two away to cross the border to make purchases.

The Treasurer will make the case, "Our new taxes, our borrowing and our deficit and so on don't really affect it as much because it's only an additional amount." People begin to say: "I'm prepared to shop in Canada. I'm prepared to shop in Ontario." They look at that and say, "Well, perhaps I should patriotically be doing it." Then they look at the two senior levels of government, the federal government and the provincial government, because both have played a role in this and they both increase taxes on the loss-leaders, the things that people go across the border for in the first place, gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol.

In normal circumstances, governments like to pick on those three items to tax. But governments are losing revenue in this regard. More people are heading over the border, making other purchases as they go to purchase gasoline or cigarettes. I do not smoke so it does not affect me personally. I guess in terms of health, there would be many people who would argue that it is good for health to have high taxes. But what is happening is that the people are still smoking. They are heading across the border to get those cigarettes and then coming back to Canada. While they are over there buying the alcoholic beverages, the cigarettes and the gasoline they start to make other purchases. They start making more investments in terms of their own money in the United States. That is why I think it is unwise for the government to implement those kinds of taxes at this time.

We have heard from truck drivers in this province, the operators of large vehicles for transportation purposes, and they are facing difficult circumstances. They face very tough competition from the United States and from each other. We have a new tax for them, a tax on diesel fuel, and that tends to make them even more competitive. I must say I do not approve of their tactics of tying up the province's highways and I do not think a lot of those people do it easily. It is a sense of frustration out there, that this is the only way they are going to get the attention of the public and of governments, and for that reason they engage in that activity.

It is similar, I suppose, to strikes. People do not sit there hoping there is going to be a strike. People who work in various places do not say: "Let's go out on strike because it is fun or it's a good time or we'll show the company." They go out on strike because they feel they have a legitimate grievance. This is what the truck operators are saying in Ontario: "We have a federal government that has increased taxes. Now the provincial government has increased taxes and it has made us less competitive."

The other problem we encounter in terms of financing, if we look at the local level, is that the government says it is not offloading. But, to be honest, I have not found a provincial government that does not unload some of its obligations on a lower level of government, a less senior, so-called, level of government. The federal government does it to provincial governments. Provincial governments do it to municipal governments. From time to time, governments try to make up for that with new programs and so on.

But once again, a lot of municipalities are scrambling to make up for what they consider to be a lack of adequate funding from the provincial government for the purposes that they have, for the obligations they have locally. Many of them, however, have sharpened their pencils and have really made a concerted effort to come in with budgets that are not too high.

1600

I know one of the incentives to do that is that they are in an election year at this time and it is always nice to go to the electorate with small increases or no increases in property taxes. The other fact is that those people have had to look very carefully -- unlike what the Management Board of Cabinet appears to have done -- at their expenditures. They have tried to maintain those which are essential. They have tried to maintain those which can be productive in terms of stimulating jobs in their area, and they have trimmed those which they consider not to be essential at a time of recession. Therefore they have managed in many cases, of their own volition and through their own efforts, to keep the increases down from what they might have been.

I heard a comment in the House the other day from one of the government members saying: "Isn't it nice? Our municipality is coming in with a low increase this year and it is thanks to our government." It is not thanks to the provincial government; it is thanks to the efforts of those people at the municipal level.

But they do get saddled with costs. In the Niagara region we have a police inquiry which has gone on for several months -- we are now into years that the police inquiry has gone on -- and the Niagara regional police commission and the Niagara regional government had made representations to the government to help alleviate the costs of the inquiry being conducted by the provincial government. I hope the government, when the inquiry is concluded, will look at the costs and determine which should be assumed by the provincial government and which should be assumed by the local level. I do not automatically think the provincial government should always provide money to local municipalities no matter what they ask for, but there are some areas where there is justification.

I saw -- because we are into the borrowing -- something interesting take place. I remember probably every government has gone through it -- I know our cabinet went through the exercise -- and that is the exercise of looking at the Ontario scholarship program. Young people in our province going through high school have a goal in mind. I am not suggesting for a moment that the only reason they are going to try to be Ontario scholars is so they can get the $100, but it is nevertheless a recognition that they have achieved something.

It is a recognition of success, and if I were to be cynical, which I am not, I might come to the conclusion that this government really does not want to reward success. I have heard that said to me by a number of people. I do not know if I can draw that conclusion automatically, but they seem to tax success. As soon as someone is successful, for instance, in business, then the idea is that you must slap a tax on that person and slap him down. Once again, here is a chance to recognize young people who have worked very hard, who have achieved the necessary marks to be Ontario scholars, and immediately this government pulls the rug out from under them.

It is probably part of the removal of some traditions. It is like the tradition of the oath to the Queen, which is a tradition they removed, and then the OPP Golden Helmets, which we have all been so proud of in Ontario, and which they removed. They also removed the OPP Pipes and Drums that have provided the wonderful music in so many communities in this province, them, and now the Ontario scholarships are gone.

All the people are going to get is some kind of letter from the Minister of Education saying: "Well, here we are. We have our recognition because I have signed it and I am the Minister of Education, and you should be proud of that." Those young people and their parents are going to be concerned that the $100 worth of recognition, money which I am sure went towards books and other educational supplies, in subsequent years is not going to be available to those people. I thought it was a good investment, and it is no longer going to be there. I am sure those who are involved in the education profession would agree with that.

We look at the borrowing that the minister is involved in, and he saved a minor amount of money in that regard. That is how they disguise it, as some kind of cost-cutting measure. I should not say "disguise it." That would be unfair. They have decided that it is going to be the cost-cutting measure, but then we see how other parts of the economy have been treated, how there has been money for certain things and not money for other things, and that is what the public begins to question.

All of us in the three parties represented in the Legislature met with, during the election campaign and previous to that, a lot of members of the nursing profession, people whose services I think, in terms of the monetary reward, had been undervalued for a number of years, people who play a very significant role in the delivery of health care services in Ontario. In recognition of this there was a kind of settlement that I think many in the nursing profession thought was much fairer than the circumstances that had existed for a number of years. This is as it should be. We were losing people from the profession, people were not coming into the profession in as great numbers as previously and I think the settlement reflected the value of nurses to the health care system.

What happens is the provincial government does not provide to the hospitals sufficient funding to be able to meet those obligations, to pay their nurses more, and the result is the hospitals are now in some cases contemplating and in some cases already laying off nurses who provide that kind of essential care. Why is that? It is because there is not a sufficient amount being provided by the provincial government in that regard.

It is a matter of establishing priorities. I have said this on a number of occasions in the House, but I think it bears repeating. It is a matter of looking carefully at each of the expenditures. I do not know who sits on the Management Board over there. I suspect the Treasurer does and the Chairman of Management Board and there may be some others.

I sat on Management Board for five years. Members have to really be unpopular if they sit on Management Board, because their job is to say no on some occasions and yes on other occasions. They get lobbied by various ministers and civil servants and so on that their particular cause is the one that should be financed. It is a tough thing to do, because I know it is easy to say it as a member of Management Board, until they come along to the ministry you happen to represent. Then, of course, the emphasis seems to shift a bit.

There are a lot of programs out there that were hatched many years ago --

Hon Mr Laughren: The Minister of Education is on Management Board. She does a fine job.

Mr Bradley: "She does a fine job," says the Treasurer. That remains to be seen. I did not think she would have time for Management Board with all the matters she has been engaged in in Essex county. I thought that would be a full-time job itself in meddling -- sorry, being involved in Essex county.

What the Management Board has to do is look at the old programs. There are some that have been there for years and years. I guess they are kind of nice to have around, but I must say they are not essential in some cases. So ministers have to go and say, "Is this essential now?" If it is not, they can eliminate that program and they can take the money from that program. The way ministers reward the programs is they let them take the money from that program and put it into another program that is more important in their ministry, or perhaps to reduce expenditures overall.

The problem with ministers in years gone by, I suppose, has been that there has not been that reward. I suspect that is the case today. There is not that reward for efficiency, and nobody wants to lose how much he is spending this year by cutting back, because Management Board next year will say, "You don't need that much money." It is sometimes a boring exercise, it is a tedious exercise, but by gosh is it important to be able to do that in the government of Ontario.

I have received from the member for Mississauga South a note which says, "Don't forget I must follow you soon," with "must" and "soon" underlined. She wants me to provide her with the opportunity to do so and, as always, I want to be relatively brief, but I know there are members from Windsor and Oakville, St Catharines, Oshawa, St Thomas, Tillsonburg and other parts of the province who would want me to talk about the problem of the tax on auto workers, who would want me to come back to that.

I thought there were a lot of people over there, including the Treasurer, who would be sympathetic to the plight of auto workers in this province. Instead, we see a tax being levied on these hardworking individuals who dedicated their lives to producing excellent vehicles for the people of this province and for export. These are people who have invested their time, effort and energy in these plants and making the parts for those vehicles, and the thanks they are getting from the Treasurer of this province is a tax on auto workers.

