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

June 27, 1996

36th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

Votes and Proceedings

Orders and Notices

L096 - Thu 27 Jun 1996 / Jeu 27 Jun 1996

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

RENT REGULATION

LABOUR POLICY

INTERNATIONAL PLOWING MATCH

ANNIVERSAIRE DU VILLAGE D'ALFRED

FOODSERVICES STAFF

ASTHMA CLINIC

HEALTH CARE

ONTARIO PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYEES

BELLEVILLE WATERFRONT FESTIVAL

VISITORS

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY AND RESPONSES

COURT SYSTEM

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

ORAL QUESTIONS

PUBLIC INQUIRIES

RENT REGULATION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

GREAT LAKES WATER QUALITY

HEALTH SERVICES RESTRUCTURING COMMISSION

REPORT ON RACE RELATIONS

INTERNATIONAL TRADE

JUSTICE SYSTEM

NORTHERN AIR SERVICE

VIOLENCE IN SCHOOLS

TRANSPORTATION ISSUES

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

MINISTRY OF NATURAL RESOURCES STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DES RICHESSES NATURELLES

MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS STATUTE LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 MODIFIANT DES LOIS EN CE QUI CONCERNE LE MINISTÈRE DE L'AGRICULTURE, DE L'ALIMENTATION ET DES AFFAIRES RURALES

PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE

PETITIONS

DELLCREST CHILDREN'S CENTRE

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

COURTS IMPROVEMENT ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR L'AMÉLIORATION DES TRIBUNAUX

JUVENILE DELINQUENTS ACT (ONTARIO), 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES JEUNES DÉLINQUANTS (ONTARIO)

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

SAFETY AND CONSUMER STATUTES

/ LOI DE 1996 SUR L'APPLICATION DE CERTAINES LOIS TRAITANT DE SÉCURITÉ ET DE SERVICES AUX CONSOMMATEURS

CROWN FOUNDATIONS ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LES FONDATIONS DE LA COURONNE

TAX CREDITS AND ECONOMIC STIMULATION ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 CRÉANT DES CRÉDITS D'IMPÔT ET VISANT À STIMULER L'ÉCONOMIE

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

ANGLO CANADA GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY ACT, 1996

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

CITY OF OTTAWA ACT, 1996

CITY OF TORONTO ACT (TRAFFIC CALMING), 1996

CITY OF TORONTO ACT, 1996

LIONS FOUNDATION OF CANADA ACT, 1996

CITY OF KINGSTON ACT, 1996

CITY OF BRANTFORD ACT, 1996

TOWN OF RICHMOND HILL ACT, 1996

DELZAP CONSTRUCTION LIMITED ACT, 1996

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

COMMITTEE SITTINGS

COMMITTEE REPORTS

MEETING OF THE HOUSE

ROYAL ASSENT SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1003.

Prayers.

House in committee of the whole.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

Consideration of Bill 47,

An Act to cut taxes, to stimulate economic growth and to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à réduire les impôts, à stimuler la croissance économique et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996.

The Chair (Mr Bert Johnson): Are there any amendments, and if so, to which sections?

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): Yes, Mr Chairman, I have three amendments. The first one would be to

section 13 of the bill,

section 9.2 of the Land Transfer Tax Act. The second would be

section 66.1 of the Corporations Tax Act,

section 20 of the bill. The final one is

section 24 of the bill, subsection 1.1(4) of the Financial Administration Act.

The Chair: Shall sections 1 through 12 carry? Carried.

Section 13.

Mr Sampson: I believe since this is a treasury amendment it will have to be moved by a member of cabinet, Mr Palladini.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): I move that

section 9.2 of the Land Transfer Tax Act, as set out in

section 13 of the bill, be amended,

(

a) by striking out "not after June 30, 1997" at the end of subsection (2) and substituting "where the newly constructed home is occupied by the purchaser as his or her principal residence no later than December 31, 1997"; and

(

b) by striking out "1997" at the end of subsection (5) and substituting "1998".

The Chair: Is it the wish of the House that the motion carry?

