role="main" class="main-container container js-quickedit-main-content" id="main-content">

April 23, 1992

35th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1000.

Prayers.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BUSINESS

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

Mr Martin moved resolution 6:

That, in the opinion of this House, recognizing that cross-border shopping is one of the major threats to the economy of our communities, province and country and that an estimated $2 billion in 1991 was spent in the United States by Ontario alone and, further, that cross-border shopping is a significant factor in a more integrated North American economy, the government of Ontario should make the challenge of cross-border shopping a priority by conducting a comprehensive study of its impact on the economy of Ontario.

Such a study would be a joint venture of provincial, federal and the affected municipal governments and would examine the unique and combined influences of such factors as the present cross-border shopping initiatives of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, the cost of gasoline, the impact of Sunday shopping and the value of the Canadian dollar.

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

Mr Tony Martin (Sault Ste Marie): I rise today with great concern about the economy of our province and the challenge that confronts us as a government about an issue that impacts very severely on our ability to continue to keep in place those programs and honour those values we as a province have come to expect, while our ability to collect revenues and pay for them is affected by a number of items that we both do and do not have any control over.

However, there is one issue which, through further study, we can come to some coordinated, more cooperative answers to if we wish. I don't want to spend a whole lot of time this morning going through some of the information that's been gathered that indicates to us that cross-border shopping is a factor facing a lot of the communities many of us represent in this province. I think every chamber of commerce in any of the communities we represent and all of the municipal governments have effectively presented the detail and the data to us in various forms over the last year to year and a half. The question now is what we do about it.

As the standing committee on finance and economic affairs stated in its report to this House not so long ago, the phenomenon of cross-border shopping is one that is rich in anecdotal evidence and thin in statistical data, and that is the reason for my being here this morning and standing before this House with this resolution. Certainly I believe cross-border shopping is not a very simple problem that can be answered by either a municipal government, a provincial government or the federal government alone.

It's one that all of us together, in cooperation with the private sector and consumers across this province, must take some ownership of and must ultimately participate in the resolution of.

Our government has taken some significant leadership in this to date. The Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has met with the Ontario Border Communities Mayors' Task Force on Cross-Border and Sunday Shopping and has participated in a national effort initiated by the private sector to find some answers for this very difficult problem we have in front of us. It has provided many communities, my own included, with the resources to come up with local answers to some of the challenges that affect those communities particularly.

In my own community there's been an effort in place for a couple of months now to make consumers aware of the impact of cross-border shopping on the very fabric of our society and our city. They've begun to take some very significant and important initiatives in the areas of training people in the retail sector and raising consciousness in the business community of the need to provide better service, and have begun to do some very important comparison studies regarding the costs of items on both sides of the river so people have more knowledge about what they are saving by purchasing items in the United States of America.

All of that has shown us there are some things we can do. Certainly the activities of the Partners in Excellence program in my community have already had some significant impact on the number of people going across the river.

There was an

article by the chamber in the Sault Ste Marie Star a week or so ago stating that cross-border shopping in Sault Ste Marie has dropped by 6% regarding the statistics that we've looked at for the month of March because of the excellent and important work that is being done by the chamber in cooperation with the labour council and consumers of our community to take some responsibility in front of this challenge. However, I don't think there's anybody in this House who will not agree that this is still not enough, that there still needs to be action taken by all levels of government that will answer more concretely the challenge that is in front of us.

This morning I am focusing on three very important items that have been identified as having some significant influence on the pattern of shopping of people who live close to borders in our province, three items that have been identified most clearly, most effectively and most seriously by the mayors' task force on cross-border shopping and by the chambers of commerce across this province and three items about which there is much discussion and difference of opinion.

I think it is time we developed some statistical information around those, and with that information then began to make some decisions that reflect our real desire to actually combat or at least come to some understanding and control regarding this issue.

Again in the report the standing committee on finance and economic affairs presented to this House, a number of issues were raised as being important and having an impact regarding this question: lower prices in the United States; the free trade agreement; the value of the Canadian dollar; interest rates; the goods and services tax; reduced enforcement at the border; non-collection of provincial sales tax at the border; high Canadian taxes and regulatory burden at all levels of government; gasoline prices; supply management; higher Canadian labour costs; higher real estate costs in Canada; levels of customer service and product knowledge; marketing practices of US retailers, such as aggressive advertising; Sunday shopping; US discount malls; the recession, and economic uncertainty.

Certainly a number of those have already begun to be addressed by all levels of government: by the federal government -- the interest rates are now down significantly in this country; by the provincial government through the leadership of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology and some of the work it has been doing; and the municipalities, through programs like the Partners in Excellence program in Sault Ste Marie, have begun to grapple with this and take some action.

However, there are still some items left that we haven't begun to address in a way that reflects the seriousness of these issues. These issues, in my mind, will not go away.

They will continue to haunt us until we get some statistical information to show us that they either do or do not have an impact on the question, and also some statistical information that will show us as we look at those challenges what we can do that will best address them, that will allow us that competitive edge we are all seeking while at the same time being sensitive to the need for us to be cognizant of our desire to keep in place the fabric of our society and the values we have come to know and expect will be there.

Those issues are the cost of gasoline, the impact of Sunday shopping and the value of the Canadian dollar.

I suggest that our government, all parties in this House, bring this resolution forward to whatever forum will take it to do the statistical gathering and information-compiling necessary to come up with that which we will all require to make the important decisions that will need to be made if we're going to have a significant impact regarding this problem.

The place I think would perhaps be most effective in looking at this is the National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping, which is being led at the moment by the private sector but which is being participated in in a very wholesome and fulsome way by both levels of government, federal and provincial. I suggest that our government take these issues to that forum and ask for some study to be done so that we who have to make decisions about those things will have the empirical information at our fingertips to make proper and intelligent decisions.

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): Mr Speaker, as you know, cross-border shopping is not a new issue at all. I cannot believe the member is coming forward to the House today saying, "Let's study it." It tells me a couple of things: The member has no voice in caucus and, even if he has, I think his colleagues are not listening to him. It tells me also that none of the ministers concerned about this issue has ever spoken to this member. If they have spoken to him and recognized him they have, in other words, not listened to him carefully.

It also tells me, which is more serious, that he has not even spoken to the mayor of Sault Ste Marie. The member himself is from Sault Ste Marie, one of the areas that is more impacted than any other by cross-border shopping, and now he's saying, "Let's go study it."

It is a case of wheels spinning in the mud. The government doesn't know what to do. It is inactive; it is incompetent to deal with these issues. We see the impact cross-border shopping has and he's coming forward today asking us to study it. Studying is stalling. The mayor, Joe Fratesi, must be saying, "I don't believe our representative is standing in the House today doing that."

I suggest, my dear colleague, that you wake up and smell the roses. It's a bit late. It's way into the spring now and the roses are about fading. The issue is old and we should not be studying. Government is about making decisions. We are going to study a study again. As you know, there was a study already done on cross-border shopping commissioned by the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce. I am sure Mr Martin is aware of this. If not, maybe I can get my staff, the mayor of Sault Ste Marie or the chamber of commerce there to send you a copy. Why study it any more?

We are in some very serious problems here with a government that doesn't know when to act and how to act. Cross-border shopping has damaged some of our economy. I fully agree with you that it is not an easy topic, an easy issue, but we recognized it a long time ago. The things your government is doing today are doing more harm to the private sector, the way it goes about concentrating on the labour force and people in unions, the bashing of federal government. They should realize that this is a cooperation of all municipalities, and I think this member should wake up and smell the roses.

Of course my party is prepared to support any resolution to deal with this. I commend you for bringing it forward, but it is so late. We've been telling you that for a long time. I hope when you go home to Sault Ste Marie you'll tell them you were forced to bring this forward and that you knew for a long time it was to be dealt with. You must also tell them that your caucus is not listening to you and that your ministers are dragging their feet on this issue and should have been dealing with this a long time ago. Stop studying. Government is about making decisions.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): First, as the chairman for the Progressive Conservative caucus here at Queen's Park, I want to say how upset my caucus and I are about receiving this resolution only yesterday afternoon. Our caucus was unable to give full study and discussion of this private member's resolution. It seems odd that the New Democratic Party, the governing party, has 40 backbenchers who could not get their act together by Tuesday morning of this week to put forward a resolution in this Legislature so that we could properly discuss it and debate it this morning.

Mr David Winninger (London South): He only found out he was doing it late last week.

Mr Sterling: The member for London South says he only found out late last week that he was going to do it. We all have that problem in the Legislature. All the caucuses are cognizant of the fact that it's going to be a rushed case with regard to the first private member's resolution, but somehow the other caucuses manage even with fewer numbers. It just shows not only that this government is in total confusion but that the members of the NDP caucus through their whip's office and through their House leader are in total confusion as well.

I feel sorry for the member for Sault Ste Marie trying to defend this government's record with regard to cross-border shopping. This government has raised gas taxes at a faster rate than any other government in Ontario has ever done.

Mr Winninger: You used to do it every three months.

Mr Sterling: The member for London South insists on interjecting. He says we used to do it every three months. One year we did raise them every three months, but when you raise gas by half a cent a litre or whatever it is, it's not the same thing as whacking the taxpayers with a 30% increase in one year, which is what this government has done in the past year.

This is what the government has done to the member for Sault Ste Marie's constituency. Your government has whacked the Sault Ste Marie gas buyers with an increase of 30% over the last year. I take great offence that you bring forward a resolution to study the problem further when you didn't have the guts to stand up in this Legislature and vote against that increase in gasoline taxes.

You can't come here as a representative of the people in border towns and say, "We want to study this further," and not stand up for them in the Legislature when it counts and vote against measures which are encouraging cross-border shopping. The matter of cross-border shopping has been studied, it's been studied more and it's been studied again. We know what the problems are: Gasoline tax is one, tobacco tax is another, and the price of milk is another.

What we did in the Progressive Conservative caucus when the standing committee on finance and economic affairs studied this last year was to put forward some practical solutions that we could take in this Legislature, not blame another government and not say somebody else should do something. We put forward several suggestions about what we would do with regard to cross-border shopping.

I want to put them forward again in this Legislature -- it's in the dissenting report -- because the majority of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs is controlled by the New Democratic Party, and what they suggested in the report again was more study. That seems to be something they recommend every time it's time for action. All they did in the report was to recommend more studies.

We saw there were problems and we made four recommendations. The dissenting report of the Progressive Conservative caucus said, "The Ontario government should roll back the gasoline, fuel, alcohol and tobacco tax increases imposed by the 1991 budget." One of those increases was the 30% hike in gasoline taxes by this government over the past year.

