Legislative Assembly of Ontario

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

BUDGET

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Since the Treasurer tabled his budget last Thursday, needless to say our offices have been flooded with public response. I'd like to read into the record some of the comments we've received.

One businessperson in St Catharines believes that:

"The NDP budget extinguished any faith taxpayers might have had in looking to Bob Rae for fairness. The NDP's usurious personal tax rates will, no doubt, stifle any possibility of rekindling consumer confidence and further breach hopes for new business investment in what my customers tell me is an already 'too high cost to do business' belief about this province. Furthermore, the budget clearly demonstrates that the NDP's gambling initiative began with their 'fiddling' of the province's standard accounting practices: This amounts to no more than a 'shell game' foisted on the unsuspecting public."

A tremendous number of people have written or called us to express their views regarding this latest NDP budget. In the coming days we'll be bringing their message to this assembly so that their voices may be heard.

I would like to close with the following quote, which was made the other day and I think succinctly expresses what most people feel about this budget in Ontario. The person said, "I'm disgusted and can hardly wait until Ontarians get a chance to start to repair the damage" inflicted by this government.

COLLINGWOOD MUSEUM

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): My statement is directed to the Minister of Culture and Communications. As many members of this Legislature are aware, the models of ships which were on display in the east wing of this Legislative Building from January to April of this year were provided by the award-winning Collingwood Museum.

However, members may not be aware that the Minister of Culture and Communications is denying the Collingwood Museum several pieces of essential equipment which the museum needs in order to maintain the quality of its facility and displays.

Included in the Collingwood Museum's equipment list is a series of conservation temperature/humidity monitoring devices. These hydrothermographs have been identified as a priority item by the Ministry of Culture and Communications because of their value in helping to preserve museum artefacts.

To date, the Collingwood community has raised $11,000 towards the installation of hydrothermograph devices at its museum. During a time of recession, in an area that has been devastated by layoffs and plant closures, the community's commitment to the project is outstanding.

All the museum needs is for the NDP government to live up to its end of the bargain. I would urge Bugsy Rae and Blackjack Laughren to take a second look at this proposal and to start betting on sure things, like the Collingwood Museum.

LABOUR LEGISLATION

Mr Len Wood (Cochrane North): In my riding of Cochrane North, many people are concerned about the Ontario Labour Relations Act. They believe the act must be updated to meet today's labour standards.

Almost 30 years ago, a monument was erected in the community of Reesor between Kapuskasing and Hearst. This monument commemorates three workers' deaths and six injuries from gunshot wounds. The fatal dispute occurred over the issue of replacement workers during a legal work stoppage.

Again last winter violence erupted in Hearst during a legal work stoppage when replacement workers were used to deliver wood to a sawmill. A large number of people were fearful of what might have happened if the situation had dragged on.

I have received over 600 letters from workers throughout my riding, especially in the Hearst-Kapuskasing area. In their letters they write that the OLRA must be updated to meet the labour standards which already exist in other jurisdictions. Many people in Cochrane North are concerned about the pain and suffering that drawn-out labour disputes bring to their communities. They don't want that history to continuously repeat itself over Ontario's outdated labour laws.

BUDGET

Mr Monte Kwinter (Wilson Heights): It is now clear that last week's budget was a blatant attempt by the NDP to cook its books in order to save its political hide. As many NDP members are already aware, this tax-grabbing, confidence-wrecking budget is nothing short of indefensible.

My caucus has invited the taxpayers of Ontario to tell us what they think of the budget. These are some of the responses:

"This budget is taxing away the middle class's initiative to work and create jobs."

From an owner of three small businesses we hear: "We have decided to close down one of our manufacturing branches, while the other two operations have had a reduction in personnel by 50%. These constant tax grabs and the unstable government have caused us to rethink our whole organization."

A retailer in Toronto states: "The budget is going to force more Ontarians to shop across the border. It is unacceptable -- their own tax commission recommended overall rate reduction."

A home owner from Toronto says: "Their strategy is wrong. We have to stimulate the economy. Creating new taxes will only hurt us. Sunday shopping should be allowed. The creation of casinos is abominable."

Responses from Mississauga are similar: "Surtaxes on income are a nearsighted and destructive approach to deficit management. This surtax will result in reducing expenditures for goods and services in Ontario at the very time when more spending and consumer confidence is needed."

Finally, a businessman from Toronto states: "Taxes on small business owners have reduced all incentive to remain in Ontario. We can't afford to live here. Please insist that the Provincial Auditor review all NDP manoeuvres."

This is just a small cross-section of the responses we received from real Ontarians. These are real people with real concerns who deserve more than the Treasurer and the NDP seem able to give.

1340

MOOSE TAGS

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, I recently received your media advisory dated April 16 concerning your review of the allocation of moose tags within the tourism industry.

Your review is supposed to address concerns about the current system, including looking at ways of improving administration and communications; how new tourist outfitters can join the tag share program; how outfitters who are currently in the program can expand their operations, and looking at ways to lessen the impact on the tourism industry if moose tag quotas are reduced.

You are no doubt aware that tourist outfitters and individuals throughout Ontario welcomed your review of the moose tag allocation system when you first announced it two years ago. Hunters from all parts of Ontario welcomed the opportunity to provide input. However, your media advisory of April 16 indicates that you are only going to consult with a select few by holding meetings in Timmins, Sudbury, Wawa, Thunder Bay and Dryden.

You are snubbing the majority of individuals from southern Ontario who obtain moose tags each year by conducting your secret consultation meetings in select communities in northern Ontario. These people, the users, should be the most important. Get their input. It's important to hold meetings closer to the majority of the users. Am I mistaken in my assumption that you are a minister of the crown for all the people of Ontario? Or are you not?

TORONTO RIOT

Mr Gary Wilson (Kingston and The Islands): Since I was elected, downtown Toronto has become a second neighbourhood to me, but last night I didn't recognize it. Although there were more police in the area than I've ever seen, I didn't feel safe. Walking on the glass-strewn sidewalks, I sensed the mixed emotions of those around me: bitterness, bewilderment, excitement, sadness.

I think nearly everyone would agree we can't establish a community where events like these occur. When groups are shut out of society, however, we create the conditions for violence and destruction. Those of us responsible for the betterment of our communities must do all we can to fight the evil of discrimination.

This can be in the form of supporting initiatives of job creation so that no one in our society is unemployed. Employment equity programs must be put in place to guarantee that our workplaces reflect the makeup of our communities. I am pleased to see that the anti-racism advisory committee has been established by the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat.

Discrimination isn't just a big city problem; it exists everywhere in Ontario. Because of this, all members of this Legislature have a duty to work in their communities to remove the root causes of racism and other forms of discrimination. A discrimination-free society can be established once and for all. It requires accountable institutions, both private and public, that are sensitive to the wellbeing of all groups in our communities.

Last night's riot is only one event in a long history of incidents arising out of discrimination in Ontario. I believe, however, that our province also has strong traditions of tolerance, fairness and justice for all that will provide the basis for our creating a society worth celebrating.

KRISTEN FRENCH

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): With deep sadness and a profound sense of loss, the people of St Catharines said farewell yesterday to Kristen French, a bright, vibrant, sensitive, caring young person whose plight has been uppermost in the minds and hearts of people in our community for the past fortnight.

Life seems so unfair when a kind, gracious, innocent girl is taken from her family, her friends and her colleagues at school, in broad daylight in a church parking lot in the midst of a residential subdivision. The sense of vulnerability for women of all ages cannot be made more acute than by the bold, calculating, cruel kidnapping of a girl on her way home from school in her own neighbourhood.

A violent act perpetrated upon an individual in our society is a violent act against all of society, a fact not lost on the community, which has responded overwhelmingly to the tragedy which has befallen the family of Kristen French. Attitudes and actions which breed individuals who prey upon the vulnerable must be reversed. Violence against women, young and old, under whatever pretext, must not be tolerated.

The enactment and enforcement of laws to deal with violent crime must reflect the revulsion of our society against such crimes. It is not an issue which can be avoided, delayed or debated endlessly. It must be addressed now and it must be addressed with commitment and determination. We owe it to Kristen French.

EDUCATION WEEK

Mrs Dianne Cunningham (London North): This week is Education Week in Ontario. Schools, teachers and students across the province will be celebrating in many different ways. We should all remember that schools are open to the public every day, not only during Education Week. For this special week, all aspects of education will be displayed through artwork, creative writing, science projects, musical performances and career nights.

In London, students will be bringing education to the community by showing their projects in local malls and inviting families and friends to join them in their classrooms to experience the quality of programs their children are involved in.

As the member for London North and a former school board trustee who was and still is actively involved with students and educators in our community, I'm very proud of our schools and am encouraged to see the amount of public interest we have in our school system as well as the amount of support so many parents give to their children's education.

It's very important for government, business, labour and communities to work with our students, who will be our next leaders in an increasingly competitive global economy. We must ensure that education is a priority with this government and that the quality of education is not jeopardized in light of the recent transfer payments. Students deserve the training and opportunities that were made available to us. This can only happen with a commitment to major changes in the delivery of technological training and apprenticeship programs. What we need is the political will to get on with it.

ENVIRO FUEL

Mr Paul R. Johnson (Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings): Today I bring some good news from the investment world to the Legislature. In my riding of Prince Edward-Lennox-South Hastings and in the township of Ernestown, as recently as last Friday myself and some other dignitaries cut the ribbon on the opening of Enviro Fuel. Konrad Sigurdsson and Perake Persson came to my office several months ago looking for assistance from the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and the Ministry of the Environment, and after some negotiations were finally given the go-ahead to open up their Enviro Fuel.

Enviro Fuel is the official name of their company, and what it does is take basically unusable, wasted motor oil and redistil it through a process that turns it back into No 1 fuel oil. I want to say this is particularly important for a number of reasons. First of all, they chose Canada and not the United States to invest in. It's going to employ about 15 people, it's an environmentally sound process and it most certainly has the potential for growth in the future. I wish Enviro Fuel every success in the future, and I expect it will be very successful.

ADVOCACY AND GUARDIANSHIP LEGISLATION

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Under standing order 65 and also under "Privilege" under standing order 21, I'd like to get some direction from the Speaker. Today I was given by the government 199 amendments to Bills 74, 108, 109 and 110. These are significant bills, and, for the record, we have in our party tried to be as constructive as possible in dealing with these pieces of legislation. However, it's becoming somewhat questionable, if these amendments should become part of these bills, whether the bill we passed on second reading in this Legislature is in fact representative of the final piece of legislation we may consider in committee of the whole House and on third reading.

Also, in terms of the privileges with regard to members of this Legislature, we would like to think that the parties which appeared before the committee would have full knowledge of what the government's intentions are with regard to this legislation as we go through the process. We had four weeks of hearings in the committee on these particular bills. Through these 199 amendments the bills have been substantially altered from what they were when they were first presented to this Legislature and presented to the public. It's my understanding it's the government's intention to proceed with the clause-by-clause analysis of these bills in three to four weeks without further public hearings.

Mr Speaker, I'd like you to consider, and under advisement because it's not an urgent matter, whether it's out of order for the government to carry on with legislation when there are substantial amendments that basically rip apart the original bill and the basis upon which this Legislature gave approval for second reading of this legislation.

1350

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): Mr Speaker, I wish to rise in support, in some ways, of the honourable member for Carleton, although I would like to note, when you're taking this issue under advisement, that a large number of amendments by themselves are not defeating of the purpose of the original legislation. During the minority legislatures we have always found that government bills were not universally acceptable and as a result a number of changes had to be made. It included in fact, during my stay as Minister of Health, Bills 54 and 55. When we finished with those in clause-by-clause, it turned out that the bills were substantially changed.

Having taken that as part of your reflection with respect to this particular request, I think the problem can be cured. In fact, we've discussed it in caucus. I was prepared to go to the meeting of House leaders on Thursday and try and work out some understanding, perhaps a possibility of an extended time for consultation or reconsultation. I think that perhaps there is an avenue there to cure, at least partially, the defect.

I also would like to note that our critic, the member for Halton Centre, has already widely distributed the amendments. I presume that the government likewise has widely distributed the amendments. But I think in terms of the record you probably would want to deliberate on whether it would be within parliamentary tradition to have at least a rehearing of some of the issues being dealt with by the amendments.

Two points: First, if the amendments are to be accepted and not seen as out of order, we should probably go through committee time for rehearing. Second, just because of number, that does not, in my view, necessarily defeat the purpose of the bill. It would seem to be much more reasonable under the circumstances, in dealing with the importance of the nature of these bills, that a rehearing of the public interest groups should proceed. I think that obviously the House leader for the government would probably be open to some discussion on that point.

Hon David S. Cooke (Government House Leader): Mr Speaker, very briefly, I think the suggestion that's been made by the House leader for the official opposition is a constructive one. We can talk about it Thursday, outside of any deliberations you might want to have on the issue. While 199 amendments are a lot of amendments, I gather from the public hearings that have already occurred on this legislation that there was a lot of input and a lot of support for the direction, but a lot of concerns have resulted in amendments. The ministers and the government were listening to that input, but it is difficult with 199 amendments. I'd certainly be willing to work with the opposition House leaders to try to sort out how we deal with this in a responsible way.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Carleton, the House leader for the official opposition and the government House leader, first may I say I appreciate the fact that the member has raised this important issue in the chamber. It's my understanding that this matter is currently before the standing committee on administration of justice. The most appropriate course of action to follow would be for any member of that committee to raise these points with the Chair and allow the Chair the opportunity to reflect on it and decide whether the amendments are in order.

Finally, I certainly appreciate the atmosphere of cooperation that seems to be evident in the chamber this afternoon. Perhaps that will spill over into question period.

Mr Elston: Just as another point of interest, Mr Speaker, I understand that you wish to have the Chair of the committee take these items under advisement. It is my view that when the deliberation is held, after we've had our discussions obviously, there not be a request to ask whether each of the individual amendments is in order but a consideration of the package. That is because in the committee, as I understand it, there really is no avenue for someone to raise the point that all the amendments taken as a package result in a series of amendments that are together out of order, but as you take them under advisement, one at a time, it might very easily be said, "This one is in order, this one is in order," and in the end come up with a result which probably may not be exactly correct.

The Speaker: I hate to suggest that at some point this matter will not find its way back to this chamber, but indicate that the first and most appropriate way to proceed would be to raise it in the committee.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Hon Marion Boyd (Minister Responsible for Women's Issues): I rise this afternoon to declare May as Sexual Assault Prevention Month in Ontario. This action by our government is directed towards changing those attitudes that promote sexual assault, a crime that fundamentally alters the lives of countless women and children.

As minister responsible for women's issues, I announced at a news conference earlier today the highlights of our government's public education campaign. This year we want Ontario to know that any sexual act without consent is sexual assault and is against the law.

Although our understanding of what constitutes sexual assault is better than it was five years ago, the incidence of sexual assault has not decreased. Clearly, a better understanding of this crime must be accompanied by a change in attitudes. Unless we change our attitudes, we cannot hope to change our behaviour.

Sexual assault is any unwanted act of a sexual nature imposed by one person upon another. This includes unwanted kissing and touching, sexual harassment in the workplace and actual rape, either by someone we do or do not know. Sometimes these actions culminate in the victim's death. All of us in this House are deeply saddened by the tragic death of young Kristen French, the most recent victim of murderous sexual assault.

The terrible reality of our society is that one in four women in Canada will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime, most likely by someone she knows.

The very fear of sexual assault affects women's lives in serious ways. For example, this fear can hamper a woman's ability to support herself. Some of us decline shift work or opt out of night school courses because we're afraid to travel after dark. Many graduate students jeopardize their chances at advanced research opportunities because they do not feel safe in the labs or libraries of our institutions during extended hours in the evening or on weekends.

The spectre of sexual assault also affects our social lives. Women hesitate to go out alone or to travel freely around our own city, our province and our country.

I am not exaggerating the fear that women feel. In a national poll conducted last year, 50% of Canadian women said, "We are afraid to go out in our own neighbourhoods after dark."

Our fears are well founded. Victims who report sexual assault are physically injured in at least 60% of cases. Of these, at least 20% are hurt seriously enough to require medical attention for bruises, lacerations and fractures.

Often, too, psychological and long-term health problems are the direct results of sexual assault. Depression, nightmares, erratic mood swings, eating disorders, anxiety, flashbacks and self-destructive impulses are among the frequent aftershocks endured by survivors of sexual assault.

Imagine how much more frightening and debilitating sexual assault is for young children, elderly women and women with disabilities. For these victims, already disadvantaged and disempowered by our attitudes towards age and different abilities, the effects of sexual assault are even more devastating.

For all these reasons, sexual assault poses a major barrier to women's equality. Sexual assault is a crime of power, not passion. It is a means of exerting control, not expressing love. It is unjust, it is illegal and, in the view of this government, it is intolerable.

This month we're taking concrete steps to foster long-term change in the beliefs and attitudes which condone sexual assault. Central to our campaign are two television advertisements, in both English and French, which dramatically illustrate that any sexual act without consent is sexual assault and is against the law. The ads demonstrate that for women, consent or lack of it can be either verbal or non-verbal. Just as no means no, so does resisting, turning away or being unresponsive. Men have the responsibility to recognize and respect these messages, and women have the right to refuse sexual advances at any point. We never give that right away.

1400

Some people have trivialized the issue of consent by suggesting that men will have to sign contracts or call their lawyers before engaging in sexual activity. We are simply saying that men have the obligation to believe what women tell them, either by words or actions, when it comes to sexual contact.

Key components of this campaign, a first for Sexual Assault Prevention Month, are candid radio commercials aimed at teenagers. It is tragic that 50% of all sexual assaults happen to women 17 years of age or younger. While it is estimated that fewer than 10% of sexual assaults are ever reported, that figure drops to fewer than 1% where date and acquaintance rapes are concerned. Tomorrow I'll be joining students at Northern Secondary School here in Toronto to launch these radio messages, as well as to hear about how young people are working in their own ways to challenge sexual violence among their peers.

Besides forging a new partnership with young people, this year's campaign enjoys a strong partnership with our communities. This government has awarded grants totalling $210,000 to 102 community groups throughout Ontario for local awareness projects. Let me share a few examples: The Grimsby-Lincoln Association for Community Living will hold a workshop about sexual assault for women with developmental disabilities; the Silayan Filipino Community Centre in Toronto is sponsoring an information and awareness campaign about sexual assault for the Filipino community; l'Association des femmes noires de l'Ontario is organizing workshops to educate young black francophone women about date rape and sexual harassment, and the Batchewana First Nation of Ojibway in Sault Ste Marie will conduct workshops for teenagers on three reserves.