Mr Sampson: If I could just elaborate on this particular amendment, the amendment in clause (

a) of the above motion will extend the eligibility for refund to first-time buyers who purchase a newly constructed home and begin to occupy their home as their principal residence by December 31, 1997, even though they may not have received the conveyance of title. The present provision requires that such conveyance occur by June 30, 1997.

Typically when buyers purchase a new condominium unit, they begin to live there under interim occupancy agreements with the condominium builder, and this would be well before the unit is transferred to them. The proposed amendment substitutes occupation as a principal residence for conveyance by December 31, 1997. For a condominium unit a conveyance is not available until a declaration is registered, and this typically does not occur until the units are sold, even though many purchasers will have occupied the proposed units under interim occupancy agreements for many months before registration of the declaration.

The amendment in clause (

b) permits the refund to be made available to all buyers so long as title is transferred to the buyers by December 31, 1998. This gives a year after interim occupation for the completion of a condominium project and conveyance of title to the unit of a first-time home buyer who occupied the unit by December 31, 1997.

The Chair: Further debate? Is it the wish of the House that the amendment carry? It is carried.

Shall

section 13, as amended, carry? It is carried.

Shall sections 14 through 19 carry? Carried.

Section 20: Mr Sampson, please.

Mr Sampson: I move that

section 66.1 of the Corporations Tax Act, as set out in

section 20 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsections:

"Regulations

"

(15) The Lieutenant Governor in Council may make regulations,

"(

a) providing that the rules set out in subsection (9) do not apply and prescribing rules for determining the qualifying amount of an eligible investment in substitution for those rules;

"(

b) prescribing investments, other than investments made in qualifying small business corporations, that will be eligible investments for the purposes of determining the amount of a bank's small business investment tax credit under subsection (2) if they satisfy the prescribed conditions, and prescribing those conditions;

"(

c) prescribing rules for determining the qualifying amount of an eligible investment that satisfies the conditions prescribed under clause (b); and

"(

d) prescribing rules for determining the amount of a bank's small business investment tax credit account for a taxation year if the bank has made an investment in an eligible investment that satisfies the conditions prescribed under clause (b).

"Same

"

(16) A regulation made under subsection (15) may be effective with reference to a period before it is filed."

The Chair: Debate?

Mr Gilles Bisson (Cochrane South): Just a question of the parliamentary assistant. We hear a lot over the course of the years in the discussion in the media and the public in regard to the amount of money that banks make, the idea being that banks pay very little, if any, tax, in some cases with very large profits. I'm just wondering if you can explain under

section 66.1 what this actually means for a bank such as the Royal Bank in regard its profits. What would that really mean in last year's taxation if this formula was applied as a tax on them?

Mr Sampson: Perhaps I could start off by at least explaining what this particular amendment is doing, and then I'll deal with that particular question raised, although I don't have in front of me the details to tell you what that particular item will raise as far as taxes. If I can just get to the amendment first, then I'll deal with that question.

The proposed amendment to the small business investment tax credit of Bill 47 is in response to submissions we have received from the Canadian Bankers Association and the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

It will give flexibility to cabinet through the authority to make regulations to extend the tax credit to investments made by banks in unincorporated small businesses -- these would be partnerships etc; secondly, effectively changing the 10% rate of the tax credit by altering the portion of the investment that will be eligible for the credit; thirdly, changing the size of the criteria for small business, if that was a necessary direction; and fourth, changing or eliminating the formula that results in a lower tax credit for investments in larger small businesses.

This amendment will allow but not require the tax credit to be extended to investments by banks in smaller and larger businesses than the bill now permits, and allows but does not require extending the tax credit to investments in unincorporated businesses by the banks.

In regard to the question that was raised and directed to me, I don't have the specifics as to what that tax amount would be for -- I believe it was the Royal Bank you questioned. It would depend of course on what assets the Royal Bank was able to demonstrate it had invested in accordance with the tax credit component in the small business categories that we have highlighted.

Discussions are now under way with the financial institutions, the banks specifically, to determine how they will participate in this program and to what extent this particular tax credit will allow them and encourage them to participate in further lending to small business, which is what we're trying to do with this particular legislation.