Next, "The Ontario government should harmonize its provincial sales tax with the federal goods and services tax," so that both of them could be collected at the border. When people who had gone across to the United States via Port Huron or wherever it was came back to Canada they would have to pay the GST and the PST because they were being collected together and on the same tax basis.

Third, "The Ontario government should use any net revenue gained from harmonization" -- that is, putting the PST and GST -- "to finance rate reductions on other provincial taxes." Currently, it is estimated that harmonization will result in a net revenue gain of some $500 million for the provincial government, which should be used to finance a 4.2-cent-a-litre cut in gasoline taxes. We weren't saying, "Increase the deficit in order to cut the taxes." We were saying: "This is a way you can gain some more revenue, by harmonizing the PST and the GST. Take that off gasoline taxes because that's a big cause of cross-border shopping, particularly in communities like Sault Ste Marie."

Fourth, "The Ontario government should produce and make publicly available an analysis of the effects of any relevant legislation and regulations it proposes to introduce or amend on the competitive position of the Ontario economy, but, where appropriate, on specific sectors."

In other words, if the Treasurer, the member for Nickel Belt, comes forward next week with suggestions as to increases in gasoline taxes -- which I have no doubt he's going to do and he's going to hurt Sault Ste Marie again -- or if he comes forward with new increases on tobacco taxes -- which he's probably going to do and he's again going to hurt the business community of Sault Ste Marie -- then he should come forward with a competitive analysis of what it is going to do to the community of Sault Ste Marie.

Is it going to force more of those people who are struggling to maintain retail businesses in the community out of business? We believe you no longer can make taxation policy within Ontario without considering what your neighbours are doing.

The greatest difference -- and I want to summarize in order for my colleagues to have an opportunity to talk about other issues -- in gasoline taxes between the province and a bordering state comes between Ontario and the state of Michigan. Combined, provincial and federal gasoline taxes amount to somewhere around 22 cents per litre in Ontario. Go across the border into Michigan and it's around 8 cents per litre. Mr Speaker, if you were living in the community of Sault Ste Marie and you had to fill up your gasoline tank, I know you wouldn't go across the river and buy gasoline in Michigan, but I'm sure you might be tempted.

Ms Margaret H. Harrington (Niagara Falls): I rise to support the resolution of my colleague the member for Sault Ste Marie, which calls for an impact study on the cross-border shopping issue, specifically the four factors: the initiatives of MITT, the cost of gasoline, Sunday shopping and the value of the Canadian dollar.

I want to try to reflect the feelings of my constituents and the reality of the city of Niagara Falls. Let me tell you a little bit about the Falls. The city is intimately connected with Niagara Falls, New York, via two very short bridges from our Canadian downtown directly to the US downtown, the Whirlpool Rapids Bridge and the Rainbow Bridge. Local citizens of each side have always been able to take advantage of the best buys on each side. It is an inherent right and a privilege of living so close.

Back in the 1950s and 1960s, young people traditionally went across the bridge because the drinking age was lower, and of course US locals loved coming over to our side for the good restaurants. I'm told that specialty meats and cheeses at our downtown deli was a tradition for them as well. I take my daughter across to the US to see plays at the university there. Every weekend my husband still takes his basketball team to the Niagara Falls, New York, boys club. In other words, exchange is a part of life on the border. Unfortunately, of course, it is just so easy to pick up a tank of gas while you're over.

That's the way things traditionally have been, but things have changed; that balance has been upset. It started in 1989 with a notion called "free trade." Since January 1991, the exodus has even further begun. Since the introduction of the GST, it has been a revolt. There is no longer just a friendly exchange. It has become a statement of protest, and unfortunately that can become a habit.

I also must at this point recognize that there are very many people with very low incomes who are very much in need, and they are very much correct in being the most careful shoppers they can be with their limited funds. I certainly will not deny that. At the same time as this revolt is happening, all across North America there is a restructuring and revolution in the retail trade, which really has nothing to do with cross-border shopping.

There are new ways of marketing -- discount stores, for instance -- and in this age of the smart shopper we must have smart retailers, and I believe that is what's happening more and more. As one retailer told me -- I think it was at a chamber of commerce do -- "If it ain't broke, break it." It's no longer "just carry on," in the traditions we've always had for retailing in the 1950s and 1960s and 1970s and 1980s in Canada.

I want to tell you about the impact of the campaign, with funding from our Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology. Locally it's called, "Look both ways before you cross." These huge posters are evident everywhere, on billboards and in the newspaper, and the campaign is working. There are radio spots which describe a grocery basket of, say, 80 comparable items. With taxes and duty included, there is a $30 or more overall saving in Canada.

People are thinking. First of all, there are two important outcomes of this campaign, "Look both ways before you cross." People are realizing that spending routinely and regularly in the US, they may in fact be protesting, but they may not be getting the best buys, that there are now in fact many better deals in Canada. Second, because of this campaign, people are thinking that where they spend their dollars counts. It counts in ways that are important, towards things they value, for instance, their health care and their education.

I talked to one young clerk this past weekend who worked at Foot Locker at the local mall, and he said that when he thanks everyone for shopping in Canada, people are really pleased. They feel good about making that choice. Nurses, teachers, firefighters and municipal employees are all beginning to know that their salaries are paid by that tax base, which is in jeopardy, yet just before Christmas I was in a school in the teachers' staff room and saw a poster with an advertisement for, "Let's all get together and have a shopping trip for the weekend to Buffalo."

I think people have to think a bit more carefully. Yes, it is a difficult issue and it's a very sensitive issue, because it's a free country. People in border communities have always bought gas where it is cheaper, here or there.

To conclude, all of us need to know what the real facts are. People are extremely suspicious of exaggerated claims on both sides of the issue. They ask: "Is it really cheaper here, or is it really cheaper there? Is it really hurting us, or are you just telling us this? Which jobs are we really losing? Is Sunday shopping a factor?" The factors have even changed, I would submit, within the last year. The recession has deepened. Things have substantially changed with regard to the tax base and many other things. Therefore, I believe we do need an unbiased study to look at the combined influences and I think it's very appropriate at this time.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm pleased to have the opportunity to rise in this House today to speak about the issue of cross-border shopping. I know the member for Sault Ste Marie well, and I'm concerned that as he has raised this in private members' hour, he may not be aware that the work he is requesting has in fact already been done, and it has been done in his own community of Sault Ste Marie. In October 1990, there was a study done by Ernst and Young for the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce which asked the question, did the analysis and provided the information.

The thing that concerns me, and should concern the members opposite who have spoken on this important issue, is that since this report in October 1990 the provincial government has distinguished itself by its lack of leadership in addressing this important issue. Border communities are suffering and consumers are unaware of the impact, I believe, of cross-border shopping.

Let me just share with you some of the results of the work that has already been done. In the October 1990 report for the Sault Ste Marie Chamber of Commerce this is what they had to say: 72% of the people had shopped in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, in the last 30 days; 37% of people in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, shop in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, at least weekly; only 16% responded by saying that they rarely or never shop in the United States; the average expenditure in Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, by residents of Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, during those 30 days prior and during this survey was $86.40.

What were they buying there? They were going primarily to buy gasoline: 36% per cent of the people who responded to this survey were spending money filling up their tank. Of that $86.40 they had spent in the previous month, 36% -- $31.40 -- was for gasoline.

A mayors' task force was established. I've spoken in this House on numerous occasions of my support for the mayors' task force. These are mayors of border communities. What was their advice to the NDP government? It was a differential gas tax. What have we been recommending in this House now for the last 18 months? Lower the gas tax. Why are the people in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, crossing the border to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan?

Interjections.

Mrs Caplan: It's because of the vast differential in the price. I say to the members opposite who are shouting and yelling that they're shouting and yelling because they know their government hasn't done what it could do. They know their government has not done what the mayors recommended to it that it do. They know they have been in government for 18 months and have distinguished themselves by their lack of leadership on the cross-border shopping issue, which is killing jobs in Ontario.

As I look through this very extensive report, what it says about the consumers is that the primary purpose reported by 43% of the people of Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, for their visits to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, was specifically related to the purchase of gasoline and milk: staples, things you need. Twenty per cent said they had gone for a holiday, and 18% went across for a visit to a bar or restaurant, but 43% of the people who crossed the border from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, did so to fill up their tanks with cheaper gas.

The member for Sault Ste Marie, the member for Niagara Falls and the members in the NDP government caucus who represent those border communities know that what's happening in Sault Ste Marie is happening in Cornwall, Windsor and Niagara Falls. It's happening right along that open border where people are crossing to fill up their tanks with gas. Yet the response from the Treasurer in his last budget was to increase gas taxes; the response from the NDP Treasurer in his last budget was not to lower gas taxes in those communities, as had been recommended by the mayors.

So during this private members' hour I support not only the kinds of studies that have been done, but I would say very strongly that I support some action by that NDP government.

The only thing that is misguided about this resolution by the member for Sault Ste Marie is that it's out of touch, it's out of date and it's too late. The studies have been done. The mayors have been working together. Everybody is giving advice to your government on what to do. There's one big problem: Your government is not doing it; it's not listening.

They think the solution to the problem is to open casinos, and maybe for some of the communities it is, but next week in the budget the Treasurer will have the opportunity to lower gas taxes and create a gas differential for those communities suffering from cross-border shopping, where people are crossing regularly every week to fill up their tanks with gas.

Do you know what else? This study has been conducted and has been sitting on the shelf where no one's paid any attention to it. Do you know what it says? That 90% of the residents surveyed in Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, said that on their last trip to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan, they had stayed less than 24 hours. That's the problem. People cross, they fill up their tanks with gas, they spend their money across the border, and this government has done nothing to make them aware of how important it is to spend their money in Canada to support Canadian business, to support Canadian social services, to support Canadian enterprise, to build Ontario and to build Canada.

To do another study, as is being proposed by the member for Sault Ste Marie, well-intentioned as he is, is just going to waste time. The studies have been done in other provinces and in other countries. They have addressed cross-border shopping issues. Look at what they have done in Denmark. Examine what they have done in New Brunswick. Take a look at what is happening in other jurisdictions where they are lowering the tax differentials.

Mr Martin: Good idea; that could be part of the study.

Mrs Caplan: The member opposite says that could be part of the study. Your Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology has that information. Your Ministry of Revenue could have it. We have it. I'll give it to you. It's available. We keep trying to help you. We keep giving you advice. We keep giving you information.

Mr George Mammoliti (Yorkview): Stop it.

Mrs Caplan: And you laugh and you say: "Stop it. Don't help us. Don't give us information."