1610

I know there are often conflicts between management and labour in many fields, but one place they appear to have united is in their opposition to the ill-conceived tax put forward by the Treasurer. Obviously there was not enough consultation. Obviously he did not listen to the Minister of Labour, who would know all about this. I have been in the Canadian Auto Workers hall in St Catharines with the Minister of Labour, on the same platform, and he and I had been agreeing on certain matters at that time. Knowing the Minister of Labour as I do, I know that the Treasurer has not listened to his representations, because he would speak out on behalf of workers in this province.

As for the member for Oshawa, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology, his father was a member of this House, a person well known in the trade union movement in Ontario. I know if he had had the opportunity to have representations previously, he would have convinced the Treasurer of this province not to impose the tax on auto workers.

The Treasurer will come forward and say it doesn't really affect these vehicles in the province of Ontario. But what he does not take into consideration, I believe, is that it is not simply the assembling of automobiles in this province; it is the automobile parts. Therefore, when he puts the tax on these vehicles, he is taxing those who are making those parts in Ontario.

So I now see that there is a pretty broad coalition. The environmentalists were in the other day. Friends of the Earth, a well-known, well-respected environmental group, came in. They had a press conference here at Queen's Park and indicated that they were not even satisfied with the manner in which the Treasurer had implemented this tax.

He says, "Well, this is environmental." He likes to say it, because he knows that I used to be Minister of the Environment. He thinks somehow he can work on the pangs of conscience. But I have a solution for him, and I have advocated that solution to him. Instead of penalizing auto workers in this province, instead of putting a tax on an automotive industry that is stuck in the midst of the deepest recession since the 1930s, instead of taxing an industry which is facing really tough competition from the United States and from Mexico, from other countries in the world -- and, of course, this affects the other industries, such as the steel industry and the plastics industry and the other components that go into vehicles and those who service those plants -- he could have, and I have advocated it, provided incentives for people to purchase new vehicles in Ontario.

I know all the members who represented Hamilton and Sault Ste Marie and other places that produce steel would say, "By gosh, that's going to help us too." In fact, there is even nickel in some of those cars, and perhaps copper in some of those vehicles. The people of Sudbury would then be able to say, "By gosh, this Treasurer does understand working people in this province and the consequences of his tax for working people." What he wants to do is not going to help the problem of pollution or the problem of conservation as much as what the finance critic for the official opposition, formerly of Sudbury, has suggested to save the people of Sudbury, and that is providing incentives.

It is one of those win-win situations that everybody looks forward to -- the Premier would really look forward to it upon reflection, no doubt -- and that is this: How do you save the environment and how do you save the auto industry at the same time? Quite simple. You encourage people, through financial incentives, perhaps the removal of the provincial taxes on those vehicles, to buy new vehicles.

Why new vehicles in the midst of a recession at the present time? Some people may not have advocated that if we were not in a recession. Some people may have said if the Treasurer had implemented what he did in boom times, perhaps the industry might have been able to sustain it, but in the midst of a recession, where they are laying off in the auto industry, where the companies are losing all kinds of money, where workers are under great stress and recognizing in all plants there could be closings? I saw in the St Catharines Standard the other day apprehension in the workforce in St Catharines about the future of the plant there that employs over 8,000 people in terms of the production of parts for vehicles in this province.

My solution, which I am sure the member for Mississauga South, who is going to be speaking next, would agree with, is that they provide an incentive to purchase newer vehicles. The brand-new vehicles have much better pollution control equipment on them and they are much more fuel-efficient. Every one of them is much more fuel-efficient than the same model 10 years ago. Every one of them has better pollution control equipment than the same model 10 years ago.

We could have said to the Treasurer of this province, "Mr Treasurer, you're not Pink Floyd, but Green Floyd." Instead, we have got Blue Floyd. He is taxing the money away from the people and certainly is not doing anything good for the auto industry.

What else would happen? What is the other consequence? The other consequence of the plan I have advocated for him is that the automobile industry gets a shot in the arm. People are buying the vehicles, and of course the people who work in the showrooms and the dealerships and so on are going to be employed. There are so many people who are going to benefit from this plan I have, instead of putting a tax on auto workers in the province.

The Minister of Labour made some considerable changes in the bill he proposed before the House, and he made those changes knowing full well that the headlines would be in various papers, as they were, the government does a flip-flop or it withdraws or it is backing down and so on. But the Minister of Labour recognized that his piece of legislation was essential for workers in this province and that if he were to modify that legislation, if he were to make the sufficient changes in that legislation, there would be a broader consensus of support for it.

Now I say to the Treasurer he has an example in the Minister of Labour, who has made the necessary changes when he has received the criticism, when he has received input. When the Treasurer has his meeting on I think Monday 10 June with Bob White, who is the head of the Canadian Auto Workers and a person who cares passionately about the workers he represents, when he has representatives of the auto industry, who want to retain a viable industry in this province when he has whoever else he has invited to that meeting -- certainly it was not the car dealers; they were shut out, but they had representations indirectly, I guess, through this House. Certainly it was not the environmental groups; they were not invited in, but they have made their representations anyway, and perhaps now have been able to kick on the door long enough that the Treasurer has let them in to have representations. I hope on Monday of this week the Treasurer will approach this with a very open mind.

Hon Mr Laughren: It isn't Monday.

Mr Bradley: Whatever day he meets with them, Monday or Thursday, either the 10th or the 13th, I hope that the Treasurer will approach this with an open mind, that he will listen to the broad coalition out there against this tax, that he will withdraw it.

When he withdraws it, I am not going to hoot and holler. I will say, "Sound the bugles of retreat," because I would have to say that. I mean, that is standard; I must say that, but at least I will be saying it with some admiration for the Treasurer. I will be saying: "Here's the Treasurer who came up with an ill-conceived tax. Here's the Treasurer who had a tax that was really hurting auto workers in this province, and what he's doing now is listening to the representations and he's prepared to make the change. He's prepared to show everybody in the province that this wasn't simply a tax grab, that in fact it was a desire to improve the environment, and he's got a chance to improve the economy too."

I know a lot of his caucus members -- I do not want them to get up in the House today and make the same statement, because they will make that in caucus. On Tuesday morning they will assemble and they will let the Treasurer know exactly what they think. We on this side like to say, "Why don't you get up in the House and ask the question?" It is not realistic that we would expect that to happen, except perhaps the member for Welland-Thorold, who is known for being somewhat of a maverick from time to time. He might do so, but most of the other members would not.

Anyway, I could go on at some length, but I will not do so. As I conclude, I will say that as a result of the fiscal policies of this government, despite the second trip of the Treasurer to New York City, cap in hand, seeing the bosses of Wall Street and asking for forgiveness and asking if they would be considerate, we are still downrated by all the rating agencies, which means that we have to pay more for the money we borrow. That is why this borrowing is so much, and that will continue to increase, because we have incurred such a huge deficit this year and project such huge deficits after that.

1620

Hon Mr Laughren: You want to make it more.

Mr Bradley: The Treasurer says others would want more. I think they would look for him to rearrange his priorities in the appropriate fashion.

As I mentioned the Management Board exercise, I will not go through that again, because it is tedious for most members to hear it. They do not like the Management Board when it is doing its job properly.

I must say, the particular Management Board of which the Treasurer and the Chairman of Management Board are a part must be very popular, because it certainly appears that the ministers all came into the vault, reached in and hauled out as much money as they wanted, except for the odd program that we have brought to their attention. Other than that, they have probably had free rein.

We hope that the Treasurer, having heard through the headlines and through the electronic media what the Liberal task force on the budget is hearing, what the Conservative task force on the budget is hearing, and later on, having been dragged kicking and screaming into it, what the overall legislative committee will hear, will make changes. If he brings in a mini-budget, as they call it, in the fall and if he comes to the House and begs forgiveness and says, "You know, I thought I was doing the right thing when I brought this budget in, I thought the measures there were reasonable for this province, but it appears that a lot of people disagree with it and I'm prepared to make modifications," I will say, as I did of the Minister of Labour, that he is open-minded to those changes.

I know the Minister of Labour worked very hard on his legislation. He obviously ran into some people in cabinet who were not as anxious to achieve what he wanted to achieve as he was, but he made his modifications. Give the man credit for doing that.

If the Treasurer would follow his example of being considerate of the viewpoint of others, of making the necessary modifications and bringing in a good bill for the province of Ontario -- probably, ultimately, after it is finished going through all the steps in this House -- I would be the first in the House to applaud him, and certainly I would rise in the House to extol the virtues of a Treasurer who would admit he was wrong, who would admit his budget was a disaster and would in effect bring forward a new budget which is much more responsible for the people of this province.

Mrs Marland: Particularly, I express appreciation to the member for St Catharines, since he did not spend an undue amount of time in this debate, as he could have done, and certainly as his colleague the member for Renfrew North did yesterday afternoon.