Mr Bisson: To the parliamentary assistant, listen, let me be straight to the point here. There are many people in this province who feel that banks are making enormous amounts of money, enormous amounts of profit, and getting away, quite frankly, with not paying their fair share of taxes as compared to the average working person. I find it hard to believe that the Ministry of Finance -- being a member of a former government, I understand how the Ministry of Finance works. It would put together some scenarios in regard to what revenue it figures this particular part of the act would raise for the province of Ontario.

I ask you again, if this part of the act, the amendments to the Corporations Tax Act, is in order to put a surtax on bank profits, what do you expect that to be able to generate in a period of a year, based on last year's numbers?

Mr Sampson: I'll reply by saying that the intent of this is not to generate additional tax revenue for the treasury. It's to encourage further investment and the creation of an additional capital pool for small businesses so they can get on with the business of generating jobs in this province, which is exactly what we are hoping they will do in order to improve the economic performance of this province. I want to tell the member that this is not an attempt to try to extract additional tax revenue from financial institutions, but to work with them to generate the appropriate capital pool to create jobs in this province through the small business sector.

Mr Bisson: This part of the act reads, "66.1(1) In addition to the tax determined under subsection 66(2) for a taxation year, every bank shall pay an additional tax for the year, equal to the amount, if any, determined according to the following formula...."

I understand how it works. The idea is that if they reinvest money back into the small business sector, they're able to get that back as a credit. But when I sat here in this Legislature and listened to the deliberations of the Minister of Finance putting forward his budget, this was billed as a surtax on banks in order, I would imagine, to respond to the issue that many people feel, which is that there are people in this province, especially the middle class, who are paying a higher rate of tax as compared to some of the corporations in this province, which pay little or no tax on fairly large profits.

I understand what you're trying to do here, but I'm just saying you must have some sort of scenario that says, "Based on last year's numbers, we expect, if things were to be as last year, this would mean X amount of dollars for the treasury of Ontario." Can you respond?

Mr Sampson: I just want to correct the record slightly. I want to draw the member's attention to the fact that in the budget speech, page 22, the minister specifically referred to the fact that, "Banks...must play a key role in the new economy by increasing their longer-term financing of Ontario's...growth firms -- especially smaller businesses." Clearly, the intent of this is to create that capital pool. What we're talking about now is a future tax.

I will indicate to the member, if this is the answer he's looking for -- and it may be; I don't know -- we are hoping that the banks will participate in this program and that additional capital will be raised for small business and that the net tax raised will be zero. If they choose not to participate in this program entirely, the estimate of future tax collection could be in the neighbourhood of $20 million, but that's only an estimate if the banks don't participate in the program.

We believe they will and so believe there'll be additional capital created for small business that will encourage job creation in this province.

Mr Bisson: As the representative of the government in this particular case in the House, do you feel that banks pay a fair share of their taxes in the province? I look for an answer. I take it you nod your head to the negative, or are you of the opinion that they are paying their fair share? I asked for a response.

Mr Sampson: If the member wants to have a debate on the taxation of banks, this is not the environment in which to do it. I'm telling him that the intent here is to encourage and work with the banks to create a capital pool for small business. I'm disappointed that the member has difficulty with that concept.

Mr Bisson: The parliamentary assistant suggests this is not the forum for the debate in regard to the amount of tax paid by the banks here in the province of Ontario. (

a) We are in a budget debate and, (b), we are making amendments to the Corporations Tax Act that deal with taxation as applied to banks.

I understand that this

section deals with trying to build a mechanism so that if banks don't reinvest money back into the small business sector by way of loans, they are penalized.

I understand that's what you're trying to do with this particular piece of legislation, but I come back to the point that you as well as I know there are many constituents in our ridings who are paying a fair amount of tax in the province of Ontario, the same as any other province across this great country, and people are saying, "Listen, I accept I have to pay my share of taxes, but I'm offended when I see people who have more money than me paying less tax." I ask the parliamentary assistant again, does he feel that banks in this province pay their fair share of taxes?