Finally, newspapers throughout the province are running ads that declare "Against Our Will is Against the Law." We are distributing posters and buttons in English and French and brochures in nine languages about sexual assault, and we are funding native women's groups to develop culturally sensitive radio messages on sexual assault.

Of course, Sexual Assault Prevention Month is only one facet of our commitment to the challenge of violence against women. Since 1990, Ontario has almost tripled its support for initiatives against sexual assault, to $17 million a year. Over $8 million is new funding to enhance services for immigrant, racial minority, native and francophone women and women with disabilities. Twenty ministries and agencies, along with countless community workers and volunteers, are helping us to ensure that women receive the most effective response from our crisis services, our counselling efforts, our justice system and our prevention initiatives.

Our related programs on wife assault prevention continue to be funded at a record level of $71 million per year. By 1994, the sexual assault and wife assault prevention initiatives will be integrated into a strategy to address all forms of violence against women.

But public education offers us the greatest hope for lasting change. After last November's campaign against wife abuse, for example, 72% of the men surveyed said they had been influenced to take responsibility not only for their own violent actions but for naming and working against the violence of other men too.

The media also deserve credit for their efforts to identify the prevalence of the circumstances under which this violence occurs, as well as to monitor the response of the criminal justice and social services systems to these crimes. This means the very sources through which we learn that yet another woman or child has fallen victim to yet another crime of sexual assault can also be used to raise our consciousness and thereby reduce sexual assault. Television, radio and newspapers need not simply report this crime; they can also help stop it by pointing out the effects of sexual assault and by detailing the sanctions applied against convicted offenders.

Stopping the crime of sexual assault is essential to achieving equality for women. We must ensure that everyone in Ontario understands that any sexual act without consent is sexual assault and is against the law.

TORONTO RIOT

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): I would like to make a statement with respect to last evening's events here in the city of Toronto in the downtown area.

I share the concern over these very unfortunate events that took place last evening. I found these matters personally very disturbing and certainly frustrating. I want to convey my belief, though, that for many people these events began as a peaceful demonstration of some rather heartfelt frustration.

The event began as a peaceful demonstration about 4 pm yesterday at the United States consulate. The demonstration then moved to the Metropolitan Toronto Police headquarters. Following this, there was a sit-down demonstration at the corner of Yonge and Bloor Streets. The demonstrators then moved from there to the old city hall. A number of speeches were made and the demonstration basically concluded at that point. Most demonstrators left at that point and the remaining crowd of some 300 consisted mainly of vandals. It was then that eggs and bottles were thrown and a number of windows were smashed and indeed broken. That crowd then began to move farther up Yonge Street, with incidents of looting and broken windows.

Police reports also indicated that Molotov cocktails were being thrown and that there was a large degree of disorder, but in fact by 9 pm the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force had, in the main, restored control. Between 9:30 pm and 12 there continued to be sporadic incidents, but not of the sort earlier in the day. During this same evening about 200 stores were vandalized. Additionally, 37 officers sustained some injuries. Other civilians also sustained minor injuries. There were some 32 arrests made by the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.

These disturbances are condoned by no one, especially not members of this government and, I know, no member of this House.

I want to acknowledge as well the many people who were involved in the efforts to control the situation.

As well, there was considerable damage inflicted upon many stores. I am sympathetic to the plight of those particular shopkeepers, but the police, I believe, were effective in controlling this volatile situation and protecting the right to demonstrate peacefully. They acted in a very professional manner. I believe the police service rightfully recognized that a large show of force at the beginning would probably only have inflamed an already difficult situation.

I want to say as well that the police were assisted by a number of solid members of the community who helped in a variety of ways and came forward. Other responsible members of the community assisted police officers, the media and others who were or found themselves in the most difficult circumstances.

I personally monitored this situation all evening. I received constant updates from my policing services division for Metro. I offered the assistance and support of my ministry to the Metropolitan Toronto authorities to help them contain the situation if it became necessary. I personally spoke to Metro Chairman Alan Tonks and Toronto Mayor June Rowlands. I took the situation extremely seriously and I continue to take the circumstance very seriously.

I want to share with the House as well that this morning I met with the chair of the police services board, Susan Eng, as well as the Metropolitan Toronto chief of police, William McCormack, and the deputy chief, Peter Scott, who was in charge of operations last evening. Considering the professional performance of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force last night in minimizing injury and preventing escalation, I have every confidence in the ability of our police force to handle these types of difficult situations.

Finally, I want to conclude by saying that we live, as we all know, in a multicultural society, and it is important that we all work hard to ensure that all services provided by our society take that reality into account. This government is committed to ensuring that this is a reality in Ontario. However, I would like to point out that vandalism is not to be mistaken for constructive protest in this city or in this province or in this country.

1410

Hon Elaine Ziemba (Minister Responsible for Race Relations): I too would like to rise and speak on the events that occurred last night, and mainly to talk about why they occurred and why people are feeling so frustrated and anxious about the situation.

We heard comments from all sides of the House yesterday about the feeling of frustration people had, and I think my colleague from the official opposition expressed very clearly his own personal experience and how he felt about his children. I think we all as legislators feel concerned that people in our society are not feeling a part of the whole society.

We also must recognize that we as legislators must be concerned and that we must act and we must act now. The frustration we all face and share cannot happen and cannot continue to happen. We must develop strategies and we must provide solutions to the problem, and I know all of us want to work towards that end.

Through our ministry, through the Ontario Anti-Racism Secretariat, we will continue this week to work closely with groups and organizations across the province and particularly in Toronto. This June, another phase will be developed with $350,000 being available for community-based anti-racism projects across Ontario; however, with special emphasis to be placed on the greater Toronto area to work with multi-ethnic and multiracial groups.

We will also have a very broad-based public education campaign that will be put into effect to educate individuals and institutions about systemic discrimination and to address the solutions. Secretariat staff will be assigned to work with community groups to address and support their needs.

The Ontario Anti-Racism Advisory Working Group, which is made up of 18 men and women from all areas of the province from all racial backgrounds, will continue to help and assist the government to implement our various solutions to the problem. For example, the advisory group will assist in the development of the Ontario anti-racism policy. This policy will cover all sectors of Ontario society: business, labour, the broader public sector and of course the Ontario public service.

These are short-term strategies that are necessary and must be put into effect as soon as possible. This government knows many communities in Ontario want action and direction. This government is prepared to act and to respond now.

Fighting racism is not easy. It's an insidious disease which is manifested in so many different ways. Institutional racism is what keeps people excluded and powerless. People's dreams and aspirations are destroyed. The loss is to all of Ontario society and it is overwhelming. But we have to be vigilant in battling this terrible scourge.

We know Ontario benefits from its multicultural, multiracial diversity. It is a unique province and Toronto is a unique community. We cannot afford to let anything divide or separate our people in any way. Our strength is our people and our strength is in our culture and racial diversity.

I invite all members of this House to be united in combating racism in our society and I know I will get the support of all members of this House.

RESPONSES

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Ms Dianne Poole (Eglinton): The Liberal caucus welcomes the announcement today by the minister responsible for women's issues. It is particularly fitting that she is launching this campaign during Education Week. Her timing could not be better, because that's what it's all about, educating people, young people in particular, and changing ideas, attitudes and behaviour. The message that this new campaign is trying to send out is an important one. It's about time that the often tragically misunderstood concept of consent be tackled and clarified.

As the mother of a 14-year-old daughter and a 16-year-old son, one thing is clear to me. Young women have to realize that they have a right to say no and not feel guilty, and young men have to know that they have an obligation to really listen to what women are telling them.

As the member for St Catharines so eloquently said earlier, we must, as a society, address the issue of violence towards women. We owe it to Kristen French.

TORONTO RIOT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Yesterday members from all three parties, with unanimous consent, addressed an issue of significant concern to all members of the Legislature and the people of Ontario. At that time there were eloquent and heartfelt speeches made about systemic problems facing members of the black community in Toronto.

Today I rise to respond to the statements made by the Minister of Citizenship and the Solicitor General. I would first like to say, in agreement with the Solicitor General, that none of us condone the vandalism and destruction carried out last night by a small group of individuals, and we appreciate the clarifying statement the minister has provided.

Clearly this was not the planned outcome of what began as a peaceful demonstration. To that end, we join in applauding the efforts made by demonstration organizers and others to try to stop this unacceptable destruction. At the same time, it is very important that we commend the police for their restraint and professional work under incredibly difficult circumstances.

Now is not the time to enter into unhelpful rhetoric. However, I believe it is also important we recognize that for some members of our society, the system still does not work. This includes fair access to justice and to education, and the ability of individuals to get jobs. As legislators, we have a responsibility to work together to ensure that those who feel excluded from our society can be more fully brought into the system.

It is not good enough for us to say that the system has mechanisms which are designed to address the alienation we all know exists. It is not enough to say that we have a Human Rights Commission, an Anti-Racism Secretariat or a special investigations unit if these institutions do not work effectively. Ultimately we will have to make the changes that will make these institutions work. To that end, I once again stress the willingness to work with everyone in a manner that will provide real solutions to these complex problems.

Whatever occurred last night, we know there are tensions and underlying frustrations which must be addressed. I believe a starting point to the development of real solutions to what we have discussed today would be for the leaders of all three parties to meet. Our objective would be and our objective must be to seek in a non-partisan way an understanding of the complexity of what occurred last night and an understanding of how we can all best respond to both the immediate concerns and the long-term needs.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): In the one minute I have, I'm taking this opportunity to commend both ministers for acting upon this initiative. I must express my disappointment, though. I had hoped that the Solicitor General, when he met with the chief, would call us. We had expressed the thought that this is not a partisan issue and that all legislators here would be willing, and I as the critic for the Solicitor General would have been willing, to meet with the chief at that time and to give our five cents' worth of what it would be.

Also, with the other minister, I was disappointed with the fact that all we have seen here are the old platitudes being offered again. We have to come up with more creative ideas and stop throwing money at it and feeling that we have solved this issue. This is much deeper. This is not a police issue against blacks, as all of you have said so very well. This issue is very deep, and we must be more creative in our approach to this.

1420

Mr Robert W. Runciman (Leeds-Grenville): On behalf of the Conservative Party, I want to express our regret in respect to the events last evening in downtown Toronto. They certainly are not representative of any group in Metropolitan Toronto society. We sincerely believe that.

The Solicitor General, in his comments, used the word "unfortunate," and regrettably I believe I have to comment on what I believe were the Premier's unfortunate comments on the weekend, which, to be generous, were not helpful in respect to the situation. The Premier seems intent on legitimizing the completely baseless charge that Metro Toronto police are racist. No doubt there are bad apples in every barrel, but there is not a shred of evidence that there was any racial motive in the police actions last weekend.

It is high time the Premier stopped casting sly aspersions on the integrity of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force. The Premier spoke, over the weekend, almost entirely about alleged racism and not at all about the evils of drug-dealing, winning back our neighbourhoods and the dangers police face on a daily basis. Premier, instead of running to the media, I urge you to work with the other two parties in this house to begin a healing process to bring all groups in society together.

Finally, I want to express our party's hope that the government will do whatever is necessary to assist the Metropolitan Toronto Police, including the deployment of OPP officers, if necessary, to ensure that the demonstrations this Thursday and Saturday do not jeopardize public safety.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): One doesn't know whether to call it racial or whether it's public safety or what it is. All I know is the depth of the concern of everyone who saw what happened in Metro Toronto last night. They are stopped in their boots and they are shaking with a sense of fear about what has gone on and about the breakdown that's going on within our society. The respect that is needed for oneself to be able to believe in oneself, the respect for one's neighbour, the respect for property, the respect for law and order, the respect for the things that make our society strong is what this is all about. If that's racism, let's call it racism, but it has to do with the deep, fundamental needs of our society. We and our party and the people in society are pleading for all of us to find ways to work together to make this a better place to live.

I can only say that if we as a party and as a people are going to allow poverty to continue, if we are going to allow people not to get an education and if we are going to allow a city not to have the respect for the things that keep it together, then we as a society will have failed our youth, our seniors and all that we represent. This is not a happy moment, and I'm coming to Pogo -- I get confused with the way he said it -- who said, "I've seen the enemy and them is us."

We all bear a sense of responsibility for what goes on in our society. I don't want to see us pointing a finger, but let's at least point with respect to the people who make this society whole and good -- respect for our leaders -- and may we continue to have that. When people within our society who lead a parade or who lead something lose something of that, then our society loses as well.

I thank Mr Runciman for his remarks, and I thank all members of this house for a sense of purpose. May we find it and may we work towards it and may we not be casual in any way.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mrs Elizabeth Witmer (Waterloo North): Our party certainly supports the direction taken by the government in its attempt to change attitudes that promote sexual assault. I can assure you that women do live in fear of sexual assault and that it certainly does affect our daily lives. However, I'm very concerned about the fact, and it's been pointed out here, that 50% of all sexual assaults happen to women 17 years of age and younger. I'm very concerned, although we do everything possible to publicize -- posters, buttons and toll-free numbers, and they get fancier each year -- that there are no services available for these young people.

I'd like to read from a letter I received from a mother in this province, where she indicates to me: "My daughter has been emotionally and sexually abused. I tried to get help and counselling for her when she was 15. I could get no help. Now, at 20, we looked for treatment and found to our dismay there was nothing available. We consulted our doctor, who suggested we might be able to be referred to a psychotherapist seven months away. I am very concerned that this government talks about the need to change attitudes but is not making a commitment to these young people under 17."

I would suggest that you do everything possible, Madam Minister --

The Speaker: To the member for Waterloo North, it is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

YOUTH UNEMPLOYMENT

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Mr Speaker, as you have noted, in the order of business of the House it is now time to move to questions and to our role of holding the government accountable. It is important for us to move to our continued concerns about the direction set out by the government in its budget and the impact of those directions on the people of the province. I would ask the question of the Premier, although I recognize he may wish to refer it to the Treasurer.

Having said that, there is no question that last night's events bring into focus the need to address the root concerns of many, many people in the province of Ontario as well as in the city of Toronto. Jobs are obviously a major worry of everyone in the province these days, perhaps especially among younger people. In Toronto and across Ontario, 18% of all young people between the ages of 15 and 24 do not have jobs. I would ask the Premier if he can tell this House why his government and its budget appear to be doing virtually nothing to address the serious problem of jobless youth.

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I take some exception to the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition with regard to what we are doing on jobs. We have created three separate funds which are intended to direct attention to the jobs question. We have the Jobs Ontario training fund, the Jobs Ontario capital fund and the Jobs Ontario homes fund. We also have the views, I can tell the member, of a great many people in the business community with respect to the impact of the changes we've made to the tax system and the impact that is going to have on new investment in the economy.

I can tell you, with regard to the jobs question, with regard to the training question and with regard to the increases in the budget of the Ministry of Skills Development, we are going to be spending more next year, nearly $1 billion in the skills development budget alone, with respect to new training programs in cooperation with the federal government. So together with the federal government, we are going to be spending more on training, retraining and apprenticeship programs than at any time in the province's history, an achievement of which I'm very proud.

Mrs McLeod: Predictably, the Premier, in responding to the question, has identified what the budget identified and that is the job creation funds identified in the budget, two of those funds being capital funds. The reality seems to be, however, that the government is spending exactly the same amount on capital projects this year -- $3.9 billion -- as the government did last year. So it would seem to us that the government is simply supporting existing jobs, that there are no new jobs being created in the government's capital spending program.

I would ask the Premier whether he would not agree, simply in confirming what is stated in the budget, that the capital accounts in this budget are not creating any new jobs; they are simply supporting existing ones.

Hon Mr Rae: I am not going to allow the Leader of the Opposition to get away with that, because it simply isn't the case. With respect to the base capital funding of $3.4 billion, that is intended to create 67,000 jobs; the homes fund 2,400 jobs; the strategic capital fund 9,800 jobs, and the training fund 10,800 jobs, in addition to the child care spaces.

Mr Speaker, let me also point out to you, and I think the member slipped over this in her question, that we are adding $6 million to apprenticeship training to assist youth, women, aboriginal people, visible minorities and others who are underrepresented. The joint Ontario-federal government labour force development agreement this year is worth more than $1.6 billion. That is the most substantial investment that the two governments have ever made in training and apprenticeship in the history of the province of Ontario.

1430

Mrs McLeod: We will ask questions about the government's training program and we'll look forward to the same answers about training programs being provided when we ask questions on that subject. Our concern today, and I believe it is the concern of thousands and thousands of people in this province, is what the government is going to do to create jobs or even to maintain existing jobs.

The Premier, in his first answer, referenced the fact that there are some tax relief measures. However, the tax relief measures, particularly on the corporate side, as somebody has recently said to me, don't make a lot of difference if you're not making money anyway. In any event, they don't come into play until 1993. It doesn't help very much the corporations which are currently trying to stay alive.

This year, according to the government's own budget, it expects employment and job creation to grow by only 0.3%. We are also aware that you'll lose one job for every $40,000 in extra taxes. To us that seems to mean that this budget will kill 25,000 jobs this year. I ask the Premier, why has his government put in place new tax increases which will kill jobs when what clearly was needed was to create jobs instead? I wonder if the Premier can tell us what will be the impact, in the loss of jobs, of those tax increases.

Hon Mr Rae: I just want to say to the Leader of the Opposition that to describe her numbers as voodoo would be to pay her a compliment in regard to the impact of the numbers.

Let's hear from those people in the private sector that the Leader of the Opposition, the leader of the third party and the Treasurer are all agreed are going to be the critical factors in creating new jobs.

Don McIver from the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Toronto said, "The federal and provincial tax rates on manufacturing appear to be lower than in the United States." That's a big boost in terms of competitiveness.

The chairman of the Ottawa-Carleton Board of Trade said, "I think some of the initiatives may give business more confidence."

The director of taxation for the Canadian Manufacturers' Association said, "I feel so much more positive now than I did before the budget."

These are the people who are going to be encouraging the economy and creating jobs in the economy. I'm relying more on them than I am on the doom and gloom from the Leader of the Opposition.

Mrs McLeod: We of course recognize that some of the initial response to the government came before people had an opportunity to really examine the numbers. If the Premier wants to describe the numbers I'm using as voodoo numbers, I simply refer him back to his own budget for the source of the voodoo.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Lyn McLeod (Leader of the Opposition): Since the Premier wants to talk about training and I want to talk about jobs, perhaps I can take him back to the other plank in this supposedly job-creating budget. I'd like to talk about the 10,800 jobs in the government's training strategy. These are jobs intended for social assistance recipients, to help them get back into the workplace, but the very premise of this training credit scheme is that the private sector will have vacant positions available.