I appreciate this opportunity to take part in this debate. I say at the outset, for the benefit of the members in the House at this moment, I do not look forward to their calling the matter before us occasionally throughout my comments, the matter being the loans, the authority of this government to borrow on the credit of the consolidated revenue fund. I say that because I did have the pleasure of discussing yesterday with the Treasurer the appropriateness of my comments today as compared with yesterday's supply bill. With that preamble, I would like to resume the debate.

First of all, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the debate on the second reading of Bill 81, An Act to authorize borrowing on the credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and to express my non-confidence in the NDP government's fiscal policy. In fact, I will be talking about their total lack of fiscal responsibility.

Ontario is still reeling in shock at the Treasurer's plan to run up a massive deficit of $9.7 billion this year, more than triple the deficit of last year and the largest deficit in the history of this province. We have lost our triple A credit rating, a sure sign that we are in trouble. It is also a sure sign that the business community does not accept the Treasurer's argument that this is a recession-driven deficit; and no wonder. The Treasurer's own officials have admitted that $1 billion, or in other words, more than 10% of the deficit, results from new programs being introduced by the NDP government.

Given the strains on the provincial coffers from the rising social assistance costs and declining revenues, the responsible thing to do would have been to freeze all new program spending. Instead, the NDP has inflated an already huge deficit by adding another $1 billion of new programs. Such fiscal irresponsibility is truly incredible.

As well, even after Ontario pulls out of the recession, probably later this year, the NDP will continue to operate with an enormous deficit: $8.9 billion in 1992-93, $8.4 billion in 1993-94 and $7.8 billion in 1994-95. Indeed, by 1995, the NDP government will have taken just four years to double the deficit that was accumulated during the past 125 years of Ontario history.

I ask the Treasurer: Is that a record to be proud of? Does he look forward to reading in the history books that he set Ontario on the course of spiralling deficits and higher taxes to service the escalating public debt? I ask the other government members: Will they be able to explain to their children and grandchildren why, even when Ontario was not in a recession, they continued to mortgage their future by spending more than they could afford?

Members on both sides of this House are hearing from many people who cannot believe how much they are paying in taxes. Indeed, many of the Mississauga South constituents who have called my community office about the budget are talking about tax revolt or even moving to the United States. One gentleman, who could barely contain his fury over the NDP budget, wants to know if we are advocating civil disobedience.

It is unbelievable that a government would introduce a budget containing 14 tax increases during a recession. Ontario is already the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America. What is the NDP trying to do, set a world record?

With the budget's increased taxes on gasoline, cigarettes and alcohol, even more people will be lining up at border crossings to take their buying power south. That is some help at a time when cross-border shopping is seriously jeopardizing Ontario's retail sector. And these tax increases certainly will not boost employment in Ontario. The only significant job creation from this budget will be in the American border towns.

Mississauga Mayor Hazel McCallion is particularly critical of the NDP government's lack of attention to unemployment and job creation. As she points out, the province could create jobs in Mississauga if it would proceed with two joint provincial-municipal projects that the province is holding up.

For instance, by freezing the development of the land surrounding the Britannia Road landfill site, a garbage dump which is supposed to close this year and may be expanded because of the garbage crisis, the NDP is holding up the construction of non-profit housing. This construction would create jobs, not to mention the affordable housing that is desperately needed.

1630

Another example is the Highway 403 arterial road, the construction of which could proceed if the province would proceed with negotiations over a piece of land it owns. Again, jobs would be created and transportation infrastructure would be gained.

Returning to the 14 tax increases in the budget, the increase in the gasoline and diesel fuel taxes is particularly harmful. These taxes rose 1.7 cents a litre immediately after the budget and will rise a further 1.7 cents a litre next January for a total tax increase of 30%. These tax increases do not affect just those people who drive. They have an adverse impact on virtually every person in Ontario, since businesses and consumers rely upon goods which are shipped by truck. Our trucking industry is having enough trouble competing with the deregulated United States trucking industry. It needs these tax increases like it needs a hole in the head.

The Treasurer introduced the gasoline tax increase in the name of the environment, saying it will give people an incentive to rely less on their cars and use public transit more. However, he has not dedicated the tax revenues to environmental programs. We have already seen what a sham the Liberals' tire tax was. Only $16 million of the $45 million collected in the tax's first year was actually spent on tire recycling. Until the government creates a special green revenue fund, to be used only for environmental purposes, any announcement of so-called environmental tax hikes will remain a farce.

I have talked about the unreasonable tax hikes in this year's budget, but things are going to get much worse in future NDP budgets. If people think they pay too much tax now, wait until they see the tax increases that will be necessary down the road to control the NDP's monster deficit.

After the expected recovery from the recession, the Treasurer says, government spending will rise by 22.7% over three fiscal years, while revenues for the same period will rise by 32.6%. Explaining those figures, the Treasurer says: "Much of this revenue growth will occur naturally as a result of economic growth. However, revenue moves may be required to achieve the target rate." In plainer English, I would suggest that perhaps "revenue moves" means tax increases.

The Treasurer gives us another glimpse into our high-tax future when he says he has instructed the Fair Tax Commission to fast-track its consideration of a minimum corporate tax and a land speculation tax. What is the Treasurer trying to do, drive businesses and investment capital out of Ontario? We are quickly losing our competitive place in the international economy. A measure like a minimum corporate tax, a tax on the sector of the economy that creates most of our new jobs, will prevent Ontario from returning to the competitive position we used to enjoy.

One of the constituents who called my office to complain about the budget is a small business person, Kim Weaver. Mr Weaver called this budget "totally irresponsible and antibusiness." He said this is not the way to turn our economy around and predicts that if the NDP continues on its course, our province will go broke and investment dollars will go where there is a better economic climate. As Mr Weaver said, the corporate sector of the economy has been badly hurt by the budget, and just at a time when the recession has made companies extremely vulnerable. They are, after all, having to close plants and lay off people at a time when the provincial government is showing no restraint in its salary negotiations with its civil service.

It is not only the business sector that is feeling the pinch. Municipal governments and their taxpayers have had their financial health eroded by the offloading of the previous Liberal government. The corporation of the city of Mississauga prides itself on a responsible fiscal management and, as Mayor Hazel McCallion says: "We do not believe in debt financing. The federal government has already mortgaged our future. Now the province has fallen into the debt financing trap, but we at the city of Mississauga do not believe in mortgaging our future."

Unfortunately, it is going to cost municipal ratepayers more and more for municipalities to have responsible, balanced budgets, since the province is picking up a smaller and smaller share of program costs, even though the programs are required by provincial legislation.

For instance, regional municipalities face escalating welfare costs because of the recession -- on average, two thirds more than they paid last year. The increase for the region of Peel is even more. Their welfare case load is up 73% from this time a year ago. Because municipalities are responsible for 20% of the cost of general welfare assistance, municipal ratepayers are facing the possibility of huge property tax increases next year in order to pay the welfare tab.

The municipalities badly need relief from the escalating welfare burden. In fact, two reports, the report of the Provincial-Municipal Social Services Review Committee and the report of the advisory committee to the Minister of Municipal Affairs on the provincial-municipal financial relationship, have recommended that the province take responsibility for the full cost of welfare services in order to ease the unfair burden on property taxpayers. Yet the Treasurer said that of the $215 million earmarked this year for welfare reform, only $25 million will go towards the costs incurred by municipalities.

According to Bob Richards, who is the treasurer and commissioner of finance for the region of Peel, this figure is "miles from the full cost of general welfare assistance." Welfare costs, just for the region of Peel, amount to $10 million a year. In fact, the $25 million probably will not be sufficient to cover municipalities' 20% share of the costs of welfare reform. Bob Richards fears the reform measures will actually increase Peel's welfare costs. It is no wonder that Mr Richards calls this government's first budget "the budget from hell."

Frank Bean, chairman of the region of Peel, said he had hoped the budget would phase out municipalities' responsibility for welfare, as recommended in the reports on the provincial-municipal relationship. However, there is no indication that the government will proceed with those recommendations. What is worse, the government will be loosening its accountability requirements for social assistance recipients, so that welfare costs could escalate. Mr Bean has told the government, "If you're going to relax the rules, please take me out of the picture." If the NDP government does not cover the full cost of welfare reform, then it will have backtracked on its promise not to offload on to the municipalities.

1640

Unfortunately, we already have an example which shows that the NDP plans to continue the offloading practices of the previous Liberal government. The Solicitor General has withdrawn the OPP from investigations into family benefit fraud, in other words, from policing that is required for a provincially mandated program. Now the fraud investigations are the responsibility of the regional police forces. In Peel this policing is placing financial demands upon the Peel Regional Police, which will probably have to be met by increasing property taxes. Let this be a word of warning to the NDP government that municipalities, school boards and ratepayers in Peel are fed up with having to carry more than their fair share of the tax load.

This government must consider that since 1985, the greater Toronto area has experienced 26.3% inflation, but in the same period property taxes on an average home in Mississauga have risen by 45.8%, from $1,781 per year to $2,597 per year. In my riding of Mississauga South, which contains many older neighbourhoods with large lots -- and of course those large lots originally were subdivided that way because there were no sewers and everyone was on septic tanks, before I get some chippy comments from the opposition about the large lots in my riding -- nevertheless, those large lots exist and as a result it is not unusual to pay more than $4,000 property tax a year on a simple bungalow.