This study is too late. The studies have been done. I say to my friend from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario -- and he has many friends in his community -- that he does not want to be known as the member for Sault Ste Marie, Michigan. He does not want jobs from Sault Ste Marie, Ontario, to cross the border to Sault Ste Marie, Michigan -- I know that -- and neither do I. It is important that he be aware of not only the studies that have been done; he must also know that as an elected member of this Legislature, he has a responsibility, as does the rest of the NDP caucus, to speak out within his caucus.

Tell the members of your cabinet you have the information available. Let the members of your government know you demand action on behalf of your constituents. They're not listening to us; maybe they'll listen to you. We will give you whatever information and advice we can, both here in the House and in committees, but it is up to the NDP government to show leadership and take action, and to this point in time it has done nothing.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to spend a few moments commenting upon the resolution put forward by the member for Sault Ste Marie concerning cross-border shopping. It's been an interesting debate so far this morning. I would say to the Liberal member for Oriole, who was a member of the Liberal cabinet which raised taxes some 33 times in this province, somewhat over 130% in tax increases during the five years the Liberals were in office, that it's no wonder the NDP members this morning are screaming at her. For once I agree with the NDP, and this is a rare, historic moment in this House indeed.

But I'm a bit critical of the resolution put forward, although I believe the member for Sault Ste Marie is well intentioned. It's a tremendous problem in his own riding. I echo the sentiments and concerns expressed by the members this morning that we really don't need another study, that the library has a number of studies now on the shelves collecting dust. The Ontario Chamber of Commerce, the border mayors' task force, John Winter Associates Ltd and a number of other groups have put forward studies.

I was Tourism and Recreation critic for my party last year. I had the opportunity to meet with a number of individuals who were compiling studies at that time, and I think rather than another study it would be better to perhaps knock a cent a litre off the gasoline tax. That's something all the studies call for, a reduction in gasoline taxes, particularly in border areas. It's an area the government can take action on; it's within its jurisdiction and it would be better than spending more of the taxpayers' money on studies.

I also suggest members of the NDP grab a backbone and gain an understanding of what this House is intended to be. It's intended that in our democracy you will stick up for your constituents in this Legislature. The NDP member for Lincoln, on second reading I believe, voted against a tobacco tax increase put forward by the NDP government last year. He soon discovered there's a tremendous amount of pressure in the Premier's so-called open government. He lost his chairmanship of one of the Legislative committees, and lo and behold on third reading was forced to vote along the NDP line and to vote with his government.

We had hoped the member for Lincoln would break the tradition of the NDP and break ranks and actually stick up for his constituents, for the people who put him in office, and actually work with democracy and with Parliament the way it was intended to be. We've not seen any members of the NDP vote against their government.

Again I say to the member for Sault Ste Marie, rather than ask for more studies why does he not vote against the number of tax increases that have already been presented by the NDP government, continuing the trend of the former Liberal government, and the tax increases that will inevitably be contained in the budget on April 30? We're told there will be a tremendous new round of tax increases in that budget.

We're overtaxed. We're the highest-taxed jurisdiction in North America. The root cause of our high wages and our uncompetitiveness, and something the Ontario government has a significant jurisdiction over, is taxes. It's an area, unfortunately, where this government has not acted, and individual members have not had the backbone to stand up against their Treasurer and their Premier to vote on behalf of their constituents.

In the Ontario PC Party Mike Harris has never, in the 18 months I've been in office and the time he's been leader, told members of his caucus how to vote. In fact, he goes out of his way at our weekly caucus meetings to remind us that we are to vote on behalf of our constituents.

Mr Gordon Mills (Durham East): What about the cheque-cashing private member's bill? You were whipped.

Mr Jim Wilson: The member says, "Well, you have whips." We have whips to make sure we have bodies in the House, but we're not told how to vote. School children often say to me, "But you often seem to vote together." I say, "Yes, well, there're 20 of us and we're like-minded individuals and there're very few times" --

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): Coincidence.

Mr Jim Wilson: It's the truth. There're very few times we disagree. If you look at the voting pattern, we've voted many different ways on this side of the House because we represent diverse areas of the province. That's the way democracy was meant to run.

Grab a backbone over there. Do what you so sanctimoniously told us you were going to do in opposition. We had to live through a 37-day campaign with the NDP candidates in our riding telling us they were holier than thou, that they would never vote as a bloc and that somehow the Tories and the Liberals over the years never stuck up for their constituents.

In the days of Conservative government in Ontario we had good government, good management. We had a practice and philosophy that said one must always keep competitiveness in mind. Government doesn't create jobs; the private sector creates jobs. I don't know a politician alive today, or one in the past, who ever created a meaningful job other than maybe adding someone to the payroll here at Queen's Park. The private sector creates jobs. The sooner the NDP government learns that lesson of history and that fact of life, the better off all Ontarians would be.

I say to the member for Sault Ste Marie, don't study this issue. Go back to your caucus and cabinet colleagues and express to them your concern and get them to take action. The next opportunity is the budget on April 30.

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): As many may know, Sarnia is about a stone's throw away from Port Huron, Michigan. The cross-border traffic between Sarnia and Port Huron has existed for many years. However, there has been something very different in the last few years. The focus has clearly changed from recreational visits to very serious missions to obtain US goods at cheaper prices and at the expense of Canadian retailers. Sarnia's retail industry and its workers are in the battle of their lives to survive this trend. What happened in Sarnia? What happened in Sault Ste Marie to turn fun visits into a war for consumers?

There are a couple of major factors we clearly have to consider. It's common knowledge that the goods and services tax was the last straw for consumers. Any person on the street will tell you that. I ask members of this House to forget the partisan politics of this House and the House in Ottawa and listen to what the public is saying. The general public has said the goods and services tax was their last straw.

The free trade agreement also encourages people to shop in the US. It's something I think we have to pay attention to because it's clearly only going to get worse. The elimination and reduction of tariffs on US goods will continue for the next seven years. We have a major structural problem to deal with in Ontario. There clearly are no quick fixes.

Even if you agree with the goods and services tax and the free trade agreement, which I don't, the fact they were implemented almost simultaneously defies logic. It has been a disaster for the retail industry in Ontario and right across Canada. The federal government had done an impact study prior to the implementation of the free trade agreement that involved the retail sector. The study was never released. It showed there would be serious difficulty in managing the retail industry in Ontario after the implementation of the free trade agreement. That study was kept secret.

We had no chance as Ontarians, as Canadians, to develop a strategy to deal with the problems. Consequently there was no federal policy or strategy developed.

In Sarnia the border zone advisory committee, funded by the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology, in a poll it conducted identified customer service, selection and price as being the major problems retailers had to counteract to keep shoppers at home in Sarnia. Customer service was identified as the number one issue. They have since developed a plan to deal with the customer service issue involving a phantom shopper and awareness campaign, and it will likely involve wide-scale training of retail employees on the importance of customer service.

The Sarnia retailers are working hard to win their customers back from the US and I think they're having some success. There are also plans afoot to do a weekly shopping basket comparison between United States and Canadian goods to point out that clearly not all items are cheaper in the United States.

The issue of gasoline prices often comes up in any discussion about cross-border shopping. The interesting thing in Sarnia is that even though we are the gasoline refining capital of Ontario, if not eastern Canada, we've never had the lowest gas prices in Ontario. Indeed, sometimes the farther you drive away from Sarnia, the better prices are likely to be.

We have a hard time in Sarnia competing on gas prices in Ontario, never mind the US, and that is clearly not a function of taxation. The facts are that if we took every cent of provincial taxes off gasoline, we could not compete with US gasoline prices. The revenue raised from taxes on gasoline helps to pay for a number of important programs that we as Canadians have that our US neighbours do not. Health care and accessible, affordable education come to mind.

While nobody likes taxes, Canada's tax structure provides many services that none of us as a Canadian, as an Ontarian, as a Sarnia resident wants to lose, services that make our quality of life in Sarnia, in Ontario and in Canada much better than our neighbours' in the United States. Having said that, I think it's clear that tax reform is needed right across this country and I'm proud to say that Ontario and our government is taking the lead to examine our tax structure to see what can be done to make taxes fairer for our citizens.

The federal government must take the same action. Ottawa has made it very difficult for all provinces to raise revenue because of the implementation of its infamous consumer tax. Obviously the federal government has to recognize this, which currently I don't think it does, and then work with the provinces to help resolve the problem of cross-border shopping, which is a problem that's Canada-wide.

In closing, I think it's important to have accurate data to help all of us deal with the problem of cross-border shopping. There are many who say that simply opening our stores on Sunday will solve all our problems or that simply cutting gas taxes will stop the flow to the United States. I don't agree. The problems are much more complex than that and will become increasingly more complex in the years ahead as Canada opens its doors to cheaper US goods.

It is critical that we develop a long-term, effective strategy to deal with the cross-border issue, a strategy that must be developed with the participation of the federal government and the municipal governments. I remind this House that the standing committee on finance and economic affairs stated in its report on cross-border shopping that the cross-border phenomenon is rich with anecdotes and slim on statistical data.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I'm dismayed and I'm discouraged by this resolution being presented to this House this morning. As has just been brought up by a member of the government, two standing committees of this Legislature have taken this matter seriously and have prepared reports, and the recommendations await results.

Mr Martin: It's unfortunate that the opposition took the tack this morning of attacking me personally rather than speaking to the issue.

The standing committee on finance and economic affairs recommended that, "The province of Ontario should participate with the federal government and municipalities in a trilevel task force on cross-border shopping." It also recommended that, "The provincial government should appoint a lead minister to work with all the players in determining and implementing proactive solutions to cross-border shopping."

We've done that. We've done that in spades. The national task force initiated by the private sector chose to focus on research into the role of Canada's distribution systems on price at Canadian retailers, communicating the importance and value of shopping in Canada and providing a clearinghouse of ideas from across the country.

I am saying to the House today that we need to quantify the impact of the present initiatives of the Ministry of Industry, Trade and Technology in cooperation with the border zone advisory committees, where we plan to spend upwards of $2 million this year.

I believe we need to quantify the impact of gasoline taxes, because they have been raised as a significant issue in, as some of the members across have rightly said, studies that have been done by communities.

I think we need as well to study the impact of Sunday shopping on this important issue.

We need, in cooperation with the federal government, to look at the impact of things like the free trade agreement, interest rates and particularly, as reflected in this resolution, the impact of the high dollar.