With the Treasurer taking another $1 billion out of the hands of consumers who would hopefully lead us out of the recession, can the Premier tell us how he expects the private sector to create those jobs for the social assistance recipients to move into? Does he really expect that a $1,000 one-year-only training credit is going to be enough to encourage people to hire when they are not now hiring?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I refer that question to the Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Unlike the leader of the official opposition, we don't draw or make the phoney distinction between training and jobs that the leader of the official opposition seems to make. We believe that there is indeed a very strong link between the need to provide people with training and, quite frankly, retraining so that people develop a real and permanent attachment to the workforce and don't simply engage in make-work projects the way governments of the past have done. We are determined to continue to put money into training so that when people do get into the workforce they will be prepared and have the skills to stay there.

The leader of the official opposition, as part of her question, asked, why will the private sector take advantage of such an offer? It seems to me that the private sector understands very well that it is in its best interests as well to have as part of its workforce well-trained people, both new people it hires -- keep in mind that the training credits that are going to be offered to the private sector will be used, if it chooses to do so, to retrain people who are already in its workforce. This is a unique program which trains new employees and also retrains existing employees.

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

Hon Mr Laughren: Why wouldn't the private sector be anxious to take us up on that kind of offer?

Mrs McLeod: I don't know how the Treasurer can possibly say that there is not some distinction between training and jobs. All you have to do is talk to the men and women who have already gone back to school to take retraining programs, hoping they get a new start, and now they're out there applying for jobs that just don't exist.

It clearly says in the budget that the Treasurer's training program is dependent upon private sector employers being prepared to create a position which does not now exist. We simply don't know how that training scheme is going to be supported by an economy that is already in difficulty. I wonder further what the unemployed men and women of this province can find in this budget to encourage them. These people are desperate for some glimmer of hope.

The reality is that 609,000 people are out of work, 209,000 more than when this government took office in September 1990. This means that jobs are disappearing at a rate of more than 500 a day since this government took office. Even if the government's able to find 10,000 businesses willing to create a position out of its Jobs Ontario training strategy for a few of the million on social assistance, those 10,000 positions will account for 20 days of job losses. It offers nothing to the 609,000 unemployed people in the province.

The Speaker: Your supplementary?

Mrs McLeod: I simply ask the Treasurer this: What can he point to in his budget that will lead to the creation of long-term permanent jobs in the private sector for the 609,000 people currently unemployed in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: For I think the first time in the history of this province we have established a strategic capital fund that's going to help provide funding in strategic industries so that we do not make the mistakes of the past and for ever offer short-term, sweeping-the-floor kinds of jobs for people in government programs. We are determined to make sure that taxpayers' money is invested in long-term, high value added jobs. That's the reason there's a child care component to our proposals and there's such a strong training component to our job programs.

I think what the leader of the official opposition doesn't seem to understand is that what she's asking for is exactly what this government is doing.

Mrs McLeod: I keep trying to find ways of helping the Treasurer to focus in his answers on the real price people are paying out there in our communities. The fact remains that there are 609,000 Ontarians out of work. Let me take a somewhat different approach to the question.

There are colleges and universities students who this spring are going to be graduating after many years of study and work, and tens of thousands of high school students are going to be attempting to enter the workforce. The sad reality is that these high school graduates and university and college graduates simply won't find that they have jobs to go to. I suppose the simple advice might be to hide in school for another year, but the Treasurer's hardheaded approach in that regard has made that impractical too. With drastic cuts to student assistance, that puts post-secondary education opportunities even more out of reach.

If the Treasurer is not prepared to make post-secondary education accessible and he's not prepared to let the private sector create jobs, just what advice does he provide to those thousands of young people leaving school this spring and trying to enter the workforce?

Hon Mr Laughren: We are finally reaching the point in this recession where most objective observers are saying we're starting to come out of it; there is hope on the horizon.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I can tell the members opposite that the recession is not restricted to Ontario. It's not restricted to Canada. It's in the United States as well. I do understand that the official opposition has a responsibility to try to pick holes in the budget; that's its job. I've done it from time to time in the past. But she does seem to be the only person out there in Ontario who doesn't now think there's more hope than there is despair. I would ask her to get with it and join the majority of this province.

1440

TORONTO RIOT

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My question is to the Premier. Premier, last night Toronto experienced rioting and vandalism that many Ontarians, many Torontonians, many of us thought couldn't happen here. I think we must make an important distinction between the peaceful protest that was held yesterday afternoon and the reality of last evening. However, I don't believe we can deny that the demonstration that was scheduled for yesterday did in fact become a forum for every hooligan who felt like throwing a Molotov cocktail or breaking windows or looting.

Given that reality, Premier, could you inform this House if you have since last night spoken with the organizers of yesterday's demonstration about their thoughts on this and how last night and the results of last night might impact on their plans for the type of further demonstrations they may wish to make in a very legitimate way, as they are entitled to do? Premier, have you discussed this with the organizers of the rally yesterday?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I have had a couple of conversations with members of the black community, and to be perfectly honest with you, I don't know whether or not they were involved or could be considered to be organizers of the peaceful demonstration yesterday afternoon. I've had meetings with a number of people over the last few days and spoken to a few people on the phone with respect to what happened last night and with respect to the feelings in the community.

All I can tell the honourable member is that members of any community are free to peacefully assemble; that right is guaranteed by the Charter of Rights. But that does not in any way, shape or form mean we condone any kind of vandalism or any kind of violence or anything of that sort. I've made that very clear. The Solicitor General has made that very clear today.

But I think, in fairness to members of the community and members of different communities who feel strongly about their rights to speak their minds with respect to public policy, we have to make that distinction and we must not assume that every peaceful assembly will necessarily lead to or contribute to an act of violence or hooliganism or vandalism. It's very important for us to make this distinction, because it's an important distinction in fact as well as an important distinction in law.

I would take this opportunity, and I hope the leader of the third party will allow me to do so, to express my profound hope that anyone who is exercising his or her peaceful right of assembly would exercise that right with a sense of understanding and with a sense of responsibility, and I'm sure that's exactly what people are going to do in our society.

Mr Harris: There are different forms of peaceful right of assembly. There are different forms of protesting actions, injustices, and I'm not questioning that right and I'm not questioning the injustice we talked about yesterday in this Legislature as needing to be addressed.

What I am suggesting, Premier, is that I believe there is a role for you or one of the senior members of your government in communicating with and discussing with the organizers of the rally yesterday, and potential organizers, I understand, of rallies now on Thursday and on Saturday, to see if we cannot come to some agreement with them and some accommodation and some understanding of other forms of protest than the one we saw on Thursday. I suggest, Premier, and ask and implore -- I guess I'm asking you to do that.

Given the reality of what happened yesterday, that the form of protest yesterday, of assembly, I suggest to you -- I'm sure not with the intent of the organizers -- ended up being a lightning rod for actions that none of us condone, including I'm sure the organizers of the protest yesterday --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the leader conclude his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: Given that reality, Premier, would you not agree with me that there is a role for you as Premier or for a senior member of your government in trying to work with the black community in Toronto to make sure the protest is one that is less likely to spark this kind of reaction?

Hon Mr Rae: I certainly think it's important for members of this government, including the Premier -- I met with people on Sunday. I met with my staff on Saturday afternoon in my office when I heard of the original shooting incident because of the concern I had with respect to the situation. I had a very quickly arranged meeting at noon on Sunday with a number of individuals from the black community, attended as well by some people from my office and from other ministries. I continued to talk by phone yesterday, last night and today about the situation.

I think it's important, however, for us to stop short of saying it's going to be the Premier of the province who is going to suggest to people whether or not they are going to congregate, if that's what they decide to do. I think that's something which goes a step beyond what is appropriate.

What is certainly appropriate is for me to say, both in private conversation and publicly, that we recognize fully people's rights to peaceful assembly. In no way, shape or form is that to be confused in any way with hooliganism, vandalism, the breaking of windows, the destruction of property or anything else. If I may say so, I think it's been very clear from the comments that have been made by those who were associated with the beginning of the demonstration last night that they share that view. I think they've made it very clear that they do not see the peaceful protest as in any way sanctioning or condoning or approving of the deplorable vandalism which took place afterwards.

Mr Harris: I agree with you that they did not see it that way and they are not condoning it, but, Premier, surely you would agree with me that that was the net result. There was some spark that set off the rioting and the looting. It didn't start on Saturday or Sunday; it started after this peaceful assembly, which is their right to do.

Given that these are particularly delicate times, given that the protests are made to make sure that we as legislators, you as Premier, the Solicitor General, the police, the mayor, the regional chairman, those in some position to help change the attitudes they want changed -- that's the reason, I believe, for the protest, the demonstration. Do you not believe, given these times, given what happened yesterday, you could meet with the organizers and potential organizers of similar protests for Thursday and Saturday and indicate to them that there are other ways to protest that will have a significant impact on you -- that you're listening, that you're hearing -- without a repeat of the hooliganism and the violence we saw last night in Toronto's streets?

I would ask you for that reason: If you believe, and I don't think you do, that it would have happened last night without something to precipitate it -- very regrettably; that was not the intent -- but given that it did, ought not we do everything we can to ensure that there are other, more peaceful ways to express the opinions that wish to be expressed?

Hon Mr Rae: I don't want to be argumentative, because this is such a sensitive subject and such a difficult one. But I do want to say to the honourable member I think he should be very careful about the fact that there was a group of people assembling together and his making the assertion that this is somehow a necessary link to the events that took place on Yonge Street. There may have been many other events which intervened between those two events of which neither he nor I are aware. I have to be very careful in reaching those conclusions he is drawing.

All I can tell the honourable member is that of course the members of this government will continue to work with all the members of our society, with all members of all communities with regard to what is going on. We will be doing whatever we can to try to ensure that however it is that people choose to express themselves, it will be done in a way that is peaceful and in a way that fully respects the rights of others. That is something I am very much committed to doing.

Mr Harris: Premier, if there is one remote possibility that there is a possible link, wouldn't it be worthwhile initiating the first move to discuss this?

1450

INCOME TAX

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): My second question is also to the Premier. Yesterday you told this House, and in your budget you told this House, that someone earning $53,000 a year is well off. I'd like to ask you about Carmen, the 40-year-old single mother of a 16-year-old son. Carmen is a South American immigrant who just recently proudly became a Canadian citizen. As an assistant bank manager in Toronto, Carmen earns $53,206 a year. Premier, Carmen is very proud of what she has achieved and has high hopes for her son. She knows his education will be costly. Can you explain to Carmen why you are penalizing her for her success and hard work in this new, chosen country that she picked?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): I'm going to refer this to the Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): I want to make sure I heard the leader of the third party's description of Carmen correctly. This is a person who has a son, I believe, which therefore means she has a deduction that would certainly remove her from the $5,500 Ontario tax payable threshold. As a matter of fact, while I'm on my feet, Mr Speaker, perhaps you would allow me to explain more fully than I did before.

The $53,000 level is the income for someone who has only the personal deduction. If that person has any other deductions, such as belonging to a trade union or if the person makes contributions to an RRSP or pension plan, then she would not pay the surtax until her income got up around $60,000. I was using the $53,000 as the person with the least possible deduction under our tax system, namely, the personal deduction. In fact Carmen, the person you described, would not be paying tax if her income was $53,000 for one reason for sure: She apparently has a dependant; and second, if she has any other deductions from her income, the rule would be she would not pay the surtax.

Mr Harris: And if she perchance had $500 in other income, she would. Treasurer, I'm really surprised that this $53,000 --

Hon Evelyn Gigantes (Minister of Housing): No, no.

Mr Harris: You can have two different jobs and it doesn't count? It's not the total income?

Treasurer, I'm really surprised at the one reason you have given me. I've seen a lot of what you have done as a payback to unions, but I didn't know that the $53,000 was to encourage people to join unions so they could have that write-off and try and get below the line. You insist, Treasurer, that $53,000 a year is loads of money, even though more than half of that money is eaten up by taxes.

Treasurer, you're having a tough sell of this with Ben. Ben is a senior constable with the Ontario Provincial Police. Ben has 11 years' experience and earns $51,643 a year. Ben regularly works overtime to pay for his mortgage and to make sure there's a little left over for a rainy day. After your budget last Thursday, Ben now says it does not make sense to work overtime. You are killing initiative in this province. Can you tell Ben why he should want to work any harder when you have stated that should he get a little more money you're going to take it all away from him?

Hon Mr Laughren: We do not yet have in this province, and never will have I assume, a 100% marginal tax rate. That is absolute nonsense. I don't know what the leader of the third party thinks about when he comes up with some of these questions. For example, he talks about the deductions for union dues. That's under the federal Income Tax Act; it has nothing to do with the province of Ontario. Those are standard deductions from income that have got nothing to do with the surtax. They're already in place and they're simply legitimate deductions from personal income. The leader of the third party may have a pessimistic view of the work ethic in this province that is not shared by members of this government.

Mr Harris: The people in this province don't believe they have a government in charge that wants them to succeed. They feel that working harder only means getting hit harder. Not once in your Agenda for People did the Premier or you, Treasurer, tell the hardworking men and women in this province that you intended to gouge them further. In fact, you travelled this province and told them the opposite. You said, "Somebody else will pay." You said: "Don't worry. We can have it all and somebody else will pay."

Treasurer, will you now admit that in your Ontario, in Bob Rae's Ontario there is in fact nobody else to pay, that it will be the middle class, that it will be hardworking men and women, that it will be anybody earning $20,000 a year or more who must pay more taxes for every new initiative and program you've brought in?

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Will the leader conclude his question, please.

Mr Harris: Will you now admit that is the case, not the scenario you painted in 1990 in your Agenda for People?

Hon Mr Laughren: I do not for one minute believe that the people of this province who feel the taxes they pay are going to provide the essential services in medical services and education and other social services, I don't believe that there's resentment at paying taxes when they feel that money is being well spent.

Second, I remind the leader of the third party that the last time I checked I believe the top marginal rate for Ontario's income tax rate was the third lowest in all of Canada. The leader of the third party is blowing smoke.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr David Ramsay (Timiskaming): I have a question for the Minister of Skills Development. Earlier in question period today the Premier and the Treasurer spoke about skills training programs. The fact is that many people who complete a skills training program still can't find a job, and that's what we're talking about today -- jobs.

I'd like to ask the minister why, after we have brought it up week after week in this past month, he has continued to cut a program, piloted across this province, that not only provided people the opportunity to pick up the entrepreneurial skills in order to create a job for themselves but his own government's assessment has proven has been able to create jobs for a lot of other people too, and create jobs for this ailing Ontario economy.

I'd like to ask the minister why he has cut these programs and what strategies he has got out of the throne speech and the budget that are going to replace these programs and get people off social assistance and help them create their own jobs. Why is he putting the ones who are doing that now back on social assistance?

Hon Richard Allen (Minister of Skills Development): I haven't the faintest idea what the member is talking about. There wasn't a reference to a specific, named program. To the best of my knowledge, there is no program that I'm responsible for that has been cut back.

In fact, anybody who looks at the budget last year or this will know that all our training initiatives under this ministry have been dramatically expanded. He will also know that some of the programs he might have been referring to, under the Ministry of Community and Social Services, that have been brought up in this House are worthy of continuation and are being looked at from that point of view. There are some that cost so much you wouldn't even fund them, as I said the other day, if you were on this side of the House.

Interjection.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): The member for Etobicoke West, come to order.

1500

Mr Ramsay: I'm surprised the minister is going to judge the opposition as to whether they're going to fund these programs or not. We think they're very good programs and they should be funded, and that's what I'm saying to you today.

What are the strategies you've got to fund these programs to help these people? These people have come to these programs funded by government. They've picked up these skills; they've hired these people; they've created jobs, and now you're cutting these programs. We want to see what planning has gone into the new programs you've announced. You haven't announced any new programs from the budget or throne initiatives in regard to skills training.

These three-year programs, these three-year plans you've talked about in your jobs strategy: What's going to happen to those people when they finish your programs? Are these people in three year's time going to go back on to social assistance? Where is the strategy to create the long-term training and job creation for this economy?

Hon Mr Allen: We have talked in this House before about the Ontario Training and Adjustment Board and its long-term plans. We have talked about the local board structures and their long-term plans. We've talked about the Canada-Ontario labour force development agreement, which plows more money into training in this province than either the federal or the provincial governments have ever done before. We've got a $940-million program that's laid out in the budget. If you want to read the budget, you can see references to apprenticeship programs which will be expanded in the schools and outside them, and for francophones for the first time in places where they'd never been offered before. I can go on but I would take up too much time of the House. Other people want to ask questions.

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): I have a question to the Premier. Premier, yesterday your Treasurer admitted that it was tough for him to oppose Sunday shopping when you have given and he has given the green light to gambling and casinos in Ontario. Given that you, Premier, your cabinet, your caucus and your party no longer have a moral leg to stand on -- there's no value, there's no principle you stood for that is now in your road -- are you willing to allow shopping seven days a week in Ontario?

Hon Bob Rae (Premier and Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs): Since the Treasurer spoke so eloquently on this subject yesterday, I think I'll let him answer the question today.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Treasurer.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Thank you, Mr Speaker, and through you the Premier. I did indicate yesterday in speaking to a fine group assembled downtown that the Sunday shopping issue was one which had plagued three successive governments now and was an extremely difficult one, because there's no question that over the last several years public opinion and what people feel very strongly about out there on Sunday shopping has changed. There are still some very strong feelings on both sides of that issue, however. All I concluded, and I'll say it again today as I stand here in my place, is that we have not changed our position on Sunday shopping.

Mr Harris: We're told, Treasurer -- if you want to refer it back to the Premier, it's probably entirely appropriate on the supplementary, if he's still here -- that some of the major stores in Ontario are considering opening on Sundays. Some, they say, are considering it as early as this Sunday. We're hearing many say, "Well, we're going to have casino gambling." The government's sending out lots of mixed signals. Some over there seem to think it's a good idea. Perhaps some of them are at the point where they're concerned that they're going to be bankrupt and not around when, next month or two months or three months or six months from now, you finally figure out how you're going to explain the quid pro quo to Bob White as to why the change in position on Sunday shopping. We know you're desperate for cash; we understand that.

Treasurer, rather than prolonging the agony, do you not feel the signals you've been sending out are so very obvious that before the end of your term of office you're prepared to allow Sunday shopping? Would you not agree it would make sense to allow it now so we do not have businesses breaking the law, tying up police resources just so they don't have to go bankrupt? Why don't you do it now instead of three months from now or six months from now?

Hon Mr Laughren: For the sake of being repetitive, I just say to the leader of the third party that, no, we're not prepared to do that at this point, and also that we fully expect the retail sector in this province to obey the law, and I have no reason at this point in time to believe it will not.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): My question is for the Treasurer of Ontario. Yesterday in the Legislature, I could hardly believe my ears when the members of the official opposition accused the Treasurer of somehow cooking the books. The leader of the third party said: "...Treasurer, that you are no more successful in pulling the wool over our eyes, and you are certainly not successful in pulling the wool over the bond rating agencies' eyes. Ontario is now on rating alert because you have no credibility as Treasurer." I believe the hocus-pocus as suggested has been resolved. I would like to know what the credit rating is now of the province of Ontario.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That question is more appropriate than the member who asks it fully realizes.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Standard and Poor's just dropped.