Over the same period, education taxes in my city of Mississauga have risen by 50.8%. Last year, Mississauga residents faced education tax increases averaging 17% in one year because of reduced provincial cost-sharing combined with offloading by the then provincial Liberal government.

People are so disillusioned that tax revolt is no longer just a concept. It is happening. Some of my constituents have deducted from their interim property tax bills money they believe they are being overcharged. However, it is not municipal or school board overspending that has sent property tax bills through the roof. Local governments and school boards have to provide essential services with less and less funding from the province. As the Peel regional chairman, Frank Bean, has said, "You can be lean and mean, but you can't do the impossible." No, it is provincial government offloading that is at the root of the tax revolt crisis.

Having looked at the effects of this government's fiscal policy on the municipal governments in my community, I would like to talk about its impact on the school boards in Mississauga. In its pre-budget submission, the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board welcomed the new government's "stated desire to return the provincial share of local education costs to the past level of 60%." Now the NDP 60% promise has vanished. In fact, the budget barely mentions elementary or secondary education.

Tom Reilly, director of education for the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board, says he is afraid that education has slipped as one of the current government's priorities. Mr Reilly points out that not one of the concerns his board raised in its pre-budget submission was addressed in the budget, even though the Minister of Education has told school boards that the Fair Tax Commission is examining the problems of educational finance and will develop a new funding formula. The changes may not come soon enough. School boards need help now. For example, those school boards in Peel are having to use operating funds to meet urgent capital needs because the capital allocations are insufficient to match pupil growth.

The Peel Board of Education opened four schools last year using operating funds because the Ministry of Education phases in capital allocations over a multi-year period. These multi-year allocations are also causing problems for the separate board, which is having to assume unnecessary interim financing costs.Both the separate board and the Peel Board of Education have had to increase local taxes or cut back programs to cover the costs of provincial requirements. The combination of the employer health tax, pay equity, new occupational health and safety requirements and the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, all provincial initiatives, cost the separate board $5.5 million and the Peel Board of Education $14 million last year.

The Peel Board of Education is also concerned about the budget's allocation of $100 million for pay equity. The board does not yet have the details on how much of the $100 million it will receive. However, if it receives provincial funding for pay equity in the same ratio as its grants, that is, less than 20% of the costs from the province, then it will be paying $4 million more this year to implement pay equity for its teachers. I ask the Treasurer, where is the equity if the school boards with the greatest pay equity costs get the least money from the province to implement pay equity?

Like the education system, the needs of seniors and disabled persons are conspicuous by their absence from this budget. One really has to wonder when the government plans to implement Bill 74, the Advocacy Act, when there is no allocation for advocacy in the budget. As I mentioned in the debate on Bill 74 earlier this week, we must take steps to protect vulnerable persons in the interim period until the advocacy commission is up and running.

In addition, what ever happened to long-term care reform? There is no mention of it in the budget either. The comprehensive study commissioned by the last government is now gathering dust. This is rather surprising when the NDP, while in opposition, regularly called for long-term care reform.

Another social issue of great concern to many of my constituents is child care. This government is discriminating against private day care operators, their staff and the children they care for by advancing funds for pay raises only to public sector workers.

As well, although the NDP recently provided funding for more subsidized day care spaces, many municipalities could not provide the spaces. This is because their budgets are already so strained by rising welfare costs that they could not come up with their 20% share of the costs. For example, the region of Peel had to close one day care centre over the past year. It did manage to open another one, but had to leave approved subsidized spaces unfilled. Peel could not afford to take advantage of the extra money being offered by the province.

1650

The budget also neglects the equitable funding of social services. A recent report by the Fair Share for Peel Task Force has pointed out that on a per capita basis, Peel receives far less provincial funding for children's and family services than the provincial average. For example, in 1989 the children's services funding was only $93.62 per capita in Peel, compared with $353.75 in Metro Toronto and a provincial average of $223.82. That is a large and totally unacceptable discrepancy.

The task force called for a change in the way the province allocates funding to social service agencies in order to ensure an equitable funding base across the province. In fact, the report was a pre-budget submission, but the Treasurer has ignored the recommendations of the task force and the groups it represents: the Peel children's aid society, Peel Family Services, Peel Children's Centre, the Peel social planning council and the United Way. In fact, the NDP government has shortchanged the children and families in Peel.

The concerns that I have just tabled in this Legislature on behalf of my constituents in Mississauga South are indeed serious, they are indeed grave, and we look to this government to reconsider its priorities in terms of financial policy for this province.

Mr Christopherson: I am also pleased to join in this discussion primarily on the budget, although the matter before us is indeed the Ontario Loan Act, which is necessary for us to implement the measures contained in the budget.

I would like to reflect on a couple of comments made by the previous speaker. One of the comments that struck me most was -- I am paraphrasing -- "Taxpayers are fed up with carrying more than their fair share." I thought that very, very interesting from a party whose federal cousins have had the opportunity to run the national economy for some seven years now. In yesterday's Financial Post there was a report that contained the results of a study showing that an average family, income of $48,000, will now pay over $1,500 more per year in federal taxes since the federal Tories took power in 1984. That is the very same group of people whom the third party professes to now speak for. I would submit that if they had the opportunity that has been afforded us, instead of helping these people as our budget has done, they would be hammering those people in exactly the same way as their federal cousins.

Further to that, to put some figures to the comments: For an income group of $35,000 to $40,000 per year, between the years 1984 and 1991 there were 63,000 families whose taxes decreased. But of that same group, 1,021,000 had increases. That is the group from $35,000 to $40,000.

Now let's take a look at the group that makes $150,000-a-year plus. The same column shows us that there were 31,000 families whose taxes increased in that period, but that for 94,000 taxes decreased. I make the point because it is difficult to be listening to lectures from across the way about doing what is right for middle-income earners in this province when that very philosophy in action at the federal level is hurting that very group of people. We have the stats to prove it, and I find it very difficult to listen to those lectures time and time again.

Property taxes were mentioned. The issue of property taxes is one that is affecting an awful lot of seniors, those on fixed incomes and of course those who are on low incomes. One of the key promises we made in the campaign was that we would pay particular attention to the needs of property taxpayers. How best can we do that as a provincial government, you might ask? We do that through the transfer payments. Indeed, it has been the transfer payments of the previous government, which were frozen, flat-lined, and in some cases decreased, that forced municipal councils and local boards of education to increase their property tax mill rate way beyond what they wanted to.

A good example is my own community in Hamilton. This year my city council was able to bring in a tax increase of just 1.9%. Even those who are not members of our particular party acknowledge that the generous transfer payments averaging 8% announced by the Treasurer earlier this year went a long, long way to allowing them to be able to pass on such a low increase in property taxes.

The local school board came in this year at 1.08% for much the same reason under our NDP government, the ones who are supposedly so irresponsible. We were able to play a significant and major role in that school board's bringing in a 1.08% tax increase.

What was it last year under the previous government? It was over 18%. This 18% is what the people on the board of education had to do in my community, by and large because of the inattention of the previous government to the needs of local government. I am pleased to see that in our very first budget we are going such a long way to meeting the commitments that we made with regard to our transfer partners.

Let's take a look at a few other things while we are listening to opposition members criticize, condemn and attack the budget. They want to pay particular attention, of course, to the deficit. The deficit is of significant concern to us also. It was not something that was done lightly or flippantly. But let's remember the fact that $8.2 billion of the $9.7-billion deficit was generated by the increased welfare costs which we are committed to pay by law -- not that we would not -- plus the reduced revenues, plus the billions of dollars that we are losing in transfer payments because the federal government, the Tories, have been cutting back on transfer payments to provincial governments.

We would submit that any government which wanted to at least maintain the services that are currently in place and meet the legal obligations that we have would be looking at $8.2 billion, regardless, and that leaves $1.5 billion that is the responsibility of this government. Quite frankly, we are quite proud and quite prepared to stand behind that money that has been spent.

1700

Let's take a look at what has happened in other jurisdictions across the country. Let's take a look at what is going on in the Maritimes where we have provincial governments that have followed a philosophy of cutting and slashing and ignoring the workers and their families who are being devastated by this recession. What are we seeing? Not what you are in Ontario, where outside the Legislature we have all the business people pouring out from Bay Street, coming out and picketing and demonstrating out in front of the Legislature. No, what we have in the maritime provinces, picketing and demonstrating out in front of their legislatures, are workers and their families, civil servants who are being made the scapegoats. Those are the very people whom we are helping with the $1.5 billion that is our responsibility, and I am very proud of the fact that we were prepared to take the measures we did in that regard.