All of these would be most adequately addressed -- because cross-border shopping is a Canadian issue, in my mind -- by the National Task Force on Cross-Border Shopping. I suggest this morning that this House recommend to our government that it take these issues to that body and ask for further quantifying of them so that we might make decisions in the future that will truly have an impact, as some of the things we have already done have, on the challenge of cross-border shopping to all of us in this country.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

Mr Phillips moved resolution 3:

That, in the opinion of this House, the provincial budget must present a comprehensive picture of Ontario's economic and social situation to include a broad range of social and economic indicators which can be monitored and targeted for progress, including:

1. The number of people living below the poverty line, including the number of children.

2. Social assistance case loads.

3. Social assistance benefit levels expressed in both dollar terms as well as a percentage of the poverty line.

4. Usage of food banks.

5. Housing data, including the average home prices in selected cities required to purchase a home, average rents in selected cities and waiting lists for assisted housing.

6. Distribution of income and wealth in Ontario.

7. Income distribution by gender.

8. Tax burdens faced by different income groups.

9. Number of layoffs and their success rates at securing comparable re-employment.

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

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): Let me start by indicating to the House why I am proposing this. I have always felt, whether it be here or anywhere else, that establishing targets and goals is important. There is perhaps no more important document than the budget where those goals and targets should be established, because the budget clearly indicates, in very real terms, where a government's priorities are and what it will attempt to achieve. I think it is a good way of operating -- to set yourself some goals and targets.

Second, if I might provide some advice to the government, I think the New Democratic Party will want some benchmarks. I think they'll want to have those targets. They'll want to be able to say to the people of Ontario, "Here is where things have been, here's where things are right now and here's where things are going to be in the future."

I picked this particular resolution, as I'm sure everyone in the House recognizes, because it is word for word a resolution that had been proposed by at least two of the current cabinet ministers. I think the Minister of Labour and the Attorney General, word for word, proposed this resolution. The reason I've repeated it verbatim is to ensure that we speak as one voice here. I think it's an opportunity for the Legislature -- and it's very timely in that the Treasurer will be bringing forth his budget next week -- for all of us to say to the Treasurer that part of the budget should include these numbers.

In the future we may want to add additional ones, but in the interest of getting the entire House's support for it I specifically chose the words that were in a report of two years ago that the current Minister of Labour and the current Attorney General prepared. So I would indicate to the government members in the Legislature that one should feel comfort that it has the blessing certainly of the Premier and I think of prominent members of the cabinet. I think it's timely that we have this resolution before us. I look forward to the weight of the government members in ensuring that the Treasurer does move forward on this.

If I might just comment a little bit on some of the other documents, the Agenda for People, which we're all familiar with, will be a kind of scorecard of the government. I remember, in the months after the election, most if not all members of the government indicating that indeed this would be the basis on which they would want to be evaluated.

As you head into the next election, I think Hansard will show that virtually every member of the government at one time or another during the debate on the speech from the throne agreed, "Yes, this is going to be our scorecard." Just as, when we headed into the last election, the then Premier Peterson was held accountable in some very vivid language, I would think as we head into the next election each of the government members who runs again will want to ensure that the Agenda for People has been delivered on.

So it isn't just the opposition that would find this helpful; I think all the government members would find it helpful, because getting into the budget the goals that will deliver on your promises will be extremely important. It's part of my plea to the members opposite for strong support of this resolution that in addition to being good for the people of Ontario it's probably very good for yourselves.

The specific areas we're asking for, or that were asked for by the current Minister of Labour and Attorney General and we're now proposing as a resolution, include the number of layoffs and the success rates at securing comparable re-employment. All of us, as we go to our constituencies, probably see the same thing: the number of people coming to us saying: "Listen, I have been 20 years in a very good job. Suddenly the plant's closed. What in the world am I going to do?" Many of them are extremely tragic. People who never even dreamed they might have to apply for welfare -- it never entered their minds -- are now involved in that.

I reviewed the layoff statistics -- I think most members get these -- the plant closures, the plant downsizing and the partial closures. It is of continuing, major concern. These are the 1991 numbers. We can see 118 plants. Every three days we have a plant closing in Ontario. In the month of March, as the members will recall, we lost over 1,000 jobs a day. Goodness knows we welcome the Ford announcement, but there were more jobs lost in one day in March than the whole Ford announcement. As I say, 118 plants closed in 1991, and these are a broad cross-section.

I might add that 85% of the workers affected by these were unionized workers -- 85% unionized workers. That's why I think it's in all our best interests that we have the numbers -- not just the laid-off; we've got that, but what success rate they have secured in getting re-employment.

I could talk at length about the layoffs and the tragedy. As I say, I think each of us in our own constituency sees it every day. We used to be a province that had the lowest unemployment rate in the country. Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia all have lower rates than we do now, and believe it or not, Quebec is beginning to close the gap.

My own judgement, by the way, is that the unemployment rate in the province is much more like 12.5%, not 10.5%. If you look at the numbers there are about 100,000 to 150,000 people who should be in the workplace who aren't. They've dropped out; they've given up. So the real number, believe me, is more like 12.5% instead of 10.5%.

Another recommendation, which again I don't claim credit for authoring but I certainly support, is the social assistance case loads. We now see well over a million people having to turn to social assistance, and I repeat, I am one who believes there is basically very little abuse of that system. In any system involving a million people there are bound to be some people who abuse it, there's no question of that -- just a million people in any area -- but overwhelmingly the people who are there are there because they have no alternative. I believe that. As I say, I see those people weekly, if not daily.

But if we don't establish how many were there before, how many are there now and are we making any progress -- I suspect the Treasurer's budget next week will have a plan, and the plan will probably be, "If you hire someone who is currently needing welfare we will provide you with a supplement." It probably will be some form of scaling-down thing. But we don't have the criteria to evaluate whether it's working or not. We'll go through a whole year and at the end of that year we won't know whether that was a worthwhile expenditure. So I support very much the need to get the numbers on the social assistance case load and look at the progress that's being made.

The usage of food banks was number 4 here -- and I'm just picking a few, Mr Speaker -- which again is rather timely in that we see, as we speak, the Daily Bread Food Bank in Metropolitan Toronto and similar food banks around the province attempting to cope with a very difficult situation. Again, I know people who use food banks who, if you'd asked them five years ago, would never have dreamed that they would be required to go to a food bank. Some of the statistics are quite shocking in terms of education levels and what not.

In conclusion, I look forward to the debate in the House and I look forward very much to a strong message on this resolution going to the Treasurer, as I say, on a timely basis, so that we will have these pieces of information.

Mr Norman W. Sterling (Carleton): I come to this debate in support of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt's resolution, not only for the particulars of the resolution but more for the thrust of the resolution.

I'd like to talk about this resolution in a more esoteric or philosophical mode than in terms of the particulars of the resolution. I've had some experience with information issues, and that's basically what we're talking about here this morning.

In 1981, when I was appointed to the cabinet of Ontario, I was given responsibility for freedom of information under the former Progressive Conservative government. I wrestled with that issue for a period of four or five years as a cabinet minister, unable to have the cabinet of which I was

part come to a resolution as to how we would put forward the very noble idea of freedom of information. During that time and subsequent to the time I served in cabinet, I have had, I guess from that perspective, an opportunity to view the information issues which we consider as legislators of Ontario not only from the government benches but also from the opposition benches which I am now graced to sit upon.

It came apparently clear to me, when I was vice-chairman of Management Board -- I can never forget the day when I had asked for some information with regard to the expenditures of the province to be presented to Management Board in a certain fashion. I can't recall the fashion in which I requested that information to be presented, but I do remember getting the results.

The other members of the cabinet who sat on Management Board along with myself, and actually the former member for Simcoe West, Mr McCague, looked at it and said, "My God, the last thing in the world we'd ever want the public to see is this information presented in this form." Ever since that day when I sat on Management Board and we basically shoved that piece of paper into our pockets and took it with us but never had it published as we might publish in ads or in brochures or in the budget, I realized that the presentation of information is as important as the information itself.

Perhaps the presentation of information is more important than the information itself.

When I went through the debate on freedom of information under the former Liberal government, I tried to impose during that debate -- it was a minority Parliament -- the right of members of the Legislature to ask the government of the day to present information in certain forms or in certain methods or in certain documents and on a timely basis. Unfortunately, at that time I was repudiated by the Liberal government and was not able to obtain the support of the New Democratic Party, which was sitting in third place at that time but was negotiating with the government with regard to other amendments.

I don't think it was because the New Democratic Party thought my amendment was unreasonable, but I think it was caught up in the negotiations with regard to other matters.

But until the public, until members of this Legislature and until the cabinet have information which is presented to them in an organized fashion, then we will not be able, in this province, either as legislators within this body or within cabinet, to make reasonable and logical decisions based on the trends which are occurring around our economy and around the programs we create in this body.

What I would dearly love to see is a second phase of freedom of information, because freedom of information in my view has been a tragic failure.

That hasn't been because the former Liberal government which brought it in or the present NDP government are trying to do anything with regard to the way the law is written -- in other words, they're not acting against the law as it's written -- but the fact is that in this society of Ontario we have become so involved in the day to day lives of the citizens and our programs have become so large that it is impossible for 20 or 30 men and women who sit in the cabinet of Ontario, who are the government of Ontario, to really know what is happening around them with regard to the moneys they are collecting from the taxpayer and spending.

Nor is it possible for a member of the Legislature to sit in opposition and intelligently criticize the spending of the government with regard to any program, because we don't really have the information organized in a fashion, nor do we have the timely reporting of how that money is being spent. That information is never before us in time for us to really take any corrective action.

We have done something in the Legislature about that. We have basically done away with the estimates process, or we have put the estimates process within this Legislature way down on our totem pole of priorities. I think that was the right move in the present circumstances.

But when the government of Ontario, be it us or them or the other political party, brings forward a program and says, "We're going to deal with this problem by creating this program," I think it should be incumbent upon the government and the members of this Legislature to go to a legislative committee, have the Provincial Auditor come into that committee, and say: "We've created a new program today. What is a reasonable and fair method of monitoring what we've done? What can we set down in terms of reporting, and how fast can this reporting be done?"

We have had the introduction of computers throughout this government. The number of dollars the taxpayers have spent to equip our government with computers has been phenomenal, but we have not required the government to utilize those computers to produce information to the public on a timely basis.

Surely it is within good, reasonable, logical sense to say to the government that when it creates a program, what we require as well from the government, members of the Legislature in particular, is a method of calculating whether that program is successful.

If you are going to try to help one segment of society, then you should be able to say, "We are going to put down these parameters, we're going to put down these conditions that should be met over a period of time, and let's try to measure those so that in two or three years, if we are failing to meet our objectives, we either chop that program or we transfer those funds to another body or we try to address that problem in society another way."