Hon Mr Laughren: Yes, that's right. Perhaps this would be the appropriate time to inform the member and the Legislature that earlier today Moody's, the American bond-rating agency, reaffirmed our credit rating as AA. However, subsequent to that, Standard and Poor's, the other large credit-rating agency, lowered our credit rating from AA-plus to AA, which puts them at the same level as Moody's. So with the AA credit rating, that puts us one notch below British Columbia, at the same level as Alberta and above the credit rating of every other province in the country.

Mr Mills: Treasurer, I thank you for that answer, and I hope this will be widely reported on because it's not a state of gloom and doom in this province; it's a state of prosperity and go-ahead. I wish you people would contribute to this --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Is there a supplementary?

Mr Mills: -- instead of keeping on with the gloom and doom. I'm sick and tired of the lot of you.

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Interjections.

The Speaker: I did not hear a supplementary question; I did in fact hear a brief speech.

1510

UNEMPLOYMENT

Mr Steven Offer (Mississauga North): I have a question to the Treasurer. A Toronto Star article recently described, "Sheriffs' eviction notices have become a sign of the times in Peel." That's a sign, Treasurer, for businesses and for families of the unemployed. Treasurer, since your government has taken office, over 38 major, and I stress the word "major," businesses have closed or laid off staff. That has added up to over 5,000 jobs lost in the region of Peel. I would like to indicate to you, Treasurer, that these figures to not include the many hundreds of small businesses in the region of Peel with under 50 employees that do not show up on the government records.

I would like to ask the Treasurer to comment on how his plan for over $1 billion in tax increases and for temporary training subsidies to create temporary person-hours of employment is going to replace the very real jobs that have been lost in the region of Peel.

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): The member opposite most appropriately refers to the very serious job losses we've experienced in this province. We've lost over 250,000 jobs since this recession started. But objective or fair-minded people, whether they like this government or not, have not blamed this government for this very severe recession. I hope the member opposite is not doing that.

Specifically addressing the measures in this budget, I can tell the member opposite that while the income tax increases do extract money from the economy, we are putting many, many times that much back into the economy. As a matter of fact, the revenue from the tax increase goes right back into the economy. It's not as though we take it and store it someplace. That goes right back into the economy to help stimulate the economy and encourage investment and jobs in Ontario.

Mr Offer: Let me try to explain to the Treasurer the realities of what's happening in the region of Peel. Today in question period we have heard the Treasurer use the phrase "the phoney numbers" and we've heard the Premier use the words "voodoo numbers." In Mississauga we have Corona Corp, 131 real jobs lost; Inglis in Mississauga, 500 jobs lost; Amdahl Communications in Mississauga, 209 jobs lost; McDonnell Douglas, 575 jobs lost. Treasurer, the list goes on and on. You talk about freezing some business taxes, but the reality, and the message you are sending out, is that the taxes are going to go up by more than $1 billion.

I ask the Treasurer, have you ever considered raising revenue by raising business confidence instead of taxes? How can you, Treasurer, explain to the 404 laid-off employees of Walbar Canada in Mississauga that more taxes are going to bring back their jobs?

Hon Mr Laughren: I wish the member opposite would be fair, because in this budget we did reduce the income tax rate on manufacturing, processing, mining, fishing and agriculture. Second, we reduced the tax rate on small business from 10% to 9.5%, enriched the research and development allowance and increased the current cost allowance. So it's not fair to say that we haven't done something for the private sector in this budget. We sure have. We've given them the incentive to get out there, invest in this province and create more jobs.

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I have a question for the Solicitor General. Yesterday the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations confirmed that before the implementation of the casino policy goes forward, it would be done by legislation as opposed to order in council. One of the concerns our party has is, in the communities that are going to be allowing these casinos and other forms of gambling, is the government going to provide proper police protection to these communities when these casinos open up?

Hon Allan Pilkey (Solicitor General): The simple answer to that question is yes. First of all, the budget indicated that where casinos will operate will only be done with consultation with municipalities, first nations, charitable groups and so on. So I don't think they're going anywhere there isn't a welcome or an inviting host.

When they do arrive at those locations they are invited to, the concern about the policing and the fact that there's already a strain on policing I think is a valid one to be raised; the member opposite raises it. But the police are going to be involved right at the outset of consideration of those casinos. If in fact it becomes a circumstance that they are government-owned and -operated and have the involvement of the police right at the first steps, I think concerns can be very heavily minimized. Beyond that, I'm sure that whatever agency looks after the operation of casinos will have its own auditing and control devices internally to ensure that it minimizes any need for policing.

Mr Tilson: I appreciate your saying that you are going to provide special funding or extra funding over and above the funding that's allowed by the various municipalities to assist in policing these casinos and the various problems that are going to develop from them.

The police commissions and the police services boards are talking about how their budgets are being stretched to their limit now. They simply don't have the funds to operate. Where in the world are you going to get the extra funds to provide for the policing of these casinos if the police services boards are saying now that you're not giving them adequate funds as it is?

Hon Mr Pilkey: As I indicated, there will be a lot of very deliberate attempts to minimize the impacts of the requirement of additional policing. Of course, as we do in all policing matters, whatever resource is required to maintain the public safety would be provided and any additional dollars therefore would be the subject of future estimates.

BUDGET

Mr Brad Ward (Brantford): My question is to the Treasurer. I could ask you a question about the report from the Toronto-Dominion Bank economist who's predicting that Ontario will lead the country out of recession, but I won't, because the opposition will accuse me of asking a puffball question, so I'm going to focus on the budget.

When you look at the hardworking people of Brantford, in Westcan, in Gates and Keeprite, the clerks and bank tellers, I don't believe any of them would make enough income to qualify to pay the surtax being implemented in the budget. The $53,000 threshold in fact probably isn't really a threshold, because that's only a bare minimum and people would be making more.

The comments in the budget were that 10% of the working population of Ontario probably would end up paying the surtax one way or the other while 90% -- the working people, the middle class of this province -- would be exempt because they didn't make enough to meet the threshold.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the question?

Mr Ward: How did you arrive at those figures, Mr Treasurer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): That's an important question, because it is important to make a distinction: $53,000 is the rough estimate of the gross income at which the threshold would kick in, and it's important to note that it's not on the $53,000 that the surtax is paid. The surtax is paid on the Ontario tax payable. Generally speaking, as a very minimum, with absolutely no deductions except the personal deduction, a person earning $53,000 would start to pay the surcharge on the amount in excess of the $5,500 of Ontario tax payable. However, if there are any deductions beyond the personal deductions, their income would go up higher; for example, if they had very average deductions, it would be closer to $55,000 or $60,000 before the surtax would kick in.

In conclusion, I would say that actually fewer than 10%, in other words, more than 90%, will not be affected by the surtax.

Mr Ward: Some of the comments from the people of Brantford about the budget direction have been quite favourable. The Taxpayers Coalition Ontario representative said it's a fair budget. The chamber of commerce president said the business tax cuts should be good for business.

Now, this is going to be my supplementary. It's going to focus on the benefits the small business community should derive from this budget. There is a tax cut for small business. Could you perhaps expand on what benefit that could be for the small business people in this province?

Hon Mr Laughren: A number of components of the budget will be in favour of the small business community. I mentioned one earlier today, namely, the reduction in the tax rate on profits earned by small business from 10% down to 9.5%. However, I think the biggest benefit in the budget for the small business community will be the confidence we are expressing by investing in Ontario ourselves, by our job creation proposals, by our attempts to draw the private sector into the training aspect of workers, whether it's new employees or existing employees. So I'm not surprised that we're getting some very favourable comments. There are some predictable objections to the budget, of course, but generally speaking, I think most objective, fair-minded people would agree there has been quite a favourable reaction to this budget.

1520

RETAIL STORE HOURS

Mr Steven W. Mahoney (Mississauga West): My question was going to be to the Premier, but I'll go to the Treasurer. We've seen some signals from the Premier that he might be softening on the Sunday shopping issue. We saw him take a straw vote at a meeting of the reeves etc in Windsor -- who all voted in favour of it -- indicating he might be backing off. We heard you yesterday say that your government was not going to back off. Sir, whom do we believe, you or the Premier?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Yes.

Mr Mahoney: So we believe the Premier when he says he may be backing off and gives the signals, but we believe the Treasurer when he says the government's not going to take -- that's fair, actually, because that's exactly the kind of message I expect out of this government: "On the one hand, we believe this, and on the other hand, we believe the opposite."

I'm trying to get some clarification for the small business community, particularly the small retailer, Mr Treasurer, who cannot afford the time, the cost or the red tape to apply for an exemption, particularly in light of the fact that under your regulations, he -- and in many cases she -- could wind up at the Ontario Municipal Board facing a challenge from anyone. You're looking at spending $7,000 to $10,000.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): And the supplementary, please.

Mr Mahoney: Considering the silly answer I got to my question, you could at least allow me to put the appropriate question to this person.

Despite your comments yesterday, whoever you are -- this person -- we've seen clear evidence that about 67% of the public supports revisions to Sunday shopping. We see the costs involved in applying for an exemption and it's just not realistic. In fact, in a call to my office, Eaton's is saying it's not going to open but the Bay is saying it is going to open.

Treasurer, my question is, in light of the overwhelming support for Sunday shopping, will you change your legislation, will you back off, live up to the rumours and implications of your Premier and allow the retail sector to open on Sunday?

Hon Mr Laughren: I think the member opposite should not lead the public of Ontario or members in this House to believe that everybody out there in the business community supports the idea of wide-open Sunday shopping.

Mr Mahoney: It's 67% per cent, Floyd.

Hon Mr Laughren: I'm talking about the business community. There are lots of people in the small business community in particular who are very worried about Sunday shopping.

Mr Mahoney: They're dying.

Hon Mr Laughren: If you'd let me answer, they're telling us, "We hope you will study this very carefully before you make any change in your policy," because there are some businesses that would not be beneficially affected by a change in the law, and we are taking their advice and studying this matter very carefully.

ONTARIO'S CREDIT RATING

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I have a question of the Treasurer. Why did the bond-rating service Standard and Poor's drop your credit rating, Mr Treasurer?

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Standard and Poor's has dropped its credit rating to the same level as Moody's, and basically it's now constant.

Interjections.

Hon Mr Laughren: I really was hoping I would have a chance to answer a very important question. If the heckling will die down, I'll make a serious attempt before the clock runs out as we get near the end of question period. It really is an important question and I wouldn't want to see question period end without having at least a serious attempt to answer it.

There is no question that when Standard and Poor's looked at the pace of the recovery in this province, they regarded it as being slow, as we do too. Virtually everybody who examines the economy, not just in Ontario but elsewhere, realizes that it's going to be a very modest recovery. That causes them some concern, and it causes us some concerns as well.

Finally, if I might, they are concerned about the degree to which we are going to have flexibility on expenditure reductions and on revenue increases --

Interjections: Five, four, three, two, one.

Hon Mr Laughren: -- in order to keep the deficit in check.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): You weren't fast enough.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): That was a very good try.

These agencies, Mr Treasurer, don't lower or raise your credit rating on the performance of the economy. They lower or raise your credit rating on your performance in managing finances and the economics of the government.

I ask the Treasurer, as your deficit numbers are considered to be way off by most experts -- most fair-minded people would suggest that your deficit numbers are way off, that in fact we're looking at a $12-billion or $13-billion deficit -- do you think the fabrication you came out with in your budget about a $9.9-billion deficit had something to do with the credit rating drop?

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I certainly do not. I would remind the member opposite that Moody's just reconfirmed its AA rating, so I don't think the member opposite should treat this as though it were some cataclysmic event. And he's fundamentally wrong when he says the credit rating agencies don't take a look at the economy when they take into consideration the fact that the economy's going to experience a very slow recovery.

PETITIONS

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): The people in the county of Middlesex are very concerned about the greater London area annexation policy, and I have in hand a petition signed by some 37 people.

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

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual highway signs on Ontario's highways without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars, which should be used to address the current pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister responsible for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

HYDRO PROJECT

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): I have a petition signed by some 2,000 constituents in my riding, and it reads:

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, supporters of the Kenora District Citizens Coalition for Minimum Impact Electrical Lines, request that the Legislative Assembly of Ontario require Ontario Hydro to reopen the consultation process for choosing a corridor for the Ontario-Manitoba interconnection project, so that (1) the Kenora district citizens affected will have meaningful input into the decision-making process, and so that (2) the chosen route will not be south of the CN line, and will have (a) minimum impact on the health of the people who live in the area; (b) minimum impact on the environment; (c) minimum impact as visual pollution and (d) minimum impact on property values and tourism."

I have signed my name to that as well.

1530

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Cameron Jackson (Burlington South): I have today about 12,000 petitions as part of the total which has now risen to 116,000 petitions to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways, without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million, represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current, pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

These petitions have my signature and come from the five area ridings in the Hamilton-Wentworth area which are government ridings.

Mr W. Donald Cousens (Markham): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways, without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million, represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current, pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

I have signed this petition and submit it with the support of these people.

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Ron Eddy (Brant-Haldimand): I present a petition signed by 25 citizens from the city of London and the county of Middlesex with the same preamble as read by the member for Ottawa East petitioning the Legislature of Ontario as follows:

"That the Legislature of Ontario reject the arbitrator's report for the greater London area in its entirety, condemn the arbitration process to resolve municipal boundary issues as being patently an undemocratic process and reject the recommendation of a massive annexation of land by the city of London."

I have signed the petition.

NURSING HOMES

Mrs Ellen MacKinnon (Lambton): I present the following petition in regard to the funding of nursing homes for the aged from my constituents.

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

"We request that the government of Ontario immediately rectify the inequity in funding between nursing homes and homes for the aged. We strongly support the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their efforts to provide better care for nursing home residents through increased funding."

I have affixed my signature.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): I have a petition to the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is experiencing a severe economic recession;

"Whereas the placement of bilingual signs on Ontario's highways, without consultation and at a cost of more than $4 million, represents a blatant misdirection of taxpayers' dollars which should be used to address the current, pressing economic and employment needs of Ontario citizens;

"Whereas citizens of Ontario are increasingly being denied essential services, such as medical treatment, for lack of adequate funding;

"Whereas Bill 8, the French Language Services Act, does not mandate bilingual highway signs, leaving interpretation to the discretion of the Ontario Transportation minister, who, as the minister for francophone affairs, is empowered to grant exemptions under the act;

"We, the undersigned, do petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to resolve that the Ontario Transportation minister's directive to replace existing highway signs in Ontario with bilingual signs at a cost to taxpayers of more than $4 million be revoked immediately."

I affix my signature.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr Gary Carr (Oakville South): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I was just interested in the situation. I believe that when a situation like this comes up I guess I am supposed to say -- thank you, Mr Speaker. Never mind.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): I thank the member for Oakville South for his assistance and recognize the leader of the third party.

Mr Michael D. Harris (Nipissing): Let me thank the member for Oakville South who has, as he has indicated, demonstrated quick thinking, a Deputy Premier-like response to a situation that faced his leader where the media were far more interested and concerned than the government, the Treasurer and the Premier seemed to be about the downgrading of the credit rating of the province of Ontario by Standard and Poor's and the implications that would have for this province in attempting to borrow money. Gosh knows we're on a track where we're going to have to borrow significantly large, huge new sums of money over this next period of time.

There are a lot of people who would like to comment on this budget. I will attempt not to take too much time today, but there are a number of points I know my caucus wishes me to make. There are a number of points Ontarians all across this province wish me to make, families, taxpayers, hardworking men and women who believed in this province with all their hearts, who believed that if they worked hard there was an opportunity to get ahead, who believed that Ontario was the province of hope and opportunity and became that way because of governments that understood that in public policy there must be a balance of the size and role of government, ie, how much taxation and borrowing is required to sustain it, and the private sector, individuals, taxpayers, families and consumers.

When we had that balance this province prospered and thrived. Indeed, many are saying to me repeatedly that for 42 years we were envied across this country. This province was envied around the world. Many immigrants from other countries and many Canadians from other provinces desired to come to Ontario because the investments seemed to come there, the prosperity, the jobs, the good-paying jobs, the education system, the quality of life, the environment, the clean water, the clean air, the safety on our streets.

The balance of government providing those services that were important to Ontarians was there, yet there was still enough room in the economy to make a buck. Businesses could invest and get a return on it. If you worked extra hard, you could get ahead and perhaps move from an apartment to a modest home, and if you worked extra hard and paid off the mortgage or paid it down, you could perhaps move into a little larger home.

1540

These dreams of home ownership, of advancing yourself, of working hard perhaps in the first 10 or 20 or 30 years of your working life so you could take it a little bit easier in your 60s and 70s and 80s, of providing a hope, an opportunity and a chance for our children and an opportunity for them to be able to succeed -- we've lost that in this province. We've lost that.

I was out west in the fall, in Alberta, in Saskatchewan, in Manitoba. I met with politicians of all parties. I met with people on the street, with businesses, with taxi drivers. I talked to them all. I told them I was a Conservative politician from Toronto, from Queen's Park, from Ontario, and you know, not one person out there envied me. I have relatives out west, I have friends out west, and for 42 years it wasn't that way. In fact, many of them hated us. They said: "You get all the money. You get all the jobs. You got all the prosperity. It's not fair." I never heard that once in the whole week. What I heard was: "What's happened to Ontario? What did you do in Ontario to destroy the prosperity, the dream, the hopes, the aspirations?" They said, "Our young people aren't asking to go to Toronto for jobs, or the Golden Horseshoe or Ontario."

Indeed, we are hearing this now more and more around the world. For Europeans, if you look at the makeup of this province for 100 years, seeking an opportunity for a new life, to be able to work for prosperity, for a better chance for their children, Ontario was the top of their list, and they're saying that's no longer the case. They're looking elsewhere. They're looking to other provinces. They are looking to other countries.

Investors and entrepreneurs from the Pacific Rim, from India, from Pakistan, from other countries where they may have had a product and some modest success in jurisdictions and they wanted to access the North American market -- and where they would invest and build their plants and their distribution systems, they would create new jobs -- they're now saying to us, "Ontario doesn't seem to want us, appreciate us, understand us." Realize that you have to be able to make a buck when you invest money, that you have to be able to keep something to reinvest to expand your plant.