Let's also bear in mind that there was an article recently in the Globe and Mail from a very well renowned and respected economist, a Canadian, John Kenneth Galbraith, who wrote an article about the actions of governments in North America, and what did he say about the government of Ontario, in terms of fiscal responsibility and in terms of responding to a recession? He said we are the only government in North America that is attacking the recession properly in a way that needs to be done. So it is not just us alone, and it is not just what the opposition would call our cronies, It is a lot of well-respected individuals who understand what we are doing, who understand the care and compassion that is behind this budget. They know that the alternatives would only exacerbate the situation for an awful lot of working people in this province who are already taking an unmerciful pounding, and this, quite frankly, is the very least we could do.

I would end by saying that in terms of responsible government, and in terms of responding to the needs that are there, we have put in place fiscal management plans that will allow us by 1994-95 to reduce the operating budget from $5.4 billion to $3 billion, and by 1998 that operating budget will be eliminated and --

Mr Stockwell: Don't worry about 1998.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs Haslam): Order. The member is not in his seat. The member for Etobicoke West has just entered, has not been recognized and is not to take part in debate. Thank you.

Mr Christopherson: I suspect that if the antics of the member for Etobicoke West continue, the operating budget will not be the only thing eliminated by 1998.

I would close, because I want to afford the opposition members their opportunity to speak to this important matter. But I would like to wrap up by again saying and making it crystal clear to our honourable colleagues across the way, and all of those who are tuning in through this channel, that this government is not only prepared to defend this budget, the budget of the Treasurer, of the first NDP government in Ontario, but we stand behind it with pride because we know what it means to hundreds of thousands of people in this province who elected us to care for them and help them during this recession, and that is what we are going to do.

Mr Carr: I just want to comment very briefly. It is interesting to see that he quotes one of the authors from the United States. I am reading an article here and it is interesting how he talks about the federal government. Federal NDP leader Audrey McLaughlin, in the Hamilton Spectator, in the member's own area, saying, "Yes, I speak with Bob Rae, but it's his option and it's not my place to comment."

The member's federal leader is backtracking, backpedalling faster than a second-rate fighter in against Mike Tyson, on the member's budget, on this provincial budget. The member is always talking about what is going on between Ottawa and the Tories. He has in Ottawa a federal leader who is saying, "Oh, no, that isn't what we'd do." She is backtracking faster than any other person in this province, and I can see why. The NDP in BC said, "Oh, no, we would never do anything like that." They are backpedalling away from this. We have the leader, Mr Romanow, in Saskatchewan backtracking, saying: "Oh, no, that's in Ontario. We'd never do that." We even have Jack Layton, the NDP member in Toronto, saying: "No, we can't run up deficits. Don't blame me. We'd never do that."

In this province today we now see what it is like to have government members' counterparts in other provinces and federally defend what goes on. Audrey McLaughlin is backpedalling. She is getting as far away from that as she can, because she does not want to be tied to the policies of this government. Neither do the leaders in British Columbia and in Saskatchewan. They are saying: "No, that's Ontario. We'd never do that. We'd never do that." In Toronto they are backpedalling and they are saying, "No way."

I can tell members that the only people who are happy with this budget are the crew on that side. Nobody else in this province is happy with it, and four years from now we are going to see that there will be nobody left over there.

Mr Phillips: I am pleased to comment on the speech by the member. As he knows, he and I have, I think, a fundamental disagreement on the budget. Just to comment on a few things about the budget, One is that it is not just the $9.7-billion deficit this year that people are worried about; it is the continuation of massive deficits right into the next century.

The member talks about balancing, he is very careful to say, "the current account." As the member will appreciate, there are also capital expenditures that have been an integral part of budgets for ever. The member will not be able to get away with saying, "We're going to have a new accounting system now; we're going to take the capital out." The fact is, he never balances the budget. The best he comes is about $6 billion and then on into the next century, a $6-billion deficit at least, year after year. So he never balances the budget. It is just hocus-pocus to say he does.

The second thing is that even in four years, as the Treasurer knows, to get to the $7.5-billion deficit, there are two heroic assumptions. One is strong economic growth, real domestic product growth, in the 3% to 4% range. Second, to get to the $7.5-billion deficit, he assumes $5 billion worth of new taxes. People see through this. They say, "My God, it isn't just this year; it is for ever that we are in difficulty." Four years from now we need $5 billion of new taxes, we need strong economic growth and we will get to a $7.5-billion deficit.

The third thing, I think, and I appreciate the member's defence of it, but frankly, unfortunately, it is indefensible, is that the word "restraint" never appears anywhere in the budget, on any page. People out there are not looking just to the $9.7 billion, but looking at the total budget.

1710

Mrs Caplan: I too want to comment on the remarks from the member for Hamilton Centre, who was referring to the impact of this budget. I wanted him to know that some of the major accounting firms in the province are alerting their clients to the impact of the budget. In quite a non-partisan but factual way, they say that superficially this budget follows a traditional Keynesian economic theory that promotes spending your way out of a recession. However, they say, under closer scrutiny there are two key flaws in the plans of the first socialist government in Ontario.

The first flaw is that, to be effective, government spending during a recession must be targeted to increasing competitiveness and productivity. While the budget provided for increases in welfare payments, operating subsidies for non-profit housing, a wage protection fund and some tax cuts for low-income workers, little in the 1990-91 budget can be said to be addressing fundamental productivity and competitiveness issues. That is the concern many of us have about the impact of this budget.

The fact is that it is shortsighted, that it brings into this province, as you have heard, Madam Speaker, a structural deficit. The provincial budget has been in operating balance since 1986 under the former government. What the member has just said he is proud of is the fact that those days of balanced operating and balanced capital budgets are gone for ever. What he is saying is that maybe in the future the government will be able to balance operating, but he does not foresee, with the kind of structural deficit problems, that the government will ever be able to achieve the strong fiscal position we are in today. That is misguided and is of concern to everyone in Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Hamilton Centre has two minutes to wind up.

Mr Christopherson: Let me deal with the last speaker first, the member for Oriole. I would just point out that the price of the balanced budgets the party across the way is so proud of is exactly the measures that put so much pressure on the necessities of society in education, day care, pay equity, municipal transfer payments and all the other services. That is how they did it. They offloaded on to municipalities and made sure the areas that needed the money did not get it. Anybody can balance a budget that way. We said we were going to look into and look after those areas.

Next, to the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who talks about the fact that there will be a balanced operating budget but not a capital budget, quite frankly, we have taken a step that should have been done an awfully long time ago and separated the two. There is nobody I know who has ever bought a house with cash. They do it because they borrow and they look at the cost of a mortgage as being different from the money it takes to operate a house every month. That is what we have done. Now the people of Ontario will be able to understand the difference and they will see it and there will not be the inherent concern over politics being played with capital projects in operating budgets.

The last thing I would say, to my honourable friend the member for Oakville South, is not to mind what is being said by people who want to be in government. Let us go a step further and look at the economic performance of NDP governments. Take a look at what Tommy Douglas did in Manitoba. Tommy Douglas was Premier for 16 years and he knew how to bring in budgets that people could support. Get ready, folks, 16 years of Bob Rae is coming.

Interjections.

Mr Callahan: I want absolute quiet. I have not been known to speak in this House very often. I only speak when I feel there is a matter of concern --

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: The member for Oriole, please allow your own member to partake in this debate.

Mr Callahan: Do I have to repeat that, or is that on Hansard? I do not normally speak in this House unless I feel there is a matter of concern, and I do really believe there is one. Let me start by saying that Parliament, the legislative process -- and this is part of it, believe me, do not call me to order, Madam Speaker -- the Ontario Legislature, legislatures throughout this country, the Parliament of Canada, are really anachronisms. The people out there watching this on television think that. I have people writing to me and saying, "Can't we get rid of the government tomorrow?"

It seems to me, when they write a letter like that, they do not understand what happens down here. The fact is that these guys are in here for four or four and a half years. They will probably take it down to the minute of five years, because they will never get another crack at it. But having said that, all the people in this Legislature have come here as men and women who care about their constituencies, about the people in their constituencies, but have diametrically opposed political philosophies. That being the case, then the question of Parliament and the Legislature has to be reformed.

I see the Premier is not here. I am not saying that in a pejorative fashion. I recognize he has other things to deal with. I say to the Treasurer, who is about to leave and I hope he does not, I think this government should be looking at -- as serious as constitutional reform is; as serious as it is to look at the question of revamping powers in this province and this country; as serious as it is to look at the Charter of Rights and what it has done to our province and our country, and I suggest to members that has to be revisited; as serious as those things are, there should be a special legislative committee that will be enacted to look at the question of reforming Parliament, to make all of us more than an anachronism, to make us more than clapping seals over there.

I do not say that in a pejorative fashion either, because I was over there at one point and when the applause meter went on, you applauded; when the stand-up meter went on, you stood up; when the vote meter went on, you voted, and the reason you voted was because you knew that if you did not, you always had this feeling in the back of your head, "Hey, I can get into cabinet," or "I can be a parliamentary assistant," because you get extra money for that; or "I can be a committee Chairman," because you get extra money for it. Those were always the perks that have kept the parliamentary system in order, in line.