When I was parliamentary assistant to the Attorney General prior to the 1981 election, I was a member of the cabinet committee on justice. There were only a few members of cabinet, four ministers, involved in that cabinet committee. I took on the task of looking into a number of expenditures we had made in government with regard to taking care of people who were on the streets, basically people who had trouble with alcohol. We had set up a number of hostels across urban areas to look into the whole idea of helping out these individuals.

At that point -- I think this program had been created around 1976 -- there was an evaluation done on that particular program. It found that the individuals we set this program up for were no longer benefiting from the program; the people who were homeless and on the street were no longer being cared for by the people in these hostel institutions which we had set up for them. What did we as a government do? We created three or four more of them. We went from 14 to 16 to 18 to 19 of these small institutions or homes to take care of these people who were very low on the totem pole in our social order.

We set up four more of these when we weren't even meeting the objectives of our program before.

What happens in government, and the reason our government expenditures have exploded, is that we have no real reporting mechanism. We have no real call in terms of asking a government when it creates a program, "Was it successful or was it not successful?" Therefore, I support very much the attempt by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt to bring to light some more indicators so we as legislators and the public will have some opportunity to measure and to be able to feel whether our economy is performing and whether or not we should take some alternative action.

Mr David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre): I appreciate the opportunity to address this resolution. I have to say at the outset that in reviewing the resolution and listening to the opening comments of the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, I'm rather disappointed. I have the greatest respect for the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, having spent considerable time with him on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, indeed travelling the province on the post-budget discussions, and having seen his commitment and his dedication to this place and the amount of work he brings to issues he tackles.

It's in that context I'm disappointed that, in the midst of the worst recession we've had since the Great Depression, the best the critic for Treasury and Economics could come up with was to bring forward an old NDP resolution in a feeble attempt to try and embarrass this government. That was the best he could do. I'm disappointed. I expect he could have done much better.

If we were on the other side and we were the opposition and we had this opportunity, I suspect we'd have made a much clearer point and that indeed we'd have made much better use of the opportunity to talk about the economics during this time, particularly when as opposition, of course, you don't have the responsibilities of government and you have a lot more latitude in which to use a lot of the very depressing and negative indicators that are out there. That's why my opening comment.

Having said that, however, I would like to talk about a couple of the points the member raised. My colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton will talk about some of the specific issues the member raised. He will respond to those. The Agenda for People is constantly used by the opposition members when they want to talk about policies that haven't been followed through and promises not fulfilled etc. Again, I don't blame them. I'm certain that if I were on the other side I'd be doing exactly the same thing.

Let's be fair. Agenda for People was written at a time when the recession was beginning, when we were just starting to see the indicators, and it was done at a time when even the mainstream economists across the country were predicting a certain level of recession for a certain period, which has since been reassessed, and not reassessed just once but a number of times.

That has been done on the national level, not by treasury economists only. It's been done by the economists who came in front of our own standing committee on finance and economic affairs and gave us the projections they saw, the mainstream economists one reads about in the paper and hears on TV and the radio when there are issues of the economy to be discussed. Those very individuals have come before us time and time again and gone before the public and revised their forecasts because no one expected the severity of the recession we're facing, nor the duration.

Even now, on the front page of today's Globe and Mail we're seeing another revision. It's a good revision and we're glad to see that one, but it's a revision all the same.

I suggest, with a great deal of humility, that had we implemented Agenda for People word for word and not taken into account the serious economic times, which were not forecast by anyone, we would hear howling from across the House that we were being irresponsible, that we were being dogmatic, that we had no right to govern because all we were interested in was in ensuring that we could say we followed every word on a piece of paper, and that we weren't doing what was in the best interests of the people of Ontario.

On the issue of whether or not we have a plan, to tie back to the resolution that's here, first of all take a look at the first budget the Treasurer presented to this House that contained a five-year fiscal outlook about some targets in terms of deficit and in terms of revenue. It took a lot of guts, especially since the recession. It had to be revised, with the indicators on that. But let's understand that was the first Treasurer in this country to do that.

None of the other governments here in Ontario, none of the other governments in any of the provinces or the federal government had the guts to say: "There's where we think we're going to be in five years. There are our targets and goals and they're right out there for you to look at and criticize if we don't achieve them." We did that. This government did that in its first budget, so I take great exception to anyone suggesting that we're not offering the kinds of information one wants or needs to properly assess how we're doing in this province.

While we're talking about information, let's also recognize that in the three economic documents that have been published by the current Treasurer of Ontario, there are facts and figures and formulae in them that have never before been presented to the people of Ontario before a budget, and in some cases not even afterwards. The budget process has been entirely revolutionized in this province in a very short period of time. We'll continue to do that, because we believe in acting on the commitment on providing information and opening government.

I might mention to my friend in the third party, as well as to the mover of the resolution, that we've been here 18 months and you want all this to be done. You were there for five years. Why didn't you do it? If you thought it was such a great idea, why didn't you do it? They were there for 42 years. For five of those years they couldn't even get a freedom of information act -- we just heard that confession from the minister responsible -- and yet here we are and in 18 months we have completely revolutionized the way budget development takes place in this province and we will continue to do so.

I'm going to end by mentioning a couple of points, and allow my colleague the member for Victoria-Haliburton an opportunity, but I want to say this: In terms of gauging how effective we've been, first of all let's take a look at the things we talk about in the throne speech.

Time after time the actions are implemented in the budgets that flow form those throne speeches, and at the end of the day we're prepared to accept the verdict and judgement of the people, because we honestly believe you will see that we had a plan that was very consistent to protect as much as we possibly can the people who are being hurt the most in this recession, and also to build on the recovery that will come, that hopefully we're going to begin seeing in the latter quarters of this year.

Did we as a government ensure that this province was on a strong footing to take advantage of the opportunities of coming out of the recession? I think the answer will be that the people of Ontario will see that we did have a plan, that we implemented that plan, that it was an effective plan and that we will be quite deserving of their support and another opportunity for a second term.

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I am pleased to participate in this debate on the resolution by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. As my party's critic for Community and Social Services, I have a grave sense of disappointment in the direction this government is taking Ontario. In particular, the abandonment by the NDP of those people most in need deeply concerns me.

This resolution, as my colleague has stated, is taken directly from the NDP minority report on the 1990 pre-budget hearings, and now, nearly two years into the mandate of this government, where do we stand in terms of the priorities of this NDP government? We don't know.

I wish to look at only two examples from the resolution: the social assistance case loads and the food banks.

The social assistance case load across this province in March 1992 -- this year -- is at a total of 1,164,100 beneficiaries, over one million people who need real and concrete help from this government. This shocking figure represents an increase over last year of 265,000 recipients or 30%.

In the 1990 throne speech this NDP government made the following promise:

"We will provide support for those who find themselves out of work and unable to provide for themselves and their families. We pledge to continue the reform of Ontario's social assistance system and address the shame of child poverty in the midst of affluence."

I regret to say that there is no hope for these people in the throne speech of 1992, whether these people be victims of violence, parents unable to access child care spaces or those in need of long-term care. These people weren't mentioned in throne speech '92. Will they be mentioned in budget '92?

I attended the food drive of the Daily Bread Food Bank here in Toronto on Easter Monday. I found hundreds of committed volunteers working to collect and sort the generous food donations made in this city. Mr Speaker, you and I know that they've extended that food drive by a week because all this commitment and generosity is just not enough. The significant increase in the number of people driven to use the food banks is most tangible evidence of this government's total failure to keep its promises.

A recent report produced by the Daily Bread Food Bank, entitled Nowhere Else to Turn, says this in its conclusion:

"Food banks currently wage a war on poverty which they are ill-equipped to win. The casualty list is already grim: It includes the most vulnerable people, such as children and those in poor health; and it includes those who were previously considered to be a stable workforce and young people embarking on their careers. Ensuring that the poor maintain health, hope and vigour in tough times must be a first priority of all levels of government."

Will that be a part of budget '92? It was not part of throne speech '92. As the official opposition critic for the Ministry of Community and Social Services, I listened carefully and with a sense of deflation to His Honour last week as he read the government's speech on its policies. He stated, "If we do not succeed" -- in managing Ontario's economy efficiently -- "then badly needed reforms in our child care, social assistance and long-term care systems will be unaffordable."

If what we've seen in the past 18 months is any indication of this government's ability to succeed in managing Ontario's economy efficiently, then partners in these vital programs are indeed worried. In short, this government's throne speech does not give consumers confidence to spend their money; it does not give security to financiers to invest in this province, and it gives not one of us reason to believe any promise this government makes.

I bring to your attention this morning's headline in the business

section of the Ottawa Citizen: "Tough Ontario Budget Worries Investors." "'With the upcoming Ontario budget we expect to see some selling of the Canadian dollar,'...investor nervousness will build as the April 30 budget date approaches." That's the result of this government's economic policy. A government's major policy statement is its budget. The 1991 budget was changed at least three times. This NDP government's word is meaningless. It can't be trusted to carry out even the major policies it proposes or the major promises it makes.

I close by quoting from an editorial in the April 7, 1992, Toronto Sun, "When Rae first took office, he made a point of saying that when it comes to governing, there comes a time when you have to stop 'polishing your glasses' and act."

I would suggest the time has come. I would urge the Premier and his government to make that decision. The time to act is now. Ontario needs leadership, not platitudes, today; not in 1993, not six months from now, not three months from now, but today.

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I'm pleased to rise in support of the resolution put forward by the member for Scarborough-Agincourt. I think it's a very good resolution, even though it's a rehash of previous NDP resolutions. It will be interesting for the public that's watching, and that will be following up in Hansard later, to see whether the NDP members actually vote for this resolution, given the fact it's one of their old resolutions.

I think benchmarks are very important. It is difficult, as a legislator, to determine the effectiveness of government programs. There has been a real trend in the last two governments to expand programs, yet we do not know whether those programs are actually effective. It reminds me of a similar resolution put forward by my party that called upon sunset clauses and mandatory reviews of legislation from time to time, to see whether that legislation, any new legislation, is actually producing the results it was intended to produce.

I would add to the resolution a couple of suggestions.

Part 6 of the resolution talks about a benchmark concerning the distribution of income and wealth in Ontario. It always astonishes me that the Liberal Party or the NDP never seem to concern themselves with the creation of wealth. I think we should have a benchmark so we better know who actually creates the wealth in Ontario, who creates the jobs and what type of burdens we are putting on those important sectors of society. It's a debate we seldom have. When we do have it, it's always instigated by members of the Ontario PC Party.

Second, I would think that in

part 8, which talks about tax burdens faced by different income groups, we also should include the tremendous pile of deferred taxes that businesses tell us are preventing them from setting up shop in Ontario, and in fact are forcing them out of Ontario. One is reminded of the tremendous deficits we now have in this province year after year, the accumulated debt. One thing that's not often talked about -- at all, really -- by the NDP government is the over $10 million in unfunded liability in the workers' compensation. The deficit, the debt, unfunded liabilities are all deferred taxes.