I start this way so this Legislature and many of the newly elected NDP members will understand that this Ontario is not the same Ontario, not the same powerhouse, not the same jurisdiction of prosperity it once was, and this budget is brought down in that context. This budget is very similar to other budgets we've seen in the past seven or eight years. It's premised on the fact that government can spend an individual's money better than he or she can, government knows what families want more than families do, government knows what taxpayers want more than taxpayers themselves do.

We've gone through a period, when we look at the massive increase in government spending and role in life in our economy over these past eight budgets of this Liberal-NDP coalition, socialist, whatever you want to call them, they're all the same; they've all been based on the premise that government will spend two or three times, increase the rate of inflation more and more, and therefore we will tax from the people and borrow, which is future taxation our next generations will have to pay back, to feed this appetite for government spending and control of our lives.

Government has taken more and more control of our lives since 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 and 1990. Then last year's budget and now this one, where spending actually in this year's budget is up two and a half times the rate of inflation -- worse than last year; a bigger bite of government involvement in our lives versus the private sector or individual's involvement than even last year's budget.

It is the cumulative effect of all of this that has made us -- you can blame the Liberals if you want and I understand. That's perfectly fair and reasonable because, of these eight budgets, six of them were theirs. But surely, as you throw back, as I've heard in this House, blame on to the Liberals, it's time to look at your own house, because, as critical as you were when I was in opposition with many of you of the 33 tax increases that made us the highest-taxed jurisdiction in all of North America, you have carried on that same direction: $1 billion in new taxes last year, another $1 billion in new taxes this year and spending increases, and government involvement in our lives more and more than ever before.

When my party left office -- this is a figure many of you won't understand; the Treasurer doesn't go back quite that far in his table -- the total government spending in the province of Ontario was $26 billion.

I ask the backbench members of the New Democratic Party to think of where you were in 1985; to think of what life was like in 1985; to reflect on the fact that we had fewer portable classrooms, more hospital beds, fewer lineups for food banks, surgery, medically necessary procedures, housing and day care. I ask you to think of 1985 and that we did it on a spending level of $26 billion.

Our infrastructure was further ahead than it is today. Think of sewers, water, roads, garbage: all of those infrastructure investments were not nearly as far behind as they are today.

What have we accomplished for spending leading up to this budget that was $53 billion -- more than double? Inflation for the same period, from 1985 to 1992 before this budget was tabled, was about 40%. If governments from 1985 to before this budget had increased their spending at the rate of inflation they would have been spending about $37 billion. If they had increased the spending over the 1985 level indexed for inflation and for new population, the total spending in Ontario going into this budget would have been about $38 billion -- $15 billion less than you were spending after your last disastrous budget.

What do we have to show for it? What do Ontarians have to show for $15 billion of new spending by Liberals, NDP and socialists? What do we have to show for it? We've got more poverty, more hunger, more need for food banks, more lineups for the health care system. We are worse off.

That is why, anticipating this budget, we gave the Treasurer the advice that the big spending ways of the past seven budgets were wrong for this province. They did not improve our lot in life; in fact, they made it worse.

1550

I know that pre-budget some people were talking that maybe it makes sense for government to borrow money in a recession and spend it to stimulate the economy; that would create some jobs. Don't you have to analyse how that's worked over the past 10 years and indeed in the past seven? If a government, borrowing money, running up a deficit or taxing, and taking that money to stimulate the economy, actually created half as many jobs as it destroyed, we'd be very prosperous in this province, because we're the master province for borrowing. We borrow more than any other province. We spend more than any other province in a country that is borrowing and spending more than virtually any other country, yet we're not booming.

It's why my caucus and I put out a document called New Directions. It's why in pre-budget submissions we said to the Treasurer, "You must move in a different direction from the last seven years, this direction of government taking over more and more of the economy and taxpayers and individuals and families less and less." That has not worked. We have fewer jobs now. We have less prosperity now. We are killing hope and opportunity. When we look at the specific measures of the budget, and I'll get into a few, we think of that. That's the tragedy of what you are doing.

You're patting yourselves on the backs and saying, "We're a little better than the Liberals" on this or that point. I liken that in some comments recently to fine-tuning the radio on the car: The station's a little staticky so you fine-tune the radio on the car with this bill or that bill or this program or that program -- but the car's going over the cliff. You're headed in such a dangerous, disastrous direction for the future of this province that a lot of that little tinkering really doesn't matter very much.

This 1992 budget is the latest link in a chain of fiscal folly stretching back to 1985 and the tabling of that first Liberal budget. The 1985 budget the Liberals brought in established the policy of taxing and borrowing and spending that is still so lavishly followed by Floyd Laughren and Bob Rae and the NDP.

The taxpayers have simply moved from being gouged by Bob Tax-the-Ripper Nixon to being held up by Pretty Boy Floyd Laughren. That's about the only difference -- that and the fact that the Liberals hiked taxes and increased the debt during good times while the NDP hike taxes and run up the debt during bad times. You NDPers were the ones who encouraged and supported the Liberals in running it up during good times. You said that was the time to hike taxes. Now we're in recessionary times and you're telling us that's the time to run up spending and hike taxes. The bottom line is that there are no more good times for Ontario taxpayers -- absolutely none.

It must be difficult for the current Treasurer to listen to criticism of his budget from the Ontario Liberals who squandered the opportunities that were presented to them by the unprecedented economic boom of the mid- to late 1980s. If you think of the groundwork, the infrastructure that had been built up for 42 years -- hydro, power, roads, schools, community colleges and universities and hospitals -- if you think of the balance that was left in the system and the tax capacity that was still there because we were taxed not the highest, not the lowest but in the median with lots of room; the spending not the highest, the deficit not the highest, on balance we boomed from those middle 1980s because of the tough decisions that had been made in the early 1980s by a government that left this province poised to prosper. Those opportunities then came to the Liberal-NDP coalition and then to the Liberals and now to you.

It must be difficult to listen to the attacks on tax increases by the Liberals, a party which in office hiked taxes no fewer than 33 times, a party whose Treasurer, Bob Nixon, never met a tax he didn't like, who liked taxes so much he even created a whole new set of them. Who could remember these new things we'd never heard of: a tire tax, a commercial concentration tax -- $100 million or so out of Toronto, and look what a disastrous effect it's had on Toronto, on our tourism business, our convention business, the hotel business, on the head offices moving out of Toronto, not just because of the commercial concentration tax, but that was one of the nails in the coffin -- the gas guzzler tax, brand-new, dreamed up by Bob Nixon, all these opposed by Floyd Laughren and the NDP. Now that you are in office they are perpetuated, carried on, expanded.

In 1984-85, before the first Liberal budget, provincial taxes in the province represented 8.8% of our economy. In 1990-91 after the Liberals' last budget, after the strongest sustained economic growth of the postwar period, provincial taxes represented 12.1% of our gross domestic product. Government taxes alone went up 50% in that short time that the Liberals were there.

In 1984-85 the per capita provincial tax burden in Ontario was $1,688. Every Ontarian was responsible for $1,688. The Liberals took over office, and after 33 tax increases the per capita tax burden, when you rascals took over, stood at $3,448, an increase of 104% in five years and six budgets. I understand your chagrin, Treasurer, when the Liberals criticize your budget.

The Liberal record on spending, of course, is just as dismal. During a period of sustained economic expansion, when the economy was growing, when individuals were doing better, Liberal government spending never once fell below 15% of the gross domestic product, and in 1990-91 provincial spending accounted for 16.8%.

Over the period 1984-85 to 1991-92, program spending by Ontario governments increased at an average annual rate of 10.6%. Every other province in the Dominion was increasing its own expenditures at a slower rate: the federal government at 3.9%, David Peterson and the Liberals at 10.6%. That spending is what has precipitated the high taxes, the high deficit and the level of government involvement in our everyday lives.

The difference between all other nine provinces and Ontario is what has made the change from Ontario being the most prosperous province to Ontario becoming a have-not province. That is the difference, and the other provinces are benefiting but not happily. They would benefit more if Ontario were still strong, but they are benefiting. There's no secret that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and the prairie premiers and ministers of industry and trade are sending out the signal to Ontario businesses: "You want to pay less tax? You want to come where you're appreciated? You want to come to a jurisdiction where we understand? You want to come where you can work with government and labour together, not on a confrontational basis? Then pick any province other than Ontario."

1600

Hon Floyd Laughren (Treasurer and Minister of Economics): Stop badmouthing your own province.

Mr Harris: I am badmouthing the leadership and the government of my own province, Mr Treasurer, and that is you. It is my role, when you head in a bad direction, to badmouth you and to point that out.

If the Treasurer wants to talk about this province, why then, in December and in this budget did he go to Ottawa and ask for an equalization payment for Ontario? Why is it we have sunk to the state where we're asking the taxpayers of Newfoundland, the Maritimes and the Prairies to bail Ontario out?

We've mishandled our affairs, our finances and our prosperity so badly over the last eight years that now we're saying to these other provinces that used to turn to us for help, that used to ask Ontario to help them to be able to afford social programs and to have equality of access to health care services and education that we had: "Please bail Ontario out. We've mismanaged so badly we need your dollars now to come to Ontario to bail us out."

That's what has happened to this province in the past eight budgets in the past seven years under the Liberal-NDP joint government, then the Liberal government and now the NDP government. Like those Liberal budgets, like the 1991 budget, the 1992 budget that we are dealing with today continues and compounds those Liberal policy errors, those Liberal spending errors: more of the same, more taxes, more spending, more debt, more bad news for taxpayers.

In its pre-budget consultations, the standing committee on finance and economic affairs heard from Dr Ruth Getter of the Toronto-Dominion Bank: "I think the worst possible thing at this time is to burden Ontario with more taxes...there is a perception out there, both from the business side and the consumer side, that we are overtaxed."

It's more than a perception. It is a fact and reality that when you are taxed higher than 50 states and nine other provinces, all of which are the ones that you have to compete with for investment, for jobs, for factories, that you are likely to be overtaxed, or 50 states and nine provinces are all undertaxed, if that's what you're trying to tell us, but they seem to be surviving. They seem to be doing fine.

We talk about how great Ontario was and I still believe Ontario can be if we would move in a new direction. I'm often intrigued by how many businesses are lined up at the US border trying to get into Ontario; how many versus how many are trying to get out? This is the great tragedy that these policies of big spending, big government and big taxing have brought in.

This is what Dr Ruth Getter of the Toronto-Dominion Bank said. So what did we get? The Treasurer acted like a Liberal. He brought in another $1-billion tax grab targeted at the middle class. He applied what used to be a high-income surtax to people making $53,000 a year; so much for fairness, so much for the Agenda for People.

I travelled this province on behalf of my party, my caucus and 130 candidates, speaking on their behalf. I travelled and explained to them that we would have to control our spending, get our taxation levels in order. Bob Rae travelled this province in that summer of 1990 in the last election. He said: "Don't listen to Harris. We don't have to control spending. We can add another $5 billion on our new Agenda for People. We can spend even more." They told Ontarians: "Don't worry. Somebody else will pay."

So now $20,000-a-year earners found it was they who are going to pay more, some $45 a year hike in their income tax, and $53,000-a-year earners are now the rich and the famous in this province, according to the NDP. Many people are saying to me that in NDP Ontario you're rich if you're not on welfare, because if you're not on welfare, you've got your taxes hiked.

It's no wonder people lose faith in the equity of government programs. It's no wonder we hear with increasing frequency that some people are better off on welfare than working for a living. Indeed, the facts are many people are. It's because when you are working you're working for one government or another. After they grab their share and the piece they want, you don't have enough left to afford a decent apartment or food or clothing for your family. Answer? Hike the taxes some more. That's what this budget brought forward.

The Treasurer justifies his tax grab by claiming -- I like this one -- that for every dollar he raised in new taxes, he found $4 in savings. Savings from what? It's like saying, "Gee, I was going to spend $100, but I only spent $20, so I saved 80 bucks." Who are you trying to kid with this voodoo economics, this sleight of hand? You certainly didn't fool Standard and Poor's, who talked about that.

Spending is up 5%. It's a 5% increase in government spending this year, at a time when inflation is going up 2%. It's more than double the rate of inflation. That's an even bigger increase in spending than last year, and we all know how disastrous last year was. It's a higher increase in spending than any other provincial budget to date, and last year's of course was even higher than any other provincial budget to date, on top of six provincial budgets higher than any other province during that period of time.

The Treasurer brags his spending increase is the lowest since 1953, but his Treasury officials have acknowledged that when you take inflation into account, it is only the lowest since 1983. So he's saying, "Well, it's a lower spending increase than all the Liberals had for those years of the middle 1980s." Yes, and I think the Treasurer will acknowledge, and I will repeat one of the kind things I said about the budget, in spending it is better than the Liberals were at increasing spending. But I tell you, that's pretty faint praise, because it's not as good as all other nine provinces and it is on a base we can't sustain in this province.

I think it was Robert Sheppard -- somebody I agree with, except when he talks about me -- who said in the Globe and Mail last Friday, "The so-called spending cuts in the Laughren budget are something of a joke." But it's not a funny joke. We examined even this $3 billion he said he was saving, and it's not a saving. He just said: "Oh, I was going to spend $3 billion more. I decided not to. Look. Good for me."

Even of that $3 billion he decided not to spend, let's look at it. The lion's share is taken out of transfer payment recipients, some by lower interest rates -- no government action required there. Some are deferred expenditures of that great government escape hatch called program restructuring. You've only cut from your January projection, which was ludicrous, $447 million of your own spending, so you've really not done very much yet, and much more needs to be done on a base of spending that is way too high for a government.

The government, which complains about federal transfer payment policies, now boasts that it's been able to keep its deficit under control. I don't understand that. We had a deficit of $11 billion last year. With a net decrease in the growth of the economy of 1.5% we had a deficit of $11 billion. Now, according to Standard and Poor's and other bond rating agencies, with a growth of 2.1% we're going to have a deficit of around $12 billion, if you compare apples to apples, if you use the same figures.

We had a decline in the economy last year of 1.5%, and these projections are a growth in the economy of 2.1%, and the deficit's going up and the Treasurer says, "Look how good we did." That doesn't add up, Treasurer. That's why Standard and Poor's bumped your rating down.

1610

The NDP idea of restraint is to have its own spending account now for close to 20% -- 19.5% -- of the provincial gross domestic product. That's up from 19.1% last year, so you're taking a bigger piece of the pie. There are less spending decisions being made by consumers -- families, individuals, taxpayers -- and more by the Treasurer and the Premier. You know what? They're not happy about the choices you're making for their money. They would like to make more of those choices themselves. You know what else? When consumers did make more of those choices themselves and when they spent the money themselves, they generated far more jobs and far more prosperity for the province than government spending could possibly generate. I want to say that the government wins no applause from us for what it perceives as a remarkable accomplishment.

You told hospitals, school boards, municipalities, colleges and universities they could live with a 1% increase. A 1% increase is what you told them. You said, "We'll have a little slush fund there for those of you who have more difficulties than others," but you sent them out to live within a 1% increase.

Treasurer, you'll recall that when you made that statement, again I came to your defence. I said: "The Treasurer is right. The transfer agencies can live with a 1% increase." You may think that was insignificant, but I think that was very unusual for an opposition party to come forward and say, "We'll join with you in helping explain to our transfer agencies that they're going to have to make do with less." The Liberals condemned you and said, "You've got to give them more money," but we supported you in that effort.

We also suggested some ways that you could make it easier for the transfer agencies by limiting increases in wages, which are 80% of their spending, to 1%, 2% and 2% as well. You didn't follow that advice, so some of the agencies are now laying off staff instead of keeping them employed at the level they were at plus 1%. We have far fewer nurses now in the hospitals.

Had you said, "We're in a crisis. We need your help in getting over this. We can all stay employed. Teachers, nurses, hospital workers, college professors and workers can all stay employed at a pretty decent salary, but it will only go up 1% this year," we would have had much fuller employment and we would have eased the transition. But now nurses are being laid off, teachers are being laid off, janitors are being laid off, workers are being laid off all across the province. I take no blame for that. I'm prepared to support you in the 1% solution, but you've got to give the transfer agencies the tools they need to do it, and you've failed to do that.

Then you turned around and in this budget, believe it or not, you said: "It's okay for hospitals, it's okay for colleges and universities, but we're going to hike our own spending by 5%." In fact, if I take the $20-billion transfer money out of that, it's up 6% or 7%, isn't it, Treasurer? You like to take out the interest payments and the other, but if I take out the transfer payments at 1%, it's up 6% or 7%.

Interjections.

Mr Harris: I have one more compliment left in my speech, and it may be the last one before the next election, so if the Minister of Health doesn't provoke me, it will come forward. If she does, I'll forget it.

You took an increase of 5%, five times what you told others they could live with. That's an increase higher than every other province, an increase five times higher. I guess because the feds gave you 5% more money, you said, "We'll hike our own spending 5%." I don't know what the rationale for it was, but it is two and a half times the rate of inflation, so we condemn this budget for not doing as it told others to do.

I don't want to sit down today, I don't want to finish today, without saying to the people of Ontario that there are alternatives. Yes, as an opposition party it's our role to criticize and to point out where the government's gone wrong. It's our role to point out that this direction they're going in is the same as the Liberal direction, and it is the wrong direction. We should criticize it, we should fight it, and I want to send this message out to taxpayers all across Ontario, to businesses large and small, to card-carrying union members concerned about the loss of their power to union bosses in the labour legislation. I want to say to card-carrying union members, to taxpayers, to citizens, to those who are working and those who are not, that we will fulfil our role of fighting tooth and nail for your rights that the NDP is trying to take away from you. We will fight tooth and nail for that money they are taking away from you, for that freedom they are taking away from you, for that loss of hope and for that loss of opportunity.

I also want the people of this province to know that we have a plan, we have a new direction we have offered to the government. It will still be applicable three years from now if you ignore the advice three years in a row. It will be more difficult three years from now, but we'll still be able to do it if that's what the voters in this province have to do. It would be in the interests of Ontarians and taxpayers in this province if you accepted our offer of cooperation and help and willingness to work with you in new directions today, right now.

We've ended up with more of the same because the government has done the same old thing; it has not taken any new directions. It continues to believe that big government and big deficits are the key to job creation and wealth generation, and that's not the case.

Before I get into my solutions, let me say to the Minister of Health, who interjected a few moments ago, that her willingness to come forward and say to the Treasurer, "I can manage the health care system with a 2% increase," was a courageous move. I applaud the Minister of Health for taking that initiative, and I suggest to the minister that she should be upfront with the stakeholders and tell them what that means, give them a dollar figure. Invite them in, invite the opposition in, invite me in, invite others, the taxpayers and those who are using the services -- not the doctors, not the politicians; more important than ourselves and the doctors and the nurses and those who draw their income from the system are the taxpayers and the Ontarians who use the health care system -- and say: "Here's the amount of money we have. Help us make decisions as to how we can spend it."