Government members, if they think about it, are not carrying out the wishes of their electorate. They were elected by people in hamlets all over this province. Ninety per cent of their backbenchers are not even being used. Their grey matter is going to waste up there by applauding when it says "applause" up on this sign -- it is not there really -- "Vote this way because these are the things that will happen to you if you don't vote that way."

It is very interesting that this government got elected in an election which it did not anticipate winning. Every person on that bench is not a committed NDPer along the lines of NDPism. They all care about certain important things. I felt great pain for the Minister of Labour. All the years I have been in the House I have seen him as an advocate of the workers. I do not agree with his philosophy totally, because he was totally committed to the workers, and there is an even balance.

I would love to have been a fly on the wall in the cabinet when that man had to retract Bill 70, when he had to recant and go back to the workers who are important to him and say, "Sorry, guys, the bill is now a eunuch. It's a eunuch because I was told in cabinet that it's not popular," and he was right.

The Premier is a bright guy; he is a Rhodes scholar. He knew exactly what impact that bill was going to have on his popularity and, more important -- and I think the Premier is an honest guy -- what impact it was going to have on the economy of this province. So the Premier finally took the reins of control, instead of the consensus stuff that those guys operate by, and he said, "Look, Bob, you've got to withdraw those bills."

I feel sorry for the Minister of Labour, I really do. I have great respect for him in terms of his commitment to the workers of this province, but he was hung out to dry. It was an option like the member for Welland-Thorold. He was not prepared to say to the Premier: "I want my car; I want my ministerial position and therefore I'm prepared to capitulate. Lawyers are going to get what I promised them during a debate in this Legislature" -- which lasted historically for a longer period than any other member has spoken -- "that the right to sue will be brought back to insurance legislation."

The member for Welland-Thorold at least had the guts -- and I do not say this pejoratively to the Minister of Labour -- to say: "Sorry, Premier. I promised it. If you want me out, fine, I'm out."

1720

The Minister of Labour, for, I am sure, very good reasons -- I think he is so committed to his labour people that he felt to stay in cabinet was more important than to leave. But I am sure that if I were a fly on the wall in that cabinet situation -- and those members who are backbenchers can believe this or not, because they are never in cabinet. Those members do not mean anything, really. They are there, they are warm bodies to applaud, to vote and so on. I know of what I speak.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, order. The member for Durham Centre, if you want to shout or do anything, do it from your seat.

Mr Callahan: And he should do it on his own time, Mr Speaker, with all due respect, because I have only 15 minutes to make this speech.

The Minister of Labour had to literally denude his Bill 70, which was a proactive bill that was going to do marvellous things for the people of this province. It was going to make officers and directors, whether they knew about what was going on in the corporation, liable for up to 12 months in vacation pay, severance pay and wages. Now, they are already responsible for wages. Without any mens rea, without any guilty mind, if they were off doing their job and did not know what was happening in the company, they were still going to be responsible and they were going to be responsible for up to six months.

I applaud the Minister of Labour. I applaud his humility, his ability to be able to accept what his Premier and his cabinet colleagues told him, that he cannot go with this bill because they will never win another election, the province will be destroyed, so they will withdraw it. I suggest the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing will probably do the same thing with his, and with all the greatest respect, I think the Minister of Labour will probably do the same thing with his next employment bill.

Having said those things and having said that what we really need here -- and if the members opposite really, truly want to represent their communities, they have to pressure -- they are the government; we are not the government -- the Premier of this province to enact a special select committee of the Legislature to look at the question of reforming this body. All those people out there who voted for us, who worked for us, who cheer for us, who cry for us, are people who in fact think we are accomplishing what they sent us here for. We are not. Unless you are in the cabinet, unless you are the select group, you are accomplishing zilcho, you are doing nothing.

Hon Mr Philip: Why did they never put you in the cabinet?

Mr Callahan: The Minister of Transportation has just interjected and said, "Why didn't they put you in the cabinet?" Quite frankly, Ed, I did not want to be in cabinet. I did not want to be in the cabinet, and I will tell you the reason. I do not like limousines; they give me problems.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, out of order. Address your remarks through the Speaker.

Mr Callahan: Sorry, Mr Speaker. I was just addressing the Minister of Transportation, who seems to like to travel the country and also travel in his limo.

Quite frankly, being in one cabinet portfolio does not solve the problem. There has to be a reform of Parliament. If the people out there who are watching this understand that, they understand that the decisions are being made by a select group and, more often than not, by the civil servants.

Now, going to the broad, specific things, there are people here who represent the tobacco community, and I believe they are in the government party, who have to go out and tell their tobacco farmers, "Sorry, you've got to grow something else."

My good friend the Treasurer, and I say "good friend" because he is a good friend and I think he is a very well-meaning person, but he has come up with a budget that is absolutely wacko. He is destroying the people in this province who grow tobacco.

He may think he is doing a great thing for the environment, a great thing for health and all the rest of it, but I would suggest to the Treasurer, instead of punishing one area of this community, our farmers who grow tobacco -- and as I understand it from people from the communities that grow tobacco, that is all you can grow. They have tried peanuts. I suggested that maybe they should try something else, to use their imagination, but the fact is they cannot grow anything and the fact is their land has now become less valuable to them. The government has in fact taken it away from them.

I caution the people who are members from tobacco country, when they go back to tell their people about what they have done, they can tell them they went like clapping seals. "What decisions did you make in caucus?" "Well, I spoke once in three years," if you are lucky, with that many members. I know of what I speak.

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: Why does the member for Durham Centre not sit down? He is not in his seat. He is out of order, Mr Speaker.

Instead of doing that, what the government should do --

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: Oh, the former Minister of Health, who I greet back into the cabinet eventually. If the NDP members wanted to do something positive, I will give them a positive promise. Why do they not tell the Treasurer that if somebody wants to smoke, he should not tax him to death; he should make him pay his OHIP premiums. Everybody else gets it free. Make the person who smokes pay his OHIP premium.

Mrs Marland: Everybody gets it free.

Mr Callahan: I realize that. The member for Mississauga South is telling me that everybody gets it free. What I am saying is that if a person wants to smoke or do anything else to excess, let him pay his OHIP premium. Let that be the tax on him. Do not penalize everybody for it. Do not penalize the farmer, who may not smoke at all, and say he cannot grow tobacco any more and create a loss of jobs. Be creative, do not be reactive. The Treasurer should not let some group tell him that because they do not like smoking, everybody should be penalized or that the sin tax is great. "Put a tax on everybody because it is a sin." Surely to God we have got out of the sin era, where we can look at things as realistic human beings and try to approach them.

The next thing is the commonality. I find the New Democratic Party objectionable in this regard. It would like to reduce everybody to a common aspiration. Some of the members on the government side are laughing because they think it is funny, but I would tell the people of Ontario who are watching this in a realistic vein, they took away the oath to the Queen; they tried to take away the opening prayer of this Legislature, which was stopped, thank God. They have any number of things that they want to introduce.

They took away the scholars' $100. That may not mean a lot to members, but to those kids who got it, it was a tradition. The government says, "Well, we'll get rid of it because we are trying to save money on our budget." I find that passing strange, when I find that for political reasons the government party would lose $500 million out of the budget by not putting the GST on the provincial sales tax, to follow an election promise. The kids of this province who are Ontario scholars, who worked hard for it and who saw that as a particularly important thing, are going to lose their $100 because the Treasurer, the Premier and the government wanted to make it a big thing that they performed an election promise by putting no GST on PST -- $500 million.

That money could have been spent in my riding to fulfil a promise of the present Premier of this province when he was out in Huttonville talking to the farmers in the field, talking about potatoes on the hustings. A great guy. He promised to get rid of the portables in my riding. Let me tell members what that man did. The Peel public school board asked for $81 million for new schools and additions. We are the fastest-growing, the largest-growing -- the member for Sudbury East should not yawn. The House leader is now yawning. I guess I am putting her to sleep. The public school board in my riding, the fastest-growing riding in the country, asked for $81 million. Do members know what they got? They got $31 million.

If the Treasurer and the government had decided not to play political games, to keep their so-called promise and take the $500 million they lost because they did not put the GST on the PST, that money would have been there for these kids to get out of the portables.

Bob Rae came out to my riding, and in a gesture of great theatrics, because he did not think he was going to be Premier -- and there is his picture; I hope they can get a close-up of that, Bob Rae standing in a field in Huttonville in my riding. It apparently worked out that at the time the cameras just rolled in, as the portables were there, Bobby Rae, who did not expect to be Premier -- and one suspects he might not be -- was going to get rid of these portables. The people of Huttonville, Bobby Rae, if you are watching, Premier, want to know what happened to that promise. Where is it?

Let it be known that members of the government are laughing. They think this is funny. The people in my riding do not.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. Just make sure you address your remarks to the Chair. Do not try to exchange a challenge with the government. Just speak to the Chair.