Businesses that at one time were interested in coming to Ontario -- in particular Collingwood, Ontario, in my area of the province -- are telling me, "No, we're not interested any more, because we not only look at the current tax burden" -- which the Premier will argue is not out of whack with other jurisdictions. It is, but the Premier is trying to argue otherwise. They look at taxes that are on the books now in terms of deferred taxes, because everyone knows the deficit and the debt are simply deferred taxes.

I would also include a benchmark concerning how the province spends the money that's transferred from the federal government. The NDP and the Premier, in his windup remarks to the throne speech, tried to once again -- I noticed CUPE, when it had the MASH tent out front last week or the week before, once again fooled the public by saying the federal government has cut its transfer payments. Regardless of what stripe that government is, the facts are that the federal government has increased transfers for health care, education and social assistance at 5% a year. Those are increases every year.

This government got 5% more from the federal government last year. It will get 5% more next year. It got 5% more this year. It's not a cut.

We saw this government transfer only 1% to health care and education and their broader public sector partners. The question is, what did the government do with the 4% in extra cash the federal government gave it to spend it on health care and education? It's an area where we badly need benchmarks because the federal government transfers that money, and always has, in large envelopes. The province puts that into general revenues and does not necessarily spend every cent it's given from the federal government on the purposes it was intended for; that is, health care and education. So I am supportive of the resolution.

Mr Dennis Drainville (Victoria-Haliburton): I'm glad to rise in the House and respond to the comments that have been made by various members, particularly the member for Scarborough-Agincourt, who has put forth this resolution today.

I want to say that I have a number of objections to the putting forth of this resolution, not least of all because, as I look at these points that he is trying to make, I realize that this information is information that is often shared in this House. I've seen many of these figures brought forward by the Treasurer and by the Minister for Community and Social Services.

Let me say also that in the couple of hours that I took to prepare myself for the resolution today I was able to come up with quite a bit of information from the Ministry of Housing and the Ministry of Community and Social Services. I'm willing to share this information with the honourable member, but in asking I found out also that any member of this House can get exactly the information that's on this.

In fact, what we see is a less-than-veiled attempt to make the government seem to look bad, but the government doesn't look bad. This information is available. When the members of the opposition have asked for this information, it's been given. Let me give a few of the statistics just to make sure that the honourable member -- I realize he doesn't want to use up the good and valuable time of his research staff, but just to help him along, I'm willing to do this.

In terms of the number of people living below the poverty line, including the number of children, that figure can easily be gotten by the Ministry of Community and Social Services. But in terms of children under the poverty line, it is 287,000.

Social assistance case loads were mentioned by the member for Ottawa-Rideau, but I bring it up again. It's a lamentable figure indeed: 1,164,100, which means that 14% of the population of Ontario are presently receiving benefits. That's totally unacceptable -- unacceptable from this government and unacceptable, I'm sure, in the eyes of every member of this House. I could go further and say that 466,000 of those are children. How awful that 466,000 of our children, who are preparing to begin their lives and become people who are giving forth of their talents and their abilities, are in a situation where they're receiving these kinds of benefits.

On and on. I've even got the phone numbers of the ministries where you can get this information. Glad to share it with the member at any time.

I would like to draw attention to some of the comments that have been made. First, I will admit that the member for Carleton made a very excellent comment when he indicated that there needs to be a mechanism by which we monitor all government programs. He's absolutely right on that score. We need to introduce that and we need to do that soon. I am not at all convinced that, whatever government is in this place, we are able to monitor adequately the kinds of projects and programs that are set forth by the government. We don't do enough monitoring, and therefore we spend money needlessly. That needs to be changed, and I'd like to see that change.

The issue of food banks is one that has been bandied around on all corners of the House, but I'd like to speak to that issue.

It is one thing, as John Locke said, to show that a person is in error. It is quite another thing to put him in possession of the truth. We have heard the error that has been put forward by the members of the opposition. They have indicated that the food bank phenomenon is one that this government has not responded to. Let me talk about that.

I want to say that of all the members in this House I probably have the most pervasive knowledge of this issue. As an executive director of a food bank and multiservice agency in the 1980s, I went across this country and across this province speaking about the issue of hunger and its effects on the people in our province.

Let me tell you a bit of information, and perhaps it's history. On the day the election was called in 1985 I sat with people from across Ontario, all of us speaking to members of the opposition, and -- dare I say it? -- who should be speaking with us that day in committee room 1 in this Legislative Building? None other than the member for Bruce. He sat with us and he commiserated about the food banks; he commiserated about the effects of the recession; he commiserated about how there had to be change. That was in 1985, the day the election was called.

Five years went past, and in that time what did we see? We saw the greatest influx of revenues to any government in Ontario in that period of time, revenues that showed we could take care of these problems. But did we? No, we did not. The government at the time, which was the Liberal government, did nothing to ensure that there was an eradication of these food banks. Now they throw over to us that the New Democratic Party has talked about eradicating food banks. We did say that and we stand by that, but what is the difference? This is 1992.

Revenues have never been as low in the province of Ontario as they are right now. In five years they were never as high as under the Liberals; they have never been as low as under this government.

I say to you, Mr Speaker, that our commitment is clear. It takes the will, it takes time and it takes resources. Let me assure this House that the will is here. The government will, in time, if given the opportunity, be able to move on this issue if the resources are there. The resources will have to be there if we are to take this lamentable problem and end it. Our commitment is clear, our will is clear, and this government, if given time and resources, will do it.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): I'm rising today to compliment my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt for bringing forward this very important resolution.

During private members' hour we have an opportunity to speak on behalf of our constituents on issues which affect them and are important. My constituents in the riding of Oriole right now are feeling, I think, quite disappointed in the NDP government. They're cynical, they're angry and they're also fearful. They're disillusioned because they see every day announcements, proposals, ideas and statements which are complete reversals of the policies, principles and ideals that the Premier and the NDP stood for and espoused and talked about at great length with passion while they were in opposition and during the election campaign.

They've heard through question period the kind of heckling of, "That was then and this is now"; they've seen reversals on auto insurance; they've seen reversals on the principles from the NDP government in their approach to gambling in this province; they've seen reversals on a number of major policy initiatives and ideas; they've seen standards that the Premier felt so passionately about while he was in opposition just deteriorate to an all-time low. Members of the public thought that the Premier and his NDP government in fact would live up to the principles and ideals and they believed the rhetoric they heard. That's why they're disillusioned and they're cynical.

The reason they're angry is that they also believe that the NDP has no plan and no idea of what to do. Regularly they say to me, "Elinor, you know, sometimes maybe you could help them," and I say: "We do try to help. We try to help on committee; we try to help during private members' hour with resolutions; we try to give good ideas that hopefully the government will pay attention to." I say to them also: "Some of the things that the NDP said that they wanted to do when they were members of the official opposition are actually do-able. They are things that they could do."

This resolution is an example of the sort of thing that you said you wanted to do when you were in opposition. This wouldn't cost you any money and this would be a way of restoring the faith and reducing the cynicism of the people in my constituency in Oriole and across the province.

This is recent. I don't go back very far. In the pre-budget consultations of 1990 in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs there was a dissent written by the NDP members. The members of that committee included the member for Rainy River, now the Attorney General, and the member for Hamilton East was substituting for him on this committee as well. This was a proposal:

"I for one have always been an advocate that the budget be clearly understood as not only an economic document but the link between the fiscal policy and the social policy of the government, because it is a clear indication of where the priorities of the government are."

What the NDP members of the finance and economic affairs committee pointed out in 1990 is that it is possible within a budget to have a report card of the state of the economy, not just with the hard numbers, the dollars, tax revenues coming in and government expenditures going out, but it also is possible -- and this was an NDP idea -- to include in the budget the social priority checklist, the report card of the state of the province, from the gathering of the statistics, that talks about the people. I would call this the people indicator. That's what they were really asking for.

A budget is about people, about where the government spends those tax dollars and where its priorities are. The proposal by my colleague the member for Scarborough-Agincourt gives the New Democrats an opportunity to do what they said they would do if they were in government. They can do it and it won't cost them any money. I'm quite distressed during this private members' hour to hear the reluctance and the rhetoric coming from the other side about why they wouldn't want to do something like this.

I believe the member brought this forward in good faith as a suggestion to the New Democrats to do something that they believed in in opposition, that won't cost them any money and that they can do as a part of their budget presentation. It might restore some of the faith of the people of the province, who see in so many cases day after day the New Democrats doing the opposite of what they said they were going to do when they were in opposition and what they said they were going to do in their Agenda for People.

I also have something I want to say to the government members in this House. I've heard whining and complaining. I heard the member for Victoria-Haliburton saying, "Governing is hard because we're in a recession and we don't have any revenues for all the things we could do." The truth is -- and I was there for five years -- governing is very difficult. In buoyant and strong economic times, as revenues are coming in, let me tell you, you cannot possibly meet everyone's expectations. Never once in five years in government did anyone ever say, "You've given us enough." There's always something more that everyone would like to do. That's why how you set your priorities is so very important.

When we look at where you have spent the resources you have -- and we know how precious they are -- we criticize you because we believe your priorities are in the wrong direction. You are supporting the "haves." You are giving money in higher wages to people who have jobs. You have been supporting union leadership in your policy at the expense of the workers. You are misguided.

Governing is about taking responsibility and being accountable for your policies. I would say to you, whether you are in good times, buoyancy, or whether you are in a recession, governing is difficult. It is about making responsible decisions. It is also about doing what you say you're going to do. If you do what the member for Scarborough-Agincourt has suggested, that would be a step in the right direction.

Mr Phillips: I would like to spend a moment to urge the entire House to support the resolution.

I will respond to a couple of comments that were made by the member for Hamilton Centre, who said he was disappointed because this is really what the NDP had proposed, not what the official opposition had proposed. I say to the member once again that we knocked ourselves out, the member for Carleton and others, trying to get you to recognize that your budget last year was all wrong. No one listened; we were ignored. If you won't listen to us, listen to yourselves. This is your own resolution, this is what you said. This isn't me.

If I can't get you to listen to the official opposition and the third party, I think I can get you to listen to yourselves. So stand up and vote in favour of this resolution.

I was actually quite amazed. I think one of the two members opposite said, "This is a thinly veiled attempt to embarrass us." How could that be? We aren't trying to embarrass you. We're trying to hold up this recommendation that was made by two of your cabinet ministers when they were in the opposition. Surely it was a resolution designed to ensure, as my colleague said, that the people side of the budget is looked after.