There will be programs cut. There will be no more universality under your 2% solution. We know that, and I think Ontarians know that. If you would be upfront with them, if you would take some of the advice we gave you in New Directions and involve them, I think we could make the decisions we need to make to still have the best health care system in this province that my party built up over 42 years, to still have guaranteed universal access for every Ontarian regardless of geographic location, age, income or ability to pay. But you have not done that.

You've shown some courage. We don't think you'll be able to live up to it without arbitrarily cutting services, without involving the consumer. I think you could if you would do it in an upfront, planned way. So, as we talked about in New Directions, I repeat the offer to the government to assist with that.

In New Directions we also put forward for the government and the public's consideration policy and program proposals which we believe would encourage growth, employment and investment in this province. We called for a change on Sunday shopping, but the budget instead is going to bring us casino gambling. We called for the establishment of community and industrial bond programming; the government has decided to stick with fiddling with pension funds and tax-supported worker buyouts. We called for a moratorium on the labour law changes, but government is determined to proceed with these reforms, which will discourage investment and will slow recovery.

1620

We called for selective tax cuts. You know, had you increased your own spending the same as you told hospitals, colleges, universities and municipalities they had a 1% increase, you could have cut taxes $1 billion instead of hiked them $1 billion. You could have said to Standard and Poor's, "We have a plan and it makes sense." They would have agreed with you.

We called for those selective tax cuts to stimulate consumption, to give more money back into the hands of taxpayers, consumers, families, individuals. That indeed would have stimulated the economy and created jobs.

We called for a balanced budget requirement, not some airy-fairy projections. We've seen those with every federal government for the last 30 years and now every provincial government in the last eight. It's always next year, five years into the future, 10 years into the future. New Directions suggests that you've got to do better than that, Treasurer.

We're going to have to limit ourselves. We're going to have to be upfront and honest with the taxpayers and the citizens of this province about what we can and cannot afford. We offered to assist with that. We called for a phase-out of the employer health tax for small business. Instead we got an extension of the employer health tax.

Mr Treasurer and Premier, I suggest to you that it will not come as a surprise to you in a partisan sense that we will oppose this budget. I want to tell you, though, that you've missed a marvellous opportunity, just as the Liberals before you missed opportunities, to help return this province to where it was for 42 years: the province of hope and opportunity, the province that led the world, the province that was envied across Canada and across the world. That should be the goal of the government. We have so many blessings in this province that none of us can take credit for: the resources; the trees -- not as many as we once had, but more than most countries; clean water and air; geography, situated here on the Great Lakes; infrastructure -- not as good as it was in 1985, but still better than most jurisdictions; our people.

Think of where we are in relation to many eastern European countries. For 50 years the work ethic has been stifled. Here it's only been in the last seven that you've stifled the work ethic, particularly these last few budgets that have said, "Don't upgrade yourself, don't think about working overtime, don't get an extra job, don't work extra hours, don't get a better education, don't try and go for that promotion or raise, because if you do and you get to $53,000, we're going to take it all away from you anyway."

That's the signal you've sent out, and that's the wrong signal, the wrong message that built this province. It indeed was when government policy rewarded initiative, rewarded hard work, when we allowed people who sacrificed a little now to save for later to keep that money and did not take it away from them after. That is what encouraged people to work hard and get ahead in this province. You are destroying that, Treasurer, with this budget. That is the biggest disaster of this budget.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Dennis Drainville): Mr Harris moves that the amendment to the resolution moved by the Treasurer on 30 April be amended by adding after the word "economy" the following:

"recognizing that the tax policies proposed by the 1992 budget constitute an attack on the middle class and a betrayal of the government's promise made in its Agenda for People to increase the fairness of the tax system; and

"recognizing that the 1992 budget is the latest in a series dating back to 1985 which through tax, borrow and spend fiscal policies have burdened this and future generations of Ontarians with higher taxes and more debt; and

"recognizing that the tax hikes imposed by the 1992 budget could have been avoided had the government adopted the same standard of spending restraint that it imposed on its transfer agency partners; and

"recognizing that the policies and programs proposed in the budget will fail to counterbalance the negative effects of the government's policies on Sunday shopping and labour law reform on investors and on consumers; and

"recognizing that the budget understates the deficit and fails to provide a complete and accurate picture of the province's financial position,

"Therefore believes that this government lacks the confidence of the House."

Further debate? The honourable member for Hamilton Centre.

On motion by Mr Christopherson, the debate was adjourned.

Ms Wark-Martyn moved third reading of Bill 130, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act / Loi modifiant la Loi sur la taxe de vente au détail.

The Acting Speaker: The honourable minister. No? Okay. Further debate on Bill 130? The honourable member for Etobicoke West.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): Thank you, Mr Speaker.

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): You're supposed to call Bill 86, guys.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, just to clarify for the government benches, I understood that Bill 86 was supposed to be called next.

Mr Chiarelli: By all-party agreement, Bill 86 is supposed to be first.

Hon Shelley Martel (Minister of Northern Development and Mines): Mr Speaker, it was my understanding that it was the reverse order. However, if people are prepared now to speak on Bill 86, on the gas tax, I ask for unanimous consent to revert back to that.

The Acting Speaker: Do we have unanimous consent that we revert to Bill 86? There is unanimous consent.

1630

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1992 / LOI DE 1992 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L'ESSENCE

Ms Wark-Martyn moved third reading of Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act / Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur l'essence.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Drainville): Any opening remarks? Any debate?

Mr Robert Chiarelli (Ottawa West): At the outset, I want to underline for any of the public who might be watching these deliberations, in order that they not become confused, that when we look at Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, we are addressing a bill that comes out of last year's budget of April 29, 1991. Of course, we have now had delivered the current budget of April 30, 1992. Some of the issues members will want to address will apply to the 1991 budget, namely, Bill 86, and some of them will also apply to the impact of Bill 86 on the current budget of April 30, 1992.

I did want to make a couple of preliminary comments, particularly with respect to the member for Nipissing, the leader of the third party. I note in his comments and the comments of some of the other members of the third party, particularly the member for Carleton, Mr Sterling, they will frequently address their budgetary comments not only to the NDP government but also to the previous Liberal government.

I can only say it's done on a regular basis and it's done because the members on that side know the NDP will be a one-term government. The contest next time will be with the Liberals as the front runners and perhaps the Tories running hard to catch us. So it is quite normal to see that the Tory members are regularly and always criticizing the former Liberal government because, as I said, they know this NDP government is a one-term government.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: I call the member for Etobicoke West to order. I believe the member for Ottawa West has the floor.

Mr Chiarelli: It is absolutely amazing that at random the third party can throw lobs and grenades at the Liberal Party over here, the official opposition, yet if we address their political comments, they react very violently. I suppose that's understandable, because when you're third you try harder.

I want to address the fact that Bill 86 represents a bill coming out of the April 29, 1991, budget and not the 1992 budget. Bill 86 taxes the people of Ontario very heavily. We see particularly in this budget that the government has so-called job creation programs. It allocates hundreds of millions of dollars for one program or another and claims it allocates billions of dollars for other job creation programs.

The government and economists try to use some usual formula for determining what the job creation impact of spending will be. It also works in reverse: when a government taxes and takes money out of the system, it costs jobs. Bill 86 costs jobs in Ontario. The $1-billion tax in the budget of last week cost jobs in Ontario. In fact, it cost 25,000 jobs. The issue is jobs.

I want to refer to this year's budget and how it will multiply the impact of Bill 86 from last year's budget in terms of costing jobs in Ontario. Let's look at this year's budget from a jobs perspective, and we will relate it to Bill 86, Mr Speaker. First, we predict the $1 billion coming from 12 tax increases will kill 25,000 jobs in Ontario. That's the same formula governments use to say that jobs will be created when they allocate money for capital spending, for example.

They can't have it both ways. They can't indicate in a budget that by spending money they are creating jobs and then leave out of the calculation the $1 billion they're taking out of the system which will cost jobs. By all standard calculations, the $1 billion in taxes they're taking from consumers, the regular people, taxpayers and individuals across this province, will cost 25,000 jobs.

The budget takes more money out of individual pockets and hurts consumer confidence. There is little in this budget to encourage private business to invest and create new jobs in Ontario. In fact, there's been a haemorrhaging of jobs and red ink in this economy over the last year. There are 609,000 people unemployed in Ontario today. In March alone, more than 1,000 Ontarians lost their jobs every day. The jobless rate in this province is at 10.5%.

If I can address this government's so-called job creation budget of last week, the 90,000 jobs the NDP is claiming to create through Jobs Ontario is in fact a training program disguised as a job creation program and does not create long-term jobs. Training is good; we've got to put dollars into training and job retraining to become competitive, but it is very deceptive to say, when you put money into job training, that is job creation. The two simply don't compute, and I believe that is a misrepresentation in the budget. Many other members have referred to that as well.

I also want to refer to another provision in the budget of last week, the $2.3-billion, five-year Jobs Ontario capital fund which allocates only $500 million for 1992-93. They throw big figures around; they're talking in terms of $2.3 billion, but when you read the small print they're only allocating $500 million for 1992-93. That's what the people who don't have jobs in Ontario today are looking at. They're looking at the numbers for 1992-93.

This should be compared to last year's budget where there was a so-called $700-million capital creation program. That program, through midyear adjustments, was reduced to a mere $400 million, which was part of this past year's disastrous scenario. The prospect is for about the same results.

They took $700 billion for capital creation last year. They reduced it in-year to $400 million. We have seen the disastrous scenario of job losses and yet in this year's budget they're reallocating a mere $500 million for job creation, which is less than last year's allocation and which we will certainly have to tie into last year's results, which were absolutely no job creation but continual and constant job haemorrhaging.

I want to refer to the Jobs Ontario homes fund. It is estimated to create 2,400 jobs --

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member for Ottawa West will know that he is really leaving the track far behind in terms of his consideration of Bill 86. I would ask him to focus his remarks on the bill, so that we can continue to hear the obviously important remarks that the honourable member has to make on this important question.

Mr Chiarelli: I appreciate your comments, Mr Speaker, but if I may, with respect, Bill 86 takes a lot of money out of the system. It takes money out from taxpayers. It costs jobs, on the same rationale that putting money into the system supposedly creates jobs.

We're looking at a budget bill and with a budget bill traditionally in this place the Speakers have allowed the debate to refer to budgetary provisions generally and relate one budget bill to another budget bill. I can understand your concerns, Mr Speaker, but I will very quickly, within 90 seconds, be moving directly into Bill 86, so I ask you to please bear with me on that particular point.

The last point I wanted to make is that the Jobs Ontario homes fund is estimated to create 2,400 jobs for 1992-93. That's not close to the 25,000 job losses that will result from the $1 billion in tax increases and it doesn't come anywhere close to picking up the job losses that are flowing through from last year to this year as a result of the tax increases in Bill 86. Mr Speaker, my comments are very relevant, with respect.

1640

On balance, I want to say that the job situation is very critical. Last year's budgetary provisions, which we're just debating now, impact on it, and this year's budget doesn't do any catch-up whatsoever for the job losses over the last year. The whole issue of job losses, whether they come from Bill 86 tax increases or what have you, is very significant. What is important is to have business confidence, for the international investment community to have confidence in this government so that it will invest and create jobs.

The budget of 1992 creates a lot of problems in that area and the budget of 1991 creates many problems as well. I do want to address the 1991 budget bill, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, in some detail. Just to set the scene, I want to let you know that there is a problem with respect to gasoline pricing in the Ottawa-Carleton area, particularly within the municipal limits of the region of Ottawa-Carleton.

I want to spend some time addressing this issue. I had hoped to be able to address my comments last December when these bills were first up, but apparently the agenda became very crowded. At that time, I did want to move some amendments to this bill in committee of the whole, which is not available at the present time, but I'm going to ask the minister, who's sitting in her place, if she would give some consideration, after hearing the concerns of the residents of Ottawa-Carleton, to looking at the issue of gasoline prices and how the gasoline tax increase impacts on the residents of Ottawa-Carleton.

I am going to refer at some length to various correspondence and newspaper articles. A lot of investigative journalism has taken place in Ottawa with respect to this issue. I want to say that the issue has been very high-profile in Ottawa-Carleton, beyond belief. I am talking about radio programs and newspaper articles day after day, week after week, month after month, and petitions and action by consumers in a very significant way.

The members of this Legislature are not aware of it. The government is not aware of it because we have one NDP member from Ottawa-Carleton, the member for Ottawa Centre, Ms Gigantes, who will not raise a voice on local concerns in the Ottawa area. Mr Speaker, you can differ with me or members on the opposite side can differ with me, but I would bet my life that they don't know anything about the gasoline pricing problem in Ottawa-Carleton. Perhaps the minister does, but the members don't. The government doesn't because the member for Ottawa Centre sits on her hands, buttons her lips and does not become an advocate for important issues for the people of Ottawa-Carleton in this Legislature.

So, Mr Speaker, with your indulgence, to set the scene, I want to refer to a fairly lengthy article, "Pumped Up for Lower Gas Prices," the Ottawa Citizen, October 19, 1991.

It's headlined, "Savings of 11 Cents per Litre Can Be Found Outside the City." This article is written by an Ottawa Citizen business writer, Kristin Goff, who has been following this issue like a dog with a bone. She just wouldn't let it go, and did a lot of reporting and a lot of investigation. That's why I'm prepared to take the time to read this article into the record. I will refer to other articles in other papers as well to highlight the problem in Ottawa-Carleton.

I'll start. This is the article from the Ottawa Citizen:

"If you're mad as hell about high gasoline prices in Ottawa and after 22 weeks of posting one of the highest prices in the province

"If you're mad as hell about high gasoline prices in Ottawa -- and after 22 weeks of posting one of the highest prices in the province, who isn't? -- you don't have to take it any more. You can take a 45-minute drive to Smiths Falls and pay 48.9 cents a litre, burning up on the way home some of the 10.1-cents-a-litre savings from the average price in Ottawa.

"If you're not quite mad enough to drive that far, you might want to try Winchester, where the going rate was 52.7 cents this week. Or head south down Highway 31, and find prices from Ottawa city limits to Metcalfe in the 53 to 53.3 range. It may be the closest thing Ottawa has to a gasoline alley."

The next headline says, "Highway 31 Bargains."

"There are 10 stations between Leitrim and the Metcalfe turnoff, and that makes all the difference, says Joan Bradley of Drummonds Gas. 'There's one every few feet. I would say that's why we're lower than Ottawa. There's so much competition,' she said. But the theory doesn't hold true for the inner city gas strips found in such areas as Carling Avenue."

That is in my riding, and the people in my riding are concerned about gasoline prices, very, very significantly.

"There are nine stations on Carling in a short stretch between Pinecrest and Kirkwood, yet the going rate at every one is 59.9 cents a litre, except for an unbranded station, Francis Fuels, at 59.4 cents.

"There are a few relative bargains to be found in certain spots in the city. Pioneer on Rideau Street downtown, which staged a much-publicized bargain gas sale for a few days last month, is selling for 55.9 cents a litre.

"Along Cyrville Road, where Seaway Gas several times sparked short-lived gas wars, the price is 56.5 cents, and at TopValu on Montreal Road near St Laurent it will cost you 56.3 cents a litre.

"There are also cheaper prices as you head east into Orleans and beyond, or west in some spots in Kanata and to the west. You may find better prices than we did in a spot check of the area."

I'll leave out some of the article, but I will go on and read a quote here:

"Still, like Linda Potter, who lives south of Ottawa in the Manotick area, many people believe there is a price barrier around the Ottawa-Carleton region. 'It's terrible. You wonder where the line is around Ottawa. Prices are always so much higher,' says Potter, who, with her husband, watches prices closely because they have trucks to fuel for a small family business.

"At least one oil company official sort of agrees, although he doesn't think it is at all terrible. Keith Jackson, a spokesman for Shell Canada, says, 'There is a minimum of competition in the Ottawa marketplace'" --

The Acting Speaker: I'd ask the honourable member to take a seat for a moment. As the honourable member will know, quoting at length from documents generally isn't accepted in the House. I've given you three minutes of quoting that particular article. I believe that is giving you a great deal of latitude. If there is any other information you wish to share with the House, if you could paraphrase it and move on, I'd appreciate that.

Mr Chiarelli: Mr Speaker, I will defer to your ruling. However, I think it is very contrary to the nature of the imposition of that rule by former Speakers, and I think particularly of many debates when members from the NDP government were on this side.

Mr Speaker, I see the Minister of Revenue laughing on the other side. Because of that, I'm going to indicate to you, with respect, that this is a very well-thought-out, researched document that is very relevant to gasoline prices in Bill 86, and I will say that my constituents in Ottawa West and Ottawa-Carleton will not be happy if you don't permit me to read the rest of this article into the record. Mr Speaker, I will read in conclusion a mere three paragraphs which are statistical in nature and then I will go on to some additional comments.

"The latest provincial government survey again shows Ottawa and Timmins tied for the highest-priced gasoline at 59 cents a litre.

"It was the 22nd time in the past 23 weeks" -- that's important enough to quote -- "that Ottawa had either the highest or the second-highest gas price of the 16 markets surveyed. It came in third one week in July.

"The latest survey shows Thunder Bay at 58.3 cents a litre, Sudbury at 57.3, North Bay 54.4 and Sault Ste Marie 53.4.

Mr Speaker, the last sentence of the article, and I'm sure you will appreciate it, says, "The average price in Toronto was 49.9 cents in the survey taken Wednesday and released Friday."

1650

Mr Speaker, there were some other comments in here and statistics that are very relevant. I apologize for not committing them to memory. Next time I will in order that I can represent the interests of the constituents in Ottawa-Carleton. I do take objection to your comment. I have other things I'm going to read into the record and I hope you'll have some additional patience for the sake of the constituents in my riding and the Ottawa-Carleton area.

I will very briefly refer to an additional article which quotes the member for Welland-Thorold in this particular instance. I can say parenthetically, Mr Speaker, as one who was interested in current events before your election, I am sure you watched with delight his filibuster in this Legislature where he quoted from documents at length without any undue interruption from the Speaker. I do want to quote him now very briefly.

This is in a local newspaper in the member's area. It's the Tribune of Friday, October 18, 1991:

"Kormos -- the outspoken New Democrat MPP from Welland-Thorold who has openly criticized the performance of his party's government on numerous occasions -- was at it again as he joined Haeck" -- that's the member for St Catharines, Christel Haeck -- "to discuss a number of political issues."

I'm referring this quote to my comments previously on the inaction of the member for Ottawa Centre, Evelyn Gigantes, on this --

Ms Christel Haeck (St Catharines-Brock): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: It is definitely confusing for many members in this House that there are two ridings that have St Catharines in them. I represent the riding of St Catharines-Brock. Mr Bradley represents the riding of St Catharines for the Liberals.