1730

Mr Callahan: I am glad you called me to order, Mr Speaker. I will do what the Solicitor General does on all occasions. He speaks through the Chair so he does not have to look at any other members of the Legislature when he tells his stories about his insincerity, his insensitivity to the entire justice system.

I want to tell you, Mr Speaker, that out of that, my riding got $31 million. In the portables in the region of Peel, as my colleagues from all of the Peel region could tell you -- and we are not of the same party; we are Liberals, we are Conservatives -- we have 18,000 children, being educated in portables. Portable Bob came out and made a promise to become Premier, that he would eliminate all this, and has done nothing.

That is for the public school system. They have been deprived, as all the taxpayers in my riding and throughout Peel, and all my colleagues in Peel have actually been told -- I will not say a lie, because I cannot say that, but certainly have been misled in that NDP promise to get to power.

The Minister of Education, the member from London, whatever her riding is, has the audacity to come into this House and do nothing to alleviate the problem. More important, Cardinal Leger High School was the first Catholic high school in Brampton. Cardinal Leger High School has kids coming out of the windows. They are in portables, unbelievable portables. They have been very significant kids. They are kids who have, I think, led Brampton people to have great accolades for them. Their teachers are fantastic people. They stay around to look after these kids, participate in sports, as do all our teachers.

That school took over a primary school on the promise that it would eventually get a high school that would allow them to not eat in --

Hon Mr Philip: Are those the teachers you would not negotiate pensions with?

The Deputy Speaker: The Minister of Transportation, please.

Mr Callahan: The Minister of Transportation, who is the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale, and I think the people in Cardinal Leger High School should know that, is laughing. He thinks it is funny. Let me tell the minister that the people in Cardinal Leger High School, the students in my community --

Hon Mr Philip: Cardinal Leger High School isn't in my riding; learn your geography. That's where your clients are.

Mr Callahan: That is probably where the minister's slum buildings are too, and he voted for a bill that was in favour of landlords.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. We just cannot go on like that. We just cannot. I know it is Thursday. We have another 30 minutes to go. Please remain quiet.

Mr Callahan: I am glad you can keep order in this place, because it is fine to see a Speaker doing that.

I want to get this point across, that the children in Cardinal Leger High School, the young men and young women, were ranked second in priority on the list of the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Over years they have waited. I have had young people who have come to me and said, "Mr Callahan, can't we get accommodations that will allow us not to have lunch on shifts?" I said to them, "You're guaranteed to get it." The trustees, who are independently elected by the people of Brampton South and the people of Peel region, decided they should get their day in the sun.

The Minister of Education, our newly elected Minister of Education, who probably got the same treatment as the Minister of Labour in cabinet, said: "No, look, we've got some special people out there who want Cardinal Leger not to get it this year. They'll get it next year or God knows when."

I find that objectionable, that when we have --

Hon Mr Philip: It was the previous government that did that. Why don't you tell the truth for a change?

Mr Callahan: I will not even respond to that, because that was a stupid statement by the Minister of Transportation. He is an idiot.

Interjection.

Mr Callahan: Well, if he can tell me I am not telling the truth, I can call him an idiot.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr Callahan: I withdraw "idiot."

The Deputy Speaker: I do not accept that language in the House. Will you withdraw it, please.

Mr Callahan: I withdraw it.

But the Minister of Education, on her own will, which seems to be the NDP idea -- they can get away; justice is special for them. They can send a letter to a JP to have a ticket withdrawn because they are special. They have the power to do it. Everybody else in Ontario, unless you are an NDPer, does not have those special, magical powers. They are entitled to do it.

They seem to think that they can interfere with the rights of trustees who are elected independently by the people in my riding who say that Cardinal Leger is entitled to funding. The minister just rejected that. She said Cardinal Leger will wait for another year, and probably another four years, because the NDP government is in power. They will take their luncheon in shifts. They will work in crowded classrooms. They will be in portables. The Premier, who was out in Huttonville, told us the panacea, "We're going to get rid of these portables."

That is all I am going to say for the people of Cardinal Leger, but I happen to think that school and the rights of the trustees have been trampled on by the Minister of Education.

Kirkland Lake: We looked at a marvellous display of how garbage could rejuvenate the north. It was the most exciting process I and my colleagues have seen for the north, and yet the Minister of the Environment, who was a marvellous person in opposition and had everything to say about the environment, for some staggering reason -- I do not know whether she was being harassed in cabinet and prevented from doing it -- says, "Everything will stay where the garbage is collected."

She made one mistake. She decided that the garbage in Kingston could be taken to Ottawa. The people in Kirkland Lake are being denied their process. They are not even going to get an environmental assessment, get a chance to see whether it would work, and it could be a boon for them.

The justice system: I want to deal with that, and I promised I would save some time for my friend from Etobicoke. The justice system in this province, and this is something I have been itching to say -- and this is not just an indictment of the NDP; it is an indictment of my own party; it is an indictment of the Conservatives -- has always been on the outs with the government. They never got a lot of money.

I would suggest, for people who are in power and have the right and the ability to be able to deal with the justice system, that maybe they should make available to every member of this Legislature a copy of Bonfire of the Vanities. I do not think a lot of people here know this, but I come originally from the south Bronx, and if they allow the justice system to be the pauper of the beneficence of the Treasurer, they will find they will have crime on the streets. If members think what we have now is difficult, think about it in the future.

We have people there who have problems with alcohol and drugs. The Board of Internal Economy refused us the opportunity to be able to go and travel to exotic places like Columbus, Ohio, Buffalo, places that are right along the border, because we wanted to go to look at the alcohol and drug addiction clinics they have there to determine whether they were worth spending $500,000 to send one addict south of the border. We were denied that, because the policy of that august body is, "We're going to save money."

1740

I think the shortcoming of most governments and most politicians is that they are myopic. They cannot see beyond the next election; they cannot see beyond a year in fact. If this government wants to plan properly, it must plan the money, redistribute it. The money that is spent on treatment for alcoholics and drug addicts effectively, both in society and within the prison system, will ensure that when the revolving door works and these people come back out, which they will, we are not going to have that kind of stuff on our streets. In fact, on a more positive plane, we are going to help those people and help their families, who are suffering because of their addiction.

On the other side of the coin, if we truly believe in the justice system -- the correctional system being not one of vindictiveness but one of helping people -- then we would look at that. We have people sleeping on the streets in the city of Toronto and all over this province. I cannot believe there is one member of this Legislature who can deal with that, can live with that, go home and sleep at night and think he has done a good day's work if he cannot solve that problem.

This government has a rent bill being brought in now that I am sure all tenants are going to think is great. I would if I were in a high-rise. But because there are not going to be any buildings built, it is going to require people to go out and buy a house. Now what are the costs of our houses? For $200,000 you will be lucky if you can get a pigeon coop.

We are trying to compete with free trade with the United States. If I were an employer in the United States, there is no way I would move a company or my employees or my executives here if they had to pay that kind of money for a house. This government is exacerbating the problem. It must try to think imaginatively, to come up with processes where housing can be created that is going to house our kids and our grandchildren. If they do not do that, what they are doing is denying the rights of the people who elected them.

The learning-disabled I am going to end on, although I have other things. Food banks. I will never understand why we could not create co-operatives, take the excess food that marketing boards disallow farmers from producing and sell it for a percentage point above cost to these co-ops. Let them exist on their own. The only person who would have access to them would be a person with a family benefits card, or whatever. It could be controlled nicely. It is humanitarian. It is not an indignity, like food stamps in the US.

I want to get to the learning-disabled. I have many more issues, believe me, but time does not allow for them. The learning-disabled are the invisibly disabled in this province. I am sure that if I gave indicia, even within the 130 members of this House, of what learning disability is, some would go home tonight, if there were that many in the House, and think about whether they or some loved one of theirs had a learning disability. They range from the most identifiable of dyslexia, where a person writes the wrong way, to the most indecipherable, where a person perhaps cannot concentrate.

I made a statement in the House and I will finish with this, because I think the children of this world, the children of this province, the children of this country deserve number one, our attention, which they are not getting --

Mr Fletcher: Sit down.

Mr Callahan: Obviously the member has no children; he does not feel any sensitivity about this. I hope he never has any. If he had kids, he would feel sensitive about this issue. He can be darned certain there are people out there who have children who are not being served by the needs of this province This government has put the cost of raising 6% for civil service salaries over the right of kids to be properly trained and properly treated. That is more important to them. I think if they talked to their people in the civil service, the civil servants would agree. If I had to give up 2% or 1%, I would give it up for those kids.

It is unfortunate that the Minister of Education is not prepared to look at that issue in terms of five or seven years down the line, because the money that is spent now for those big political gimmes -- the big political gimmes that are going to supposedly get them re-elected, are moneys --

Mr Fletcher: Everybody is leaving.

Mr Callahan: You know, you are a jerk. You really are a jerk.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I will not accept that word.

Mr Callahan: I am sorry. I take back "jerk."

The Deputy Speaker: I will not accept that word. Will you withdraw?