Last, I think one of the members suggested: "If they want this information, they can phone around, they can ferret it out. They can get it." The groups watching this, the groups that previously assumed the NDP was speaking for them, will be very interested in that answer: "You can phone for the information; it will not be provided."

I look forward to the vote on the resolution. It is not a thinly veiled attempt to embarrass them. It is an attempt to get the people side of the budget included.

CROSS-BORDER SHOPPING

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): Mr Martin has moved resolution 6. Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

BUDGET CONSIDERATIONS

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

Ayes -- 35

Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carter, Curling, Dadamo, Frankford, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Jordan, Mammoliti, Mancini, Martin, Miclash, Morrow, Murdock (Sudbury), O'Connor, O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau), Owens, Perruzza, Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt), Poole, Sola, Sorbara, Sterling, Turnbull, Villeneuve, White, Wilson (Kingston and The Islands), Wilson (Simcoe West), Winninger, Wiseman, Witmer, Wood.

Nays -- 8

Cooper, Christopherson, Drainville, Haeck, Hayes, Huget, Mills, Waters.

The Deputy Speaker: All matters relating to private members' public business having been completed, I do now leave the chair and the House will resume at 1:30 pm.

The House recessed at 1212.

AFTERNOON SITTING

The House resumed at 1330.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CHILD CARE

Mr Charles Beer (York North): The provision of adequate and accessible child care in Ontario is in a state of crisis because of the policies of this government. While the government carries on with a lengthy consultation process about the future, families throughout this province are suffering day to day. For some reason this government has decided that process is more important than dealing with the real, hard issues facing the child care sector. Quite simply, families in this province increasingly cannot afford child care.

In Metropolitan Toronto we have been informed by the Metro Day Care Advisory Committee that six centres will be closing by August, that 7,000 children are on the waiting list for subsidy and that this government has left Metro with a deficit of $13 million because it failed to pay the provincial portion of child care in 1991. This fact was confirmed by an independent analysis done by Coopers and Lybrand that both the province and Metro had requested. Their analysis showed that for 1991 the province failed to provide its 80% of the cost for child care in Metro Toronto.

There is no doubt we all want a quality child care system. What parents across the province are increasingly questioning is the government's child care priorities. At a public meeting in Etobicoke last night, parents expressed great frustration with how the government intends to spend the $75 million fund it announced last fall.

FOREST MANAGEMENT

Mr Allan K. McLean (Simcoe East): My statement is for the Minister of Natural Resources. Minister, in February you quietly announced that you had dropped the $3.8-million program to spray for gypsy moths and the spruce budworm. Studies have shown that such factors as drought and tent caterpillar infestations have a great effect on forest health by weakening trees and making them vulnerable to premature death. The head of your ministry's southern Ontario forest unit said, "Gypsy moths might come in and be the straw that broke the camel's back."

Minister, people in the Simcoe county communities of Cumberland Beach, Thunder Beach, Wasaga Beach, to name but a few, believe your decision to cancel the spraying program was premature and will seriously threaten the future of forest management in Ontario.

Your decision to cancel the spraying programs, your decision to close tree nurseries in Midhurst, Thunder Bay, Chapleau and Gogama, and your decision to substantially reduce the number of tree seedlings planted this year prove that you are not committed to good forest management in the province.

When you announced these cutbacks and closures you said the money for these programs would be reallocated to "higher-priority initiatives." Minister, people are angry and they want you, in your capacity as the provincial government trustee of Ontario forests, to tell us what you think is a higher-priority initiative than protecting our trees.

CONSUMER EDUCATION AWARDS

Mr Norm Jamison (Norfolk): April 27 to May 2 is National Consumer Week in Ontario. In honour of this important week the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations will today be presenting the 1992 Consumer Educator of the Year awards.

I am very pleased to congratulate Iris Hukezalie of Simcoe, a constituent in my riding of Norfolk who will be receiving the volunteer consumer education award for her outstanding contribution to consumer awareness in Ontario. Ms Hukezalie is being recognized for her work as a volunteer information counsellor at the Haldimand-Norfolk Information Centre and her many years of service in consumer education. During the past six years people in my riding have had the pleasure of her helpful and accommodating responses to countless consumer inquiries.

She is also involved in the preparation of a weekly news column, called Ask Us, covering a wide range of consumer issues. She has demonstrated a year-in, year-out dedication to keeping her community informed of consumer issues and to promoting consumer education in Haldimand-Norfolk.

The professional consumer education award goes to Alan Auerbach of Waterloo, who is being recognized for his contributions to consumer education as assistant professor of psychology at Wilfrid Laurier University. His Consumer Watch column in the Kitchener-Waterloo Record has served as an important consumer information and education tool for many years.

I would like to recognize the recipients of the fourth annual consumer education awards of excellence.

HEALTH SERVICES

Mr Carman McClelland (Brampton North): In my four and a half years in this House representing the riding of Brampton North, I've seen and heard things that ranged through the profound, curious and outrageous. Last Wednesday I was angry, in fact disgusted, when the Minister of Health issued a three-page press release and in one brief sentence rejected the proposal for the Chinguacousy health services centre. I'm outraged that many years of effort by many people have been dismissed in one brief sentence in a general press release.

I've been raising this matter with the minister inside and outside of this place since the day she took over the Health portfolio. She is very aware of the importance of this project to the people of Brampton. Notwithstanding her assurances, given both in writing and in responses to questions in this House, the minister to date has not even had the courtesy to provide an explanation for her decision to myself, my colleague the member for Brampton South, or the people of Brampton, for that matter. I'm angered that the Minister of Health feels absolutely no responsibility to explain her decision or her rationale to the people of our community.

The former Liberal government gave this project the green light to proceed, and this project has been in limbo since the NDP took office. The minister has demonstrated contempt for members of the community board. Attempts by that board to get in touch with her have not been acknowledged. She hasn't even had the courtesy to return phone calls. They've been trying to work with her, and I have a stack of letters that have gone unanswered. The board is frustrated about its inability to get even the courtesy of a response from this minister.

The people of Brampton clearly deserve an explanation. I would say the government will be held accountable for its absolute and blatant disregard for the needs of the people of Brampton. They have erred by treating Brampton in this way, with that amount of disrespect. I say in conclusion that the ministry and the Minister of Health have declared war on the people of Brampton.

PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION

Mr David Turnbull (York Mills): Today is Public Transit Day. The NDP made promises on public transit to the people of Ontario in the last election. Unfortunately, since then all we've seen is a reannouncement of previously planned programs. Where is the plan for expanding GO Transit service, as promised during the election campaign? Where is the promised increase in the province's share of TTC funding?

The Toronto Transit Commission is one of the least-subsidized rapid transit systems in North America. Today, cutbacks in service and reduced routes and frequency have made public transit less convenient and more difficult to use. We have recently seen two large fare hikes for the TTC at a time when people can least afford it. The lack of integration between the many systems within the GTA means travellers are often inconvenienced. Individuals can and do make a difference in the fight against air pollution, first and foremost by leaving their cars at home and using public transit. But the government has the responsibility to provide a convenient and affordable system.

I call on the government to change its priorities. Use the millions you have planned for public opinion polling and the NDP propaganda phone line for the public transit system where it will benefit the people, not the politicians. Support the environment. Support public transit.

TOWNSHIP OF ZORRA

Recently, two township residents, John and Susan Langlois, approached council and asked them to reconsider the previous council's resolution as a gesture towards national unity. The couple said they felt that on the 125th anniversary of Confederation, in their words, "Maybe we should be doing something significant for Canada." This couple acted on principle, and I believe they deserve recognition and congratulations for their actions. Unfortunately, this repeal did not receive the same type of national media attention, especially considering the current round of constitutional talks.

Here we have a township council in the heartland of Ontario publicly expressing its desire to promote a spirit of openness and national unity. I think that's the message all of us should be spreading across this country.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mrs Yvonne O'Neill (Ottawa-Rideau): I rise this afternoon to express my deep concern about the lack of action on the part of this government to allocate funding for municipal employment programs announced in November 1990.

As the leader of the Ontario Liberal Party stated in her question to the Treasurer on Tuesday of this week, this fund "would, in partnership with municipalities, provide training and support to people receiving social assistance to get them back to work." The Treasurer was either unwilling or unable to answer her question about the status of this $54-million fund.

In 1990, 1991, and again in 1992, the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton has set aside approximately $1.5 million as the local contribution to this program. This money could have been allocated for many other purposes, but it has been consistently set aside for training on the strength of assurances made over and over again over a period of two years by the Minister and the Ministry of Community and Social Services that Ottawa-Carleton's portion of the $54 million would be $1.1 million. The money was forthcoming. It was on its way.

They have 800 people on the waiting list in Ottawa-Carleton. How long is the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton expected to believe that the cheque is in the mail?

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES

Mr Jim Wilson (Simcoe West): I rise today regarding a matter that is of deep concern to constituents in south Simcoe county.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs has failed to respond to repeated requests made by hundreds of former Tecumseth township residents who live west of Highway 27, in an area that was incorporated into the town of Bradford West Gwillimbury by the previous Liberal government. These residents have nothing in common with Bradford West Gwillimbury and they have respectfully requested to be placed where they rightfully belong, in the town of New Tecumseth. While I appreciate that the Minister of Municipal Affairs has listened to their concerns, he has yet to respond specifically to issues raised by myself and local residents when we met with the minister last November.

This April marks the one-year anniversary of a public meeting that was held in the hamlet of Bond Head. At that meeting, an overwhelming 90% of residents expressed their desire to remain in New Tecumseth and that New Tecumseth's easterly boundary should extend to Highway 27. Hundreds of Bond Head and Newton Robinson residents signed a petition so that they might be able to preserve their traditions and their historic ties to the former township of Tecumseth, which is now part of the town of New Tecumseth.

Minister, the people in my riding who reside on the west side of Highway 27 feel neglected by your government. It's time for you to take action to redress a very serious wrongdoing resulting from the forced restructuring imposed by the Liberal government.

SEXUAL ASSAULT

Mr Bob Huget (Sarnia): Sexual assault is something society doesn't have to tolerate. We must work towards the prevention and elimination of coercive sexual behaviour.

The Sarnia-Lambton Sexual Assault Crisis Centre was founded in 1982 and incorporated as a non-profit charitable foundation in 1986. Recently, the centre changed its name to the Sexual Assault Survivors Centre of Sarnia-Lambton. The change in name emphasizes the need for ongoing support and counselling, sometimes years after the crisis of sexual assault has taken place. Problems stemming from sexual assault aren't always noticed immediately, and for many victims the most pain comes with flashbacks of earlier abuse.