The Acting Speaker: That was certainly a point of information and I thank the honourable member.

Mr Chiarelli: At least the people out in the audience will now know who I'm referring to in this particular article which does refer to her. I do apologize for leaving the last part of her riding name out when I referred to her.

"During the half-hour interview Kormos took several shots at the Bob Rae government, saying it seemed to be concerned only with Toronto and was clearly out of touch with the rest of the province.

"'The problem is, you've got politicians up there in Toronto that won't take the time to get out of their limousines and talk to real people,' Kormos said" on the member's program.

I'm continuing my quote here very briefly: "'The disdain that people feel about politicians, well, I'll tell you, politicians have earned it,' Kormos said, wrapping up his comments." He was talking about --

Ms Haeck: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: While the member is referring to a particular television program which I'm not sure he saw in its entirety, I was in fact in attendance and all the things he is saying so far are very far from the point of this particular bill. I personally would appreciate that he actually return to the subject of the bill and the debate.

The Acting Speaker: That is not a point of order at this point. I thank the member for St Catharines-Brock.

Mr Chiarelli: When the member was trying to remember the name of her riding, I think she didn't hear me make the connection. The connection I made was that this issue on Bill 86 that I'm referring to in a particular way which impacts in the Ottawa-Carleton area should have been represented in this Legislature by the member for Ottawa Centre, Ms Gigantes, which she did not do. All I am saying is that the member for Welland-Thorold agrees with me that a lot of the decision-making is Toronto-based and Toronto-directed and that it's very difficult to get this government to look at things from a regional perspective.

Mr Chris Stockwell (Etobicoke West): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think it is very important that we have a quorum. It would be in order, and not having one, it would be preferable if some government members came in, I think, sir.

The Acting Speaker ordered the bells rung.

1657

The Acting Speaker: As the quorum is now present we will resume debate. The honourable member for Ottawa West.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): I see you've got some people to listen to you now.

Mr Chiarelli: The member of the third party says we have some people to listen to us now. That's part of the problem. The government doesn't have enough people listening.

We are, as I mentioned, dealing with Bill 86, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, from last year's budget. Of course, there are hundreds of millions of dollars of taxation which come out of this legislation, and that impacts very significantly on the question of jobs. In addition to impacting on jobs, there is a very significant cross-border shopping issue which is a geography-related impact of this legislation.

There's another geographic impact of this legislation, and that is with respect to the Ottawa-Carleton area. Although it's not cross-border shopping, there is something wrong with the gas pricing system and the gas taxing system when it can have that type of impact on the Ottawa-Carleton area.

The minister knows full well, and I will refer to that a bit later, that the government of last year made special provision to address high gasoline prices in the north. I'm trying to address the fact that there should be special provision made with respect to gasoline taxation or pricing in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

While the government can address the northern problem, the statistics here, which are very clear, indicate that the government should at least give consideration to and address the problem in Ottawa-Carleton so that at least the people in Ottawa-Carleton will know why they are burdened with such high gasoline prices that I managed to slip in by quotation.

On the face of it, the bill appears to treat all parts of the province equally, as I mentioned. It appears to place an equal, additional burden on the drivers of this province. This is far from the truth.

Just over a year and a half ago the Premier, then Leader of the Opposition told the Thunder Bay Times -- this is the Premier who introduced this massive gasoline tax hike, also the speaker who will not address the disparity in pricing in the Ottawa-Carleton area:

"He restated a campaign promise made last week that the NDP government would empower the provincial energy commission to bring in a one-price system for gasoline in the province. 'I really think consumers are being ripped off by gas companies.'"

That's a quote from the Premier and that's only a little over 18 months ago. I'd like to know what the Premier meant when he said that.

We're seeing a very major broken promise here. The Premier is doing absolutely nothing to solve the situation with respect to gasoline disparity in the province, at least not with respect to the problems of cross-border shopping in those communities and certainly not with respect to the needs of the people of Ottawa-Carleton.

I referred a minute ago to the fact that last year's budget removed the annual licence fee for northerners, representing a $15-million subsidy for northern Ontario gas prices. I see a northern member applauding, and I applaud it too. I would not want to see the government take away that very reasonable and rational initiative for the people of the north, but this government has done nothing but monitor gasoline prices in the Ottawa-Carleton area. You can see that the price per litre in the Metropolitan Toronto area versus the Ottawa-Carleton area is a 10-cent-per-litre discrepancy. I simply ask why.

The people in Ottawa-Carleton -- journalists, elected officials, the mayor of the city, the regional chairman -- have written letters saying: "Please look into it. Do something for us. If there's a logical answer, fine, we'll bite the bullet," but they didn't have to bite the bullet up north. They got a $15-million subsidy for northern Ontario gas prices.

I honestly believe the Minister of Revenue is not aware of the gas discrepancy as it exists in the Ottawa-Carleton area. I hope she will listen to some of my comments and address some of the concerns raised in the other documents I will refer to, because it's significant. She doesn't know it, nor does the Minister of Energy know it, because none of this material was brought to their attention by the member for Ottawa Centre. In a sense, the people in Ottawa-Carleton are at a disadvantage, perhaps, because they only have one member to turn to. On the other hand, this is such a significant issue in Ottawa-Carleton it should be high on the agenda, on the priority list, for the member for Ottawa Centre to bring it to the attention --

The Acting Speaker: I would like to bring to the attention of the House the fact that the member for Ottawa West has the floor. There are many conversations going on right now that shouldn't be going on and I'd ask for some attention to be paid to the honourable member for Ottawa West.

Mr Chiarelli: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I appreciate that.

I want to go back to the Premier. I referred to a quote of the Premier's a few minutes ago. I want to go back to another quote. I think it's very important to look at where the Premier's head space was when he was in opposition, when he was pretending to represent all the people of Ontario. It's a totally different story today when we look at what's happening in Bill 86, the imposition of that very burdensome tax on cross-border communities, like people in Ottawa-Carleton, like people in the north, who have to be subsidized on their gasoline prices because the prices have gone up so high.

If I can refer again to the Premier, not only did the Premier promise a one-price gas system for Ontario but on August 13, 1990, he told a radio audience that he "would ensure the province had the legal power to prevent gas price gouging."

Mr Stockwell: He didn't say that, did he?

Mr Chiarelli: Yes, to the member of the third party, he did say that.

Even after assuming office, several days after the election, the Premier told the Toronto Star "he vows to bar price gouging by oil companies."

What is going on with these people who call themselves responsible government? From September 1990 to April 29, 1991, a few short months, he's gone from being the protector and the defender of the people over high gasoline prices in different communities across the province to imposing this unbelievable Bill 86, which we are only debating today.

I might add how strange it is that we're debating Bill 86 today, a 1991 budgetary provision, even after the 1992 budget has been introduced. I can only remind the public that this government delayed bringing this Legislature back for two weeks according to the normal calendar, for no reason whatsoever, when we could have done these bills in proper sequence before the next budget had come in so that we wouldn't have the overlap.

Hon Shelley Wark-Martyn (Minister of Revenue): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I'd like to remind the member across the floor that it was I who brought in his previous Liberal tax bills. Why could he not wait until after the election and do his bills before the election?

The Acting Speaker: There is no point of order.

Mr Chiarelli: I am absolutely happy that the member will stand up and acknowledge that she's prepared to implement good legislation that the Liberals had previously commenced, such as the Attorney General has done on several other bills earlier this week.

Perhaps I can refer to the statistics again, just to put it in context. I'm going back to October or November, when the latest provincial government survey showed that Ottawa and Timmins were tied for the highest-priced gasoline at 59 cents a litre. At the same time, over that period the average price in Toronto was 49.9 cents a litre.

I want to refer to another newspaper article. I'm going to ask your indulgence -- it's not that long -- and I'm going to read it because I think it's extremely instructive. I could stand here and pretend to paraphrase it, but I want to be upfront. I just want to take the time to very briefly read it, and it won't be that long.

This is an article that was printed in the Ottawa Sun, Thursday, June 27, 1991. It is headlined, "Ottawa's High Gas Prices a Capital Offence: The Fix Is On," by Ron Corbett, the business editor.

"If you know anyone in this city who believes he's paying a fair price for gasoline then show him this column. If you are such a person, then sit down and get ready for an awakening.

"Yesterday, I received a phone call from Mohamed Bassuny, manager of Seaway Gas on Cyrville Road. You may remember Bassuny. In March he became a minor media celebrity when he tried to drop the price of gas at his station and found he couldn't.

"Bassuny's competitors complained to the owner of Seaway about the price drop. The owner was duly pressured to jack the price back up. Bassuny waived his commission in order to keep the price low and then the whole thing came crashing down when Bassuny's pumps went dry and no gas supplier could be found to refill them.

"Only after publicly stating he was raising his price did a gas shipment arrive.

"Since that time, Bassuny has quietly gone about his business. But two days ago, hungry for some of the overflow business he was getting back in March, he decided to lower his prices again.

"Bassuny dropped his price on unleaded gasoline by two cents a litre to 54 cents. The price cut, however, didn't please his competitors. On the very morning of the price change he was visited by the owner of a nearby gas station.

"Bassuny, who says he has been harassed and threatened since his price cuts last March, tape recorded the ensuing conversation. Here are parts of that conversation:

"'Mohamed, you're doing the same thing,' said Bassuny's competitor, who then tried to convince Bassuny to jack his prices back up, promising to match Seaway's price and not undercut the station.

"When Bassuny said he was sticking with his price, the other gas station owner promptly threatened him: 'I'm going to go underneath you in prices. I'm telling you right away because I don't f - - - around. I can undercut you both ways, all the time, until you get fed up and go back up. I can play nice and I can play f - - - ing mean.'" That's the quote from the article.

"What the gas station owner meant by 'both ways' was the price of Bassuny's cigarettes. As well as selling cheap gas, Bassuny sells cheap cigarettes -- $5.50 a pack -- and his competitors want to dictate the price of those as well."

1710

If I can digress just a minute from the quote, I just want to indicate that the question of gasoline pricing has to do with gasoline taxes. It also has to do with being sensitive to geographical conditions, as people say about cross-border shopping and as people say about the north where they receive the subsidy. What this investigative reporter has been doing here is trying to indicate that there are special circumstances affecting gasoline prices in Ottawa-Carleton, not the least of which is the question of competition. That's very relevant to the whole issue of Bill 86.

If I can go back to the quote just for a moment: "After the threat came the promise of a little sugar if Bassuny did what he was told. 'If you play right,' the station manager said, 'you can make money.'" This was all tape recorded by Mr Bassuny and the tape was played for this particular reporter. I want that to be in the record of this Legislature.

"This tape is the most telling evidence I have ever run across on how the price of gasoline is established in the local marketplace.

"Oil company public relations men working out of posh offices in Toronto will mouth off endlessly about market forces establishing the price of gas in Ottawa and it all sounds nice and polite and fair, and the truth bears not the scantiest resemblance to what they're saying.

"The price of gas is set by conversations like the one above. It's set by threats made to station managers who dare lower prices. It's set by intimidation and backroom deals.

"It's set, in short, criminally."

Then the article goes on to indicate that this matter was referred to the federal competition minister and ministry and it was referred to the Minister of Energy and very little happened as a result of it. Mr Speaker, in deference to your concern, I've left out a fair amount of the article and I just want to wind up with a few more quotes here.

"As the competition cops plod along in secrecy, Ottawans continue to pay the second-highest prices in the province for gasoline." That's the second-highest behind a marketplace that is subsidized. "It's been that way for months now -- Timmins pays the highest; Ottawa the second-highest. It's as predictable as a fixed horse race."

There has been some correspondence between elected officials in the Ottawa-Carleton area and the Minister of Energy and there hasn't been much satisfaction to it. But I just wanted to, as I move into the next part of my presentation --

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Diatribe.

Mr Chiarelli: Diatribe, some people might say. I would like the member opposite from the NDP government to tell the constituents of Ottawa-Carleton that by putting this on the record on their behalf, it's a diatribe.

I want to repeat that on August 13 the Premier told a radio audience he would ensure the province had the legal power to prevent gas price gouging. If he honoured that promise, he would be able to deal with Mr Bassuny's problem. But he has not come through with that promise to deal with the extraordinary market influences on the price of gasoline, particularly as we see them operating in the Ottawa-Carleton area. He also indicated, as I said, that he would support a "one-price system" across the province, and I use the Premier's quote in that particular instance.

I want to look at a bit more of the record, particularly the fact that even the Toronto Sun, Mr Speaker -- so you certainly must give me some additional liberties now because I'm going into the area of the province that has so much credibility and substance and so much action out of the Queen's Park government so often that even the Toronto Star of April, 6, 1991, refers to this problem. I will précis some of my quotes.

"Investigators are asking why Ottawa and Sudbury consumers have been paying up to 14 cents a litre more than Toronto prices...

"The Ontario Energy ministry's latest gasoline price survey, released yesterday, shows the average price of regular unleaded was 60.6 cents a litre in Ottawa and 60.1 cents in Sudbury as of last Wednesday.

"That compared to 52 cents in Kingston, 48.5 cents in Peterborough, 48.5 cents in west Toronto, 46.3 cents in east Toronto and 45.7 cents in Windsor.

"In Thunder Bay, North Bay and Timmins, prices ranged between 61 and 62 cents."

The last paragraph of this particular article, written by Jonathan Ferguson in the Toronto Star, indicates, "Her ministry is considering encouraging local initiatives to start up gasoline cooperatives that run on a non-profit basis or pay out dividends to members.

"Another possibility, she said," -- we're talking about the then Energy minister -- "might be tax breaks as a way to keep gas prices lower in the north."

As we've seen, they have done some accommodating for the north with the licence fees. But the suggestion that they would consider introducing cooperatives as a way to deal with this issue is absolutely ludicrous, and it basically discloses a very naïve NDP philosophy, which we've seen over the past 18 months.

Another article from the Ottawa Citizen of October 8, 1991, basically addresses the fact -- there's some very good investigative journalism -- that publicity campaigns which are led by the media and by consumers don't work. They refer to some quotes, some experiences in the Sudbury area where that was tried, and the quote in this article, an article by Kristin Goff again in the Ottawa Citizen, refers to Sudbury Star reporter Malcolm Scully, who said the newspaper's campaign is not intended to replace government action to guard against price fixing or other problems in the market.

The paper had been publishing the lowest gasoline price it could find in the area since early last winter. "The campaign appeared to be highly effective when it first started and even triggered some price wars, Scully said, but interest has waned and prices haven't been changing much recently," and they've gone back up.

I have a letter from a constituent that I won't put into the record, but it is a very significant letter from a concerned consumer addressing the price of gasoline in my riding, Ottawa West. He's referring particularly to the fact that the government has been monitoring prices, but it has done nothing.

The figures I'm showing here are from the regular gasoline survey that is conducted by the Ministry of Energy. They have done nothing about it, at least not in Ottawa-Carleton; they have up north. I congratulate the northern members and the people in the north for having that benefit, but certainly the people in Ottawa-Carleton don't have that benefit.

The people in Ottawa-Carleton don't even necessarily want special treatment. They're not even saying, "Amend this law," or, "Amend that law." They're saying, "Please find out the answers why." Does the Minister of Revenue know why gasoline prices within the boundaries of Ottawa-Carleton are five to 10 cents a litre higher? "Oh, competition," they say, "It's just competition." Well, some of the information I've put into the record indicates that is not an answer.

1720

There needs to be a fundamental review. The question of gasoline pricing, the question of Bill 86, which is a tax on gasoline, goes much beyond a mere tax. It deals with a fundamental component of our economy, the price of fuel, the price of gasoline, which affects border communities, which impacts on the economies of the north -- which was able to get special treatment -- and impacts on the consumers in Ottawa-Carleton, many of whom are retired. My riding of Ottawa West has one of the largest number of retired residents of any riding in Canada. They're feeling the squeeze and they can't understand why, in order to get a reasonable price for gasoline on a comparative basis, they've got to drive 60 or 70 kilometres.

I don't have the answer. Had the agenda not become so crowded in November and December of last year, I would have moved an amendment to this legislation deferring the gas tax increase as it applies to Ottawa-Carleton until such time as the Minister of Revenue or the Minister of Energy conducted proper investigation into gasoline pricing in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

That's all we were asking in Ottawa-Carleton. We weren't asking for special treatment. We were saying: "Second some people, a few people from a couple of the ministries. Do a consulting contract to a couple of experts. Go out and find the reasons why gasoline prices in Ottawa Carleton are always higher than everywhere else in the province, with one exception, week after week after week." We're not asking for very much. We're not asking for any money. We're not asking for budgetary considerations. We're simply saying: "Come clean. Be fair."

To be fair, the Premier, on the eve of his election, supported a one-price gas system across the province. He supported putting some teeth into the law to prevent the type of gas gouging and the type of manipulation Mr Bassuny was referring to in that taped conversation with his competitors.

That's not asking for a lot. There are 600,000-plus people in Ottawa-Carleton. That's a very significant part of this province. They've had no response from the Minister of Energy. They've had no response from the Minister of Revenue. They've had no representation from the member for Ottawa Centre on this very important issue.

Mr Speaker, I will say, out of deference to your comments earlier, there are a lot more media coverages I'm not going to refer to, because I hope I can make my point without referring to those media --

Interjections.

Mr Chiarelli: The NDP said, "Just keep going and see what happens." They want me to test you, Mr Speaker, but I won't do that, because I respect the Chair.

Although I won't refer to newspaper articles, I want to refer to a number of pieces of correspondence, including some from this government, to interested parties.

I want to refer first of all to a letter to the then minister two ministers ago. We are on our third Minister of Energy at this point. Perhaps that's the reason why we're not getting any responsiveness on this issue of gasoline pricing. This was addressed to the Honourable Jenny Carter, the former minister, and some of the other correspondence I will refer to will refer to Mr Ferguson. I don't think we have anything quite yet from the interim minister at the present time. In any case, this is a letter dated August 30, 1991, and it's addressed to the Honourable Jenny Carter, Ontario Minister of Energy:

"As the mayor of the city of Ottawa, I am writing to you asking for your assistance into the investigation of unjust high gasoline prices in the Ottawa area.

"We, in the nation's capital, are paying more per litre for gasoline than any other city in all of Ontario. I am requesting that you, as minister, take firm action to bring forth a study or investigation as to why gasoline prices are so irregular between southern and eastern Ontario.

"The price that Ottawa consumers pay is not acceptable or fair. It is time the province took the initiative, as they did in northern Ontario, and not only explained the high price but also offered some form of solution. These high pump prices are having an adverse effect on our tourism industry here.

"I urge you to address the negative impact these high prices have on the Ottawa consumers and take immediate action to correct this injustice to our local motorists.

"I appreciate your attention and look forward to an early reply.