Mr Callahan: I withdraw and I am going to wrap up because there are other people who want to speak on this.

Mr Dadamo: Good.

Mr Callahan: There is another person with no children. If I were sitting down watching television tonight and looking at my responsible elected members of the Legislature and I heard something like that being done by the member for wherever -- and I do not even care to find out where he is from -- I would be absolutely astounded that when I am talking about children there is not an absolute silence in this chamber, an absolute concentration on what we can do for those kids.

Mrs Marland: Windsor-Sandwich.

Mr Callahan: My colleague tells me Windsor-Sandwich. I thank her very much. The people in Windsor-Sandwich who are now sitting down will say, "Well, you know, he really cares about the young people, the kids." Take the smirk off your face. I am sorry, Mr Speaker. I take "smirk off your face" out of that speech too.

I will finally say, and I will end on this because children are our greatest commodity, the environment is probably number one in the minds of most people, but those of us who have young children want the best education for our kids. If those kids have learning disabilities, then the money should be allocated on a conditional basis to school boards to make darned certain that they get it and that these people do not wind up in our correctional systems or in our mental health facilities.

I see all smiling faces over there on many members of the government, and I say for the children of Ontario, it is unfortunate that they may grow up and vote for those people some day.

The Deputy Speaker: Before I proceed with questions and comments I would like to recognize in the east gallery Jara Moserova from the Czech National Council, chair of the parliamentary committee for science, education and culture.

Mrs Caplan: I rose after the last speaker in this debate and I would like to make a comment following my colleague the member for Brampton South also. Do I have two minutes?

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mrs Caplan: In the last almost nine months since the Premier and the NDP have governed in Ontario, much has changed. I believe personally that we will come out of this recession that we are in in spite of the economic policies of this government.

But, as I pointed out in my last comments, the absence of economic leadership at this time in Ontario is having very serious consequences. Business and investors have lost confidence in the province. Workers, their families, my constituents in Oriole are being hurt by this recession. Not only are they losing confidence, they are losing their jobs.

More important, taxpayers, my constituents in Oriole, are very worried about their future, given the predictions in this budget of more and more taxes. Not only will that affect economic competitiveness for Ontario, but it will seriously affect the discretionary income and available living standards of the people I represent in the riding of Oriole.

Many important reforms that I was very proud of were begun between the years 1985 and 1990. I believe that if those reforms should continue, it is possible that they can be implemented within a framework of fiscal responsibility. I also believe that economic prosperity is essential if we are going to achieve our social policy objectives. We must create new wealth in this province so that we can have an economic climate that fosters that kind of confidence, innovation and creativity. Unfortunately, the need for this piece of legislation, which requires the kind of massive borrowing powers of the Treasury, is just one indication that this budget does not achieve either of the goals that I have referred to.

While I remain optimistic and hopeful that we will come out of this recession, this budget and the requirement for structural deficits for so many years to come, I think, will impair the economic recovery in Ontario, and the people of my constituency of Oriole will suffer longer than they would have had to if this government had shown economic leadership.

1750

Ms Poole: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would like to bring to the House's attention that we have a number of recipients of the seniors' award of achievement in the gallery tonight, and I hope members will recognize their achievements.

The Deputy Speaker: I know we are very pleased to see all the seniors' achievement award recipients but, as you know, this is not a point of order.

Mr Ferguson: Just very briefly in response to the member for Brampton South, first of all, I do not think any particular party in this House has the corner on the market when it comes to the health, welfare and wellbeing of children in the province of Ontario. I think people on the government side of the House are just as concerned as people on the opposition side. I think we are going to do everything we possibly can. We recognize that over the past years there have been a number of shortfalls when it came to the funding of various children's services programs. As everybody has recognized, we find ourselves in an extremely difficult situation.

I want to point out that the members of this side of the House were smiling at times because the member for Brampton South, in talking about what is essentially a loan bill, went from reform of this parliamentary institution to stating that he, as a backbencher, sat around for the past three years and essentially did not participate in the life of the government because he was not a member of cabinet. This government does not operate that way.

Everybody here is involved in the democratic process of government. We have decided to democratize the political process of government, and I believe that we all have a sufficient amount of input. Everybody on this side of the House is extremely busy. Unlike the previous governments, the parliamentary assistants in this government are not regulated to running around, cutting ribbons and opening new housing projects or new facilities. They play a meaningful role in the life of this government, so that is the only reason we were smiling. The comments of the member for Brampton South were a terrible admission that he sat around for the last three years and was not working as hard as he could have been on behalf of his constituents.

Hon Mr Mackenzie: I happen to think that the speech by the member for Brampton South was an unfortunate one and certainly not one that added very much to the House. I thought he might have learned from some of my excesses in past years. It is certainly a lesson I have learned, but he gave me a number of excellent lines we could have responded to very effectively, with some of the nonsense he let loose with. I decided against responding to the individual items because I did not want to risk reducing myself to his level.

Mr Callahan: First, I tried to say in my speech that I have great respect for the Minister of Labour. He believes in what he believes in. Whether the House shares his beliefs is another thing, but I guess he got the wrong message from me. I respect and like every member of this House.

Finally, there was a comment made, and I cannot remember the name of the member whose riding it was -- he is down at the end by the guy who just drank the glass of water, if that is a location -- "We don't attend to cutting ribbons or doing any of those things." Let me tell the members that if they are not in the cabinet, their most important function in this entire Legislature will be to look after the people in their ridings, and that will include caring for their concerns, cutting ribbons, attending functions and making them feel important. They made the members feel important by electing them, so I find it really passing strange that the member would say: "We don't cut ribbons. We find more important things to do." I would love to know what those more important things to do are. Are they to be down here and ride around in the limo or whatever?

If that is the way it is, then they will never get re-elected because, in reality, when the day is over and everything is said and done, the people who work with us in our constituency offices, who hear the day-to-day problems of people and respond to them either on our behalf or tell us about them, are the most important people we will ever meet. They are the people who elected us. No one person down here is going to make that big, significant decision. If they cannot cut ribbons and look after the needs of their people, then I feel sorry for them. They will never be elected to office again.

Mr Stockwell: The members can sit here throwing statistics around. There is $12 billion to be borrowed through a number of sources, not the least of which, I am certain, will be offshore money. The fact is, whether or not the numbers members use tend to flatter the position of the government, it is really academic. I know the member for Hamilton Centre outlined some of the numbers they have been pushing on the unsuspecting Ontario public about what a responsible government is. The proof will be in the pudding in four years' time, of exactly how responsible it has been and is.

If there is anyone out there listening to this debate today who honestly believes it is financially prudent to borrow nearly $10 billion, when the budget sits around $52 billion or $53 billion and they can only generate revenues of $42 billion -- they go out and borrow $10 billion and successively borrow roughly $8 billion for the next three years, thereby doubling their debt from $35 billion to $70 billion without any capacity to pay it back? If anyone believes that is a prudent fiscal approach to government, then I do not share that opinion. I do not think most Ontarians would share their opinion. Probably 90% of those people in business would not share their opinion. I suggest that most people who have had to meet payrolls, pay mortgages or pay loans from the bank would not agree with their position.

The argument then becomes whether this government was prepared to fight the recession or the deficit. Maybe somebody should say to the Treasurer that rather than trying to sell this message to the people of Ontario, he should tell the children who are going to have to pay for this debt. It is going to be an expensive proposition to service this accumulated debt of some $70 billion in four years' time.

They make much noise about the fact that the deficit will be reduced by roughly $2 billion in four years. We already have the commitment from this government that to maintain the numbers it has outlined in the budget, it will have to increase taxes by some $8 billion -- $5 billion in the last year -- to reduce the deficit by $2 billion. If we extrapolate that figure, it means that if they were to retire that deficit, they would have to come up with $32 billion --

The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to have to interrupt, but it is getting close to 6 and I understand that the House leader has a business statement to make, so if you could resume your seat.

Hon Miss Martel: First of all, I would like to ask for unanimous consent to allow the late show to go on Monday night instead of this evening.

Agreed to.

The Deputy Speaker: Do you have another statement you wish to make?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon Miss Martel: Yes I do, Mr Speaker. I would like to tell the House what the business will be for next week.

Monday 10 June we will do second and third reading of the following private bills: Pr3, Pr24, Pr37, Pr54. We will then proceed with second reading and committee of the whole consideration of Bill 25, An Act to amend the Planning Act, 1983, and the Land Titles Act, and second reading of Bill 74, An Act respecting the Provision of Advocacy Services to Vulnerable Persons.

Tuesday 11 June we will have a Liberal opposition day.

Wednesday 12 June we will have second reading of Bill 66, An Act to amend the Police Services Act, and second reading of Bill 40, An Act to amend the Mortgages Act.

On Thursday we have private members' public business standing in the names of Mr Johnson and Mr Offer; and we will proceed to second reading and committee of the whole on Bill 30, An Act to amend the Education Act.

The Deputy Speaker: It being 6 of the clock, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 1:30 of the clock.

The House adjourned at 1800.