Helping victims of sexual assault was made easier in Sarnia-Lambton with funding from the Solicitor General. The funding helped the centre increase its staff and services and helped it move to better and more accessible quarters. The centre has also increased its manpower by training more volunteers for its crisis line, a grass-roots delivery of services with people helping people.

Sexual assault is a crime of violence, control and humiliation, not a crime of passion. It is clear that we must not only promote reform in attitudes and beliefs about coercive sexual behaviour, but also work towards the prevention of sexual assault and abuse. I therefore commend the Sexual Assault Survivors Centre of Sarnia-Lambton, its board, staff and many volunteers for providing a vital service to our community and the victims of sexual assault.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Statements by ministers.

Mr Frank Miclash (Kenora): Where are the ministers?

Interjection: There are no ministers.

Mrs Elinor Caplan (Oriole): We do have time set aside for statements from the ministers. We know there are many things occurring --

The Speaker: Would the member take her seat, please. There is nothing out of order. It is time for oral questions.

Mr Charles Beer (York North): Mr Speaker, I find it rather surprising that we would not have heard today from the Minister of Education with a statement respecting the Ottawa school board situation.

The Speaker: Is this the member's first question?

Mr Beer: I wonder if we might ask you to use your good offices, if you could invite the minister to say a few words on this matter.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat. The member should be aware of the standing orders. There is a time allotted for ministers to make statements. It is hardly the Speaker's responsibility to ensure that ministers make statements. It is time for oral questions.

QUESTION PERIOD

Mr Murray J. Elston (Bruce): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I rise under standing order 16 to indicate to you that the standing orders provide that this is a time for questions to be put to the ministers of the crown. We have been told that there will be fully eight people not here, leaving early or arriving late. There is a series of others who are not yet here.

Standing order 16 states that you have the right to adjourn the House when grave disorder occurs. I can only suggest, not that I wish to be outrageously suggestive, but if the Premier in particular, who has found time only to be here one day this week, at which time he arrived in time to leave basically -- he fielded questions for about 40 minutes and then left -- if he cannot find the time to visit us as the opposition to field the questions, then perhaps grave disorder is the only way we can bring enough influence in this place to allow us to ask the questions.

I raise this at this time only because we are fully running up to one of the most important times in the history of Ontario. There is a budget to be given next week. There are questions which are important to the future economically, socially and politically for Ontario. The Premier has strategized to be away from this place. That can only create in my --

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): To the member for Bruce, I certainly am aware of the concern he expresses and indeed quite understand that concern. I trust that the member realizes it is not within the Speaker's power to compel anyone's attendance. If there is some three-party understanding that certain ministers would be in attendance, that's an agreement reached among the parties. At this point I have no choice but to continue with the routine proceedings. I cannot compel the attendance of any particular minister, or any members at all. It is time for oral questions.

ORAL QUESTIONS

REVENUE FROM GAMING

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): I'd like to begin today with a question to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations about the politics of principle. I'm going to keep this very simple because I think it's a very central point. Over the last couple of days there have been a number of what I think could only be described as authoritative reports that the Rae government is seriously contemplating, and in fact according to the Treasurer in a CKCO interview yesterday has already decided, certain elements of a gaming package, to be announced in next Thursday's budget.

My question to the minister responsible for gaming and lotteries, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations, is very simply and very directly this: Two years ago the now Premier said: "The casino plays on greed, the sense of the ultimate chance, the hope against hope that the spin of the wheel or the shoot of the dice will produce instant wealth, instant power, instant gratification." He went on to roar his disapproval, on principle, on high socialist principle.

The Speaker (Hon David Warner): Would the member place his question, please.

Mr Conway: My question to the minister responsible for gaming and lotteries is, what's changed? What does the Premier know today that did not inform these comments based on high principle of two years ago?

Hon Marilyn Churley (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): I think it would be prudent for the member to ask the Premier to answer for himself on that issue.

I would say that in the context of decision-making on casino gambling and other forms of gaming, there has been, as is very clear by now, quite a bit of discussion at the caucus and cabinet table about this, and we are looking at it in the context of the changes that have happened in this economy over the past few years --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Etobicoke West.

Hon Ms Churley: -- particularly upon receiving requests from border towns and areas that have been hurt very much by free trade and the high dollar and the GST and are looking for various remedies to try and cope with the problem.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Will the minister take her seat, please.

Interjections.

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

Hon Ms Churley: You want a recess over there.

Mr Conway: My supplementary is to the minister responsible for gaming and lotteries in this collectivity that is the NDP government of Ontario. We're talking about the New Democrats, on a matter of high and fundamental principle. Not only did the member for York South roar his disagreement and his disapproval on principle two years ago, but this, the party of Woodsworth and Stephen Lewis and Michele Landsberg, is also the party -- I mean, Stephen Lewis and Michele Landsberg on the subject of gaming and what the NDP would never do?

Let me ask as a supplementary to the New Democratic minister responsible: Two years ago her colleagues the minister of finance and the minister of justice said -- in the first instance the now Treasurer said, "When we reach the point in this province that we've got to rely on casino gambling, you will know that this province is bankrupt," and the Attorney General two years ago said on a matter of principle --

The Speaker: Would the member place his supplementary, please.

Mr Conway: -- that he fundamentally rejected this kind of gaming legislation because it picked the pockets of people whose pockets ought not to be picked. I say to the minister responsible, on a matter of high principle --

The Speaker: Does the member have a supplementary?

Mr Conway: -- the NDP prophets and the saints in politics, what's changed? What's happened to your principles?

Hon Ms Churley: I say to the member for Renfrew North that it was a fine moral speech he just gave in a

preamble to his question. I guess it is his position --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Ms Churley: His position has been made very clear, and I appreciate that at least one of the members from across the way has apparently given his opinion on the subject, because I notice others are basically sitting on the fence, wanting it both ways. I would say to the member that this province --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Would the member take her seat.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Ms Churley: In the context of looking at this complex issue, we have looked at and are continuing to look at this in the context of social benefits and social problems and costs that might be associated. We're looking at it in the context of charitable organizations and the horse racing industry. There's an enormous amount of gambling that already goes on in this province that's been accepted for a long time. That's the reality of the situation. We are weighing all of these options and looking at it in a very balanced way.

Mr Conway: I'm having difficulty with this lecture on situational ethics because my question is not about financial exigencies; my question is about high principle. One of the things about having been in this Legislature for 16 1/2 years is having heard from Stephen Lewis, Michele Landsberg, Ross McClellan, the Premier, the Treasurer and a host of other saints and prophets in politics that the NDP is purer and better than the rest, and that one test and one proof of their purity is they would never, ever enter the world of casino gambling, on a matter of high principle. My question remains, what's changed?

What's happened to your principles? Is this yet another pathetic example of what we've seen in the last few months, whether it was the Shelley Martel affair or the vote fuss about auto insurance, that the NDP has no principles?

The Speaker: Would the member conclude his supplementary.

Mr Conway: They're desperately floundering about in an incompetent way, trying to manage a desperate economic situation, and they have no --

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat, please.

Hon Ms Churley: I think there was a question there somewhere hidden in the lecture. I'm not one of the saints the member mentioned, so I would just like to reiterate again that the context of the economy all across Canada and across North America has changed over the past couple of years. Our government, along with other governments in other provinces and other states, is looking at a variety of revenue-generating policies and options. We are doing that along with Quebec and other areas. I think it would be very foolish of this government not to look at those kinds of options when we're in a deep recession and when other jurisdictions are looking at those kinds of options.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): Perhaps my colleague went too far in saying that party has no principles. You might just say it's a party of flex principles these days and things are all over the place. Let me say to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations that it's very surprising a government that thought of itself as being for the people, of the people and a part of the people that elected it is now going to bring about fundamental change in this province without at least talking to those very people who elected it, on at least one occasion, to discuss this very fundamental change.

I want to ask the minister if she realizes the impact casino gambling will have on charitable gaming, which generates approximately $1.1 billion in revenues for charitable foundations. Does she understand that this will have a negative impact, as has been cited by many people? If she doesn't understand that, what impact studies has she conducted to tell her what kind of economic problems will be associated with charities if she goes ahead with casino gambling? Have you those impact studies, and are you prepared to release them now?

Hon Ms Churley: I think it would be within the Liberal caucus's best interests to stay quiet when one of its own members is asking a question. It was very difficult indeed for me to hear the question, but I will answer to the best of my ability, considering how little I heard.

The issue the member raised, I believe, was around charitable organizations and the impact that casino gambling and other forms of gambling may have on them. I think it is a very good question and it is something I have expressed time and time again and I have concerns about. That is one of the areas we are indeed looking at, and I can assure the member that there will be no decision made in this whole area without some kind of consultation with those groups built into the process. I can guarantee the member that.

Mr Cordiano: That is fine for the minister to say that, but we want to see those impact studies, because she hasn't realized that Ontario's rural and agricultural communities depend on the horse racing industry for their very survival. The horse racing industry is a $2.2-billion industry which employs about 54,000 people across the province, generating about $85 million to the provincial treasury through racetrack taxes.

Madam Minister, I ask you again, do you have impact studies with specific reference to the horse racing industry, the kind of impact, which is bound to be negative, this will have on it? Can we see those impact studies?

Hon Ms Churley: I would like to start by reminding the member that gambling in Ontario, indeed gambling in general, is not a new issue that just popped up last month. Gambling is a billion-dollar industry in this province, and as the member pointed out, there are horse racing and charitable institutions that depend on charitable gaming. So gambling is not new.

There are all kinds of illegal gambling going on right now, and all that money is going underground, not into helping with our health care system and our social programs. It is happening illegally out there, and one has to look at that. Of course I am aware of the concerns that people in the horse racing industry have pointed out and of course I will be talking to them, but I believe there can be solutions worked out together that would deal with these kinds of problems, and that is what I am in the process of doing right now.

Mr Cordiano: It's obvious that the minister and this government are prepared to roll the dice and to crap out on this whole issue. You haven't got any impact studies or any kind of economic analysis that is going to tell you what is going to be realized from casino gambling. You have no idea what kind of revenues will be generated. We haven't seen those. You have no idea of the kind of impact this is going to have in communities with respect to crime rates rising.

In fact, Metro Chief of Detectives Charles Maywood stated yesterday that "the province must ensure that...taxpayers won't be burdened with the (policing) costs" associated with what it is planning to bring forward. "There is no sense in making $190 million and expecting Metro to lose millions in policing costs."

I ask the minister again, what kind of impact studies does she have with respect to rising crime rates? We have seen that occur in places like Atlantic City. We don't want the negative societal impacts that will result in casino gambling if we are not prep