"Yours sincerely" and it is signed by the mayor of Ottawa.

The province continues to ignore this type of plea coming from the Ottawa area. Where is the member for Ottawa Centre? Has this Minister of Revenue even seen this letter from the mayor of Ottawa? He's not some stump alderman in some boondocks; he's the mayor of the capital city of Canada. It's also a regional council for a municipality that represents 600,000 people.

I bet my life again that this Minister of Revenue sitting across from here has not even heard of this letter, nor has the member for Ottawa Centre brought it to her attention. Yet we're here expecting quick passage of Bill 86, a bill that retroactively increases the price of gasoline to the residents of Ottawa-Carleton.

I also want to refer again to a resolution of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton dated September 11, 1991. I want it on the record because the people in Ottawa-Carleton want to know that their voice is being heard. It is not being heard from the member for Ottawa Centre and it is not being heard from the two ministers responsible. I would say to the members opposite, I would hazard a guess, I would bet my life there is not one of them over there who is aware of this resolution passed by a municipality in this province of some 670,000 people.

"Moved by Councillor B. Franklin,

"Seconded by Councillor D. Kent,

"Resolved that the Minister of Energy for the province of Ontario be requested to conduct an inquiry to provide the residents of Ottawa-Carleton with the logical rationale explaining why retail gasoline prices in the region are the highest in the province of Ontario. A rationale explaining regional fluctuations should also be provided."

That was unanimously resolved September 11, 1991.

The Premier, a month before he was elected, would have supported that. He wanted one price across the province. He wanted to pass a law that would enable price gouging to stop, at the very least to conduct such an investigation. Believe it or not, the Minister of Energy has said: "This is not my area of responsibility. I'm washing my hands of it. It's the federal competition department that should be looking into it."

Obviously the Minister of Energy was not aware of the Premier's comments, the Premier's quotes, which I put on the record earlier, that said that there ought to be one-price system, that there should be no price gouging and that he was going to pass laws that would enable proper control of market conditions evenly and equally across the province.

The Premier hasn't done it. He hasn't done it in the budget. He had the opportunity in Bill 86. Bill 86 is ideally drafted in concert with any proposed increases, if only out of fairness, to authorize such an investigation. Out of fairness, if only for transitional purposes and, to be quite blunt, if only for good, plain, sound political reasons, he ought to have said, "We're also going to introduce a bill so that we can look into gasoline prices." But then again, perhaps he thought the government would have to end up investigating itself, because it is a major contributor to gasoline prices.

1730

This is a much greater issue than merely Ottawa-Carleton. This resolution, which comes out of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, can be put on the Premier's desk with all those resolutions and representations that came from border municipalities, with the impact of Bill 86, the bill that increases gasoline taxes. The Ottawa-Carleton resolution has got to be put on the same table as the people from the north who have made representations with respect to northern gas prices and all those border communities that have made such strong representations.

This government had the opportunity to address those concerns in this budget. It could have amended Bill 86 by the budget of 1992. It could have created jobs by taking this gasoline tax off. A tax increase of $40,000 costs one job. Capital spending or putting spending back into the economy of $40,000 creates one job. We have a doubling up here. We have Bill 86, which takes hundreds of millions of dollars out of taxpayers' pockets, costing jobs. In addition to taking money out of circulation for the price of gas, it is absolutely multiplied by the impetus it gives to cross-border shopping.

There is no rational policy input on the whole issue of gasoline pricing in Ontario -- not from the point of view of tax increases, not from the point of view of competition, not from the point of view of a one-price gas system to affect the whole region.

There is another very good article by Kristin Goff in the Ottawa Citizen. I was planning on reading it into the record also, because truly she has done a tremendous job of investigative reporting. I think I will refer to just one part of it. I won't test your patience, Mr Speaker, but I will read it to show you how significant the lobby and the concern is in the Ottawa-Carleton area with respect to gasoline prices. It's no less than the concern for gasoline prices that exists in border communities and the whole issue of cross-border shopping.

I want to refer to Kristin Goff's Ottawa Citizen article of April 2, 1991. She did an interview with David Simpson, who is the executive director of the Consumers' Association of Canada.

"Simpson, of the consumers' group, is convinced that Ottawa's gasoline market doesn't reflect competition and fair prices. He argues that the high dealer margins in Ottawa are yet another sign of the industry's preference to go for higher prices and lower volumes, rather than individual stations trying to increase their market share by lowering prices.

"Ottawa motorists are being overcharged 'because we don't have a marketplace in Ottawa and the majors are able to somehow control prices and artificially keep prices beyond what they should normally and naturally do if you had a marketplace,' said Simpson."

That's the executive director of the Consumers' Association of Canada addressing this particular issue.

"Although analysts like Spencer Knipping of the Ontario Energy ministry say it is the independent retailers and retail chains who almost always start trends to lower prices, that wasn't the case in Ottawa this winter.

"Esso Petroleum, which had been the first to raise prices as they climbed following the start of the Persian Gulf crisis, finally took the lead on the way down as well on January 22, dropping prices by 2.5 cents a litre in Ottawa and three cents in Hull.

"That defied the prediction of Esso's top executive, Imperial Oil chairman Arden Haynes, who only the month before had said it was 'likely' independents would lead prices down in Ottawa when they started to fall."

Why is this government letting the media and the Consumers' Association of Canada do its job, when the Premier is clearly on record as saying that unequal gasoline prices and unfair competition in gasoline pricing in Ontario is unacceptable? Why must the media and the Consumers' Association of Canada and an opposition member have to bring it to the attention of this government, and not the cabinet member from Ottawa Centre, Ms Gigantes, who hasn't made a peep, who hasn't raised the issue, and I would say probably hasn't even raised it in cabinet?

If she has, let her come forward and say she has. If she has taken the letters from the mayor of Ottawa and the resolution from the regional chair of Ottawa-Carleton and brought them and put them on the Energy minister's desk and said, "Do something about it," let her stand in here and say that. But she can't, because she didn't, and she has no priority for the issues in Ottawa-Carleton.

Mr Jim Wiseman (Durham West): How many times did she stand up when you guys were in government and you raised taxes?

Mr Chiarelli: I do want to say that when the Liberals were in government we raised a few taxes, but we also dropped 28 taxes in our short term.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Order.

Mr Chiarelli: I also want to refer to a letter to then minister Jenny Carter from one of the federal MPs --

Mr Bisson: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think a member who's been around this Legislature for a while should know you can't address another member by name but only by riding.

1740

Mr Chiarelli: I do want to apologize to the Chair for referring by member, but I got carried away. There were so many interjections from the other side, which as well is against the rules of this House, that it was a bit distracting and I just lost my train of thought for a minute.

As I mentioned, I wanted to refer to some correspondence here from various interest groups to various ministers. I'm taking a little time finding my notes here, because I realize the significance of what I'm saying and I want it to sink in on the government side.

I have a letter here from someone the government would be very interested in hearing from. It's a letter to then minister Will Ferguson, but, my goodness, it's from a union. The NDP is going to listen now. This letter is actually from a union on this issue. Now all the ears are pricking up on the government side. This is the Ontario Taxi Union. It's dated August 27, 1991, and it's addressed to the Honourable Will Ferguson, Ontario Minister of Energy.

"As you probably know, retail gasoline prices in the Ottawa area are the highest in the province and some five and six cents higher than those in southern Ontario, and Ontario Ministry of Energy officials speculate that pump prices may rise by yet another cent per litre in the near future.

"These high prices are discouraging tourism, which is one of Ottawa main industries. Furthermore, high pump prices are impacting negatively on every Ottawa area consumer, as well as on local transportation businesses that purchase large quantities of gasoline. One such business is Blue Line Taxi Co Ltd, of whose union I am president.

"The Bureau of Competition Policy is currently inves tigating the possibility of price-fixing. Although the investigation has not concluded, you must fulfil your duties as Minister of Energy to take steps to deal with the gas price problem. After all, the price disparities between gasoline in Ottawa and that in southern Ontario will exist regardless of the investigation's outcome.

"Thank you for your assistance. I trust you will take immediate action to correct this discrimination against Ottawa area motorists.

"Yours truly,

"Mohamad Alsadi,

"President, Ontario Taxi Union, Local 1688."

They're not even listening to their own NDP union members who are concerned about the price increases caused by Bill 86. As I mentioned earlier, this government is not listening to anybody when it comes to gasoline pricing in this province.

The minister also received letters -- and I won't go into details -- from other unions in the area, including the Amalgamated Transit Union, Local 279, Mr Randy Graham, who demands action for Ottawa from the provincial government. These people are all saying they don't want to see any more buck-passing.

I want to refer to a letter which was addressed to the then minister, Jenny Carter, from the federal member of Parliament for Ottawa Centre. It is interesting to note that the federal member of Parliament has been very concerned, as well as many other interested people and interested groups in the Ottawa-Carleton area, but nothing from the member for Ottawa Centre.

I want to refer to this letter, which says:

"Dear Ms Carter:

"As you know, disparities in regional gas prices have long been an albatross around the neck of many Ontario consumers. In the nation's capital and in my riding of Ottawa Centre" -- where we have no voice in this Legislature on the provincial level -- "motorists are paying the highest pump price of residents of any other Ontario city, second only to Timmins. And provincial taxes on unleaded gasoline are higher in Ontario than in any other province and are perhaps the highest in any region in all of North America.

"Consumer and Corporate Affairs is currently investigating the possibility of price-fixing. Pending the final outcome of this investigation, it is my view that the provincial government must address the other side of the problem, that of high pump prices. No move to resolve the disparities has yet been seen from the Ontario government."

I might say that this letter is dated July 16, 1991, and we still have seen no action on the part of this government, whether it's responding to the border communities on cross-border shopping or whether it responds to the issue of gasoline pricing in the Ottawa-Carleton area.

"The provincial government has recognized one area in which the gasoline disparities plaguing Ontario regions are clearly evident -- northern Ontario. The Ministry of Energy documents the disparity between northern and southern Ontario in its report, North-South Gasoline Pricing Study."

I want to interject here in my quote and I want to ask the government most directly: In light of the evidence that is presented to the Minister of Energy over a very extended period of time, why does this government establish for the north the North-South Gasoline Pricing Study but totally ignore the horrendous situation that exists in Ottawa-Carleton where the price per litre is something like 10 cents above many of the other parts of the province?

There is no answer. There is no defence to the total inaction. It is absolutely appalling that some 12 months after introducing Bill 86 from the 1991 budget, they are in here now on third reading reinforcing this disaster of a bill which costs jobs everywhere and, as I said, which impacts very negatively on the many senior citizens who live in my riding of Ottawa West.

I want to say, by introduction to the next part of the letter from the federal member for Ottawa Centre, that the provincial Minister of Energy, the second one, Mr Ferguson, will send a letter addressing these particular issues. I would encourage you, Mr Speaker, to try to remember the points that are being made in this letter and then relate them perhaps to the non-answer of Mr Ferguson, the Minister of Energy at that time; in fact, I would say quite a misleading answer, innocently I am sure.

"The ministry blames three conditions for the price differences: a smaller market size in the north that limits competition between retailers, increased distribution costs from southern refiners to the north, and a smaller average volume of gas sold per service station in the north that raises retail costs.

"While outrageous gas prices in the northern region have been well recognized by the provincial government in documents like this report, no similar study has been conducted in the Ottawa-Carleton area -- even though the same high gas prices have been sparked by the same conditions as those that plague northern Ontario. These similarities are identified by comparing the North-South Gasoline Pricing Study and a letter sent from Catriona King, an adviser of the energy policy and planning division of the Ministry of Energy, to Dr Louis Shallal, the chief systems planning engineer of the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton, on August 30, 1987."

This is very important information which I'm sure this government has totally ignored to date and which I believe it's important it become part of the record of this Legislature.

In this letter, Ms King blames the gas price disparities between Ottawa, the heart of eastern Ontario, and Toronto, the heart of southern Ontario, on several conditions that are mirrored in the Ministry of Energy report. Specifically, Ms King describes Ottawa as being about a quarter of the size of Metro Toronto in both population and gasoline volume, as well as having fewer retail gas outlets.

If I can digress here again, what we're saying here as well is that the Ministry of Energy is trying to use market discrepancies to explain -- discrepancies in the price of gasoline when the Premier, a couple of weeks before his election, and I read them into the record before, said that when he was elected he would support a one-price system across the province. Yet he is letting his ministry officials now support price discrepancies across the province, and very significant ones.

If I can go back to the federal member's letter to the minister:

"Furthermore, Ms King points out Ottawa does not share Toronto's easy access to cheaper-priced gas imports from the United States. Like cities in northern Ontario, Ottawa must instead rely on lengthy transportation of fuel.

"Based on the parallel between the gas price problem evident in eastern Ontario -- which encompasses my Ottawa Centre riding -- and those the government recognizes in northern Ontario, the government must treat eastern and northern Ontario the same when it addresses gas price irregularities.

"In particular, the provincial government must consider restoring the balance in eastern Ontario with the same gas subsidies it is considering in northern Ontario," it says in this letter, but in fact it's been given to northern Ontario. "As you know, your government has eliminated vehicle licence fees for northern residents to compensate for high gas prices. The same concession should be made to the suffering motorists in the Ottawa region, or better yet, the provincial government should consider removing the additional 1.7-cents-a-litre tax it levied on gas in its latest budget."

1750

They're talking specifically about Bill 86 and how Bill 86 could have been amended to address Ottawa-Carleton's gasoline price concerns. But again they are not listening. They were not listening; they knew it all. They have done nothing, and they continue to do nothing.

If I can continue with the letter, "Aside from its contemplation of regional gas subsidies, the provincial government must take this opportunity to undertake a study of gas prices across Ontario, focusing on beleaguered regions such as eastern Ontario."

In conclusion, the federal member says: "I believe your government is presently looking at the ideas of gas cooperatives and regulation of gas prices. However, while co-ops have proved successful in Thompson, Manitoba, they cannot be relied upon to solve our gas price problems" in Ottawa-Carleton. "As the failure to establish cooperatives in other areas of Manitoba shows, cooperatives alone are not infallible and cannot be used in place of government action to repair gas price irregularities and reinstate consumer confidence."

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. If you want to talk to each other, I would suggest that you perhaps could go in one of the rooms next to the House and have your conversations there.

Mr Chiarelli: The federal member, in his letter to the Ontario Minister of Energy, indicated:

"Similarly, deregulation is not the answer, as the Nova Scotia experience tells us. If you recall, Nova Scotia deregulated gas prices on July 1, realizing that regulations reduce competitiveness and retailers take advantage of them by charging the maximum gas price allowed.

"The government of Ontario must take seriously its responsibility to correct the consumer injustice caused by wide variances in gas prices. On behalf of residents of the Ottawa area, including my constituents, who have clearly indicated that they are tired of paying significantly more than their southern neighbours for gas, I urge your government to grasp its responsibility with both hands and take steps to correct the gas price irregularities.

"Thank you for your assistance. I eagerly await your reply and hope to hear news of your government's action on this matter soon.

"Sincerely," and it's signed by the federal member for Ottawa Centre.

Of course a copy of that was sent to Premier Bob Rae.

As I mentioned earlier, the then new Minister of Energy responded to that letter actually quite briefly. It was a well organized, well-thought-out letter on the whole question of gas pricing not only in Ottawa-Carleton but across the province. Quite frankly, the recommendation that federal member made for the study would have been of great assistance to the border communities who are very concerned about Bill 86, the increase in gas prices, and who are very concerned by the fact that this government did not introduce measures in the budget last week.

Back on August 19, 1991, the minister said in response to that previous letter: "Thank you for your recent letter addressed to my predecessor, Jenny Carter. As the recently appointed Minister of Energy, I am happy to respond." I don't know why he was happy, because he didn't say anything. I guess he was a new minister in the job and he was enjoying his dictaphone or something. He was happy to respond, but he didn't say anything.

"The question of price-fixing is currently being investigated by the federal Bureau of Competition Policy" -- again, point the finger at the feds, which is the standard approach of this government -- "to determine if anti-competitive behaviour is occurring in Ottawa. If you have any information pertaining to price-fixing in Ottawa I would ask you to forward it to the Bureau of Competition Policy."

In other words, "Thank you very much, but we're not interested in gas prices around here; go and see the feds." That's part of the answer here.

"In the absence of price-fixing, price differences occur as a result of differing market conditions. I believe that such differences are best addressed by improving the level of competition."

I want to interject here just for a moment. We have on August 19, 1991, less than 11 months after the election and about 13 months after the Premier, in the election campaign, made certain promises -- I want to go back to those promises, because I think it makes a very good juxtaposition to what the minister is saying here on August 19.

The Minister of Energy is saying, "I believe that such differences are best addressed by improving the level of competition." Here's what the Premier said on August 17; it's two days away from being exactly a year. The Premier, then Leader of the Opposition, to the Thunder Bay Times: "He restated a campaign promise made last week that the NDP government would empower what he called the provincial energy commission to bring in a one-price system for gasoline in the province. 'I really think consumers are being ripped off by gasoline companies.'"

My goodness, that doesn't sound like the Minister of Energy's response exactly one year later. Not only did the Premier promise a one-price gas system for Ontario on August 13, 1990; he told a radio audience that he "would ensure the province had the legal power to prevent gas price gouging."

Then, even after the election, several days after the election, the Premier told the Toronto Star that he "vows to bar price gouging by oil companies."

I want to go back to the Minister of Energy's response of August 19, 1991:

"In the absence of price-fixing, price differences occur as a result of differing market conditions. I believe that such differences are best addressed by improving the level of competition. Within Ontario, the only tax which contributes to regional tax differences" -- you're not going to believe it -- "is the federal GST." Finger-pointing again at the federal government. Can you believe it, Mr Speaker? The minister goes on: "I do not believe, therefore, that changing the tax system is the best way to compensate for a lack of competition. Nevertheless, I will forward your request for a reduction in taxes on gasoline sold in Ontario and the removal of the vehicle registration fee in eastern Ontario to the Treasurer."

We've seen what the Treasurer has done: absolutely, totally nothing.

The minister's letter goes on: "My ministry is closely watching the price of gasoline in Ottawa and across the province and continues to monitor the situation on a weekly basis. I agree with you that the Nova Scotia experience clearly indicates that regulation of the marketplace only leads to higher prices at the pump for consumers.

"I sympathize with your constituents who feel they are paying too much for gasoline. Increased competition creates greater opportunities for the consumer to obtain the lowest possible price for gasoline. It is our intention to investigate ways to ensure that a highly competitive gasoline retail market exists in Ontario.

"Thank you again for bringing your concerns to the government's attention."

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. It being six of the clock, this House stands adjourned until 1:30 of the clock tomorrow afternoon.

The House adjourned at 1800.