Mr Sampson: I don't want to belabour this point and I think the member is. If he has problems with establishing a capital pool for small businesses, I hope he would make that statement in this House right now. If he has problems with the incentive, I hope he would make that statement here. I draw to his attention that the previous government did not do that. This is an attempt by us to create a capital pool for small businesses. We believe the banks can and should play a crucial role in that and we've designed that plan so they will.

Mr Bisson: Let's be clear here; I'll put it for the record. I haven't got a difficulty with what you're trying to do. Everybody agrees and understands that banks are fairly restrictive when it comes to their lending policies, and that is part of the problem we're having in the economy of Canada, not just here in Ontario. You know and I know. I've dealt with it on a personal level in regard to businesses in my riding which were in fairly good shape and went to the bank to have their lines of credit extended or to get money for an expansion of some kind, only to be told no by the banks because of their restrictive money-lending policies.

I understand what you're trying to do here. I haven't got a problem with the concept of this. I think it's a step in the right direction. I wouldn't do it quite this way, I'd do it a little bit differently, but I haven't got a problem with the direction. But if I'm willing to answer the question as to where I stand on this

section of the bill, I'm asking you to do the same and give me the respect, and the rest of the members of the assembly the respect, of telling me where you stand when it comes to the question of how much tax the banks pay. Do you think that banks in this province pay their fair share of taxes, yes or no?

I take it that the member is unwilling to answer, does not want to answer because he might find himself in an embarrassing situation. The reality is that you know as well as I do that there are banks in this country that made an enormous amount of profit last year. Profit is not a bad thing as long as it's shared back into the economy by the way of the tax system so that we can pay for our health care system, our education system and other services people require in this province.

If we're going through difficult times here in Ontario, as across the country, when it comes to trying to maintain services, we would expect that the corporate sector take its responsibility. We don't tax them more than they should be or to the point that they're not able to do business in this province as compared to the taxation system of other jurisdictions, but the point remains: The lion's share of the tax burden in this country and in this province is on the backs of the working class. I'm asking you yet again, do you think that banks in this province pay their fair share of taxes, yes or no?

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Just to ask a question of my colleague opposite, could he tell us what percentage of taxation banks pay in the province of Ontario?

Mr Bisson: No, actually I can't, and that's the point: I cannot tell you what taxation rate banks pay in this province. The point is that there is a minimum corporate tax that was put in place by our government previously that applied to banks as well. I remember that in the budget of 1992 or 1993. The majority of taxes levied on banks are in the federal jurisdiction; I recognize that as well. The province has only a limited number of levers it can apply to the banks. But the government could send a good message here in regard to the taxpayers of this province: that banks will pay their fair share of the tax burden as compared to the people of this province.

If people are saying anything in this province, and I think this is being demonstrated through the government's move in the tax cut, there is a general feeling that there are people in our society who are getting away without paying their fair share of taxes. I, for one, get upset when I look at my paycheque at the end of the month and I see the tax I'm paying on it. I don't mind paying it, but I get upset when I look at certain people in our economy who pay less tax than I do as a middle-class working person. Banks are part of that.

I ask any of the government members in this House to stand up and tell this House and me and the people of Ontario, do you think, as Conservative members, that the banks pay a fair share of taxes here in the province of Ontario? That's what I ask.

Mr Marcel Beaubien (Lambton): I think the member for Cochrane South is trying to politically grandstand here this morning. I don't think it's fair for him to put the member on the spot, asking him whether the banks are paying their fair share. He doesn't have a bank statement in front of him; he doesn't have that information. The member for Cochrane South has admitted that he doesn't even know how much the banks pay in taxes. Consequently, I don't think it's a fair question to ask the member for Mississauga West.

Mr Bisson: I will categorically say that I feel banks don't pay their fair share. I remember, as a member of the government in 1992-93, through the budget process and the consultation we had done, looking at this particular issue. What I remember of the debate and what I remember of the figures is that in this province the percentage of tax levied by the province on banks is less than in any other jurisdiction.

In other words, if you operated a bank in Ontario, you were more advantaged as compared to other jurisdictions in other provinces in Canada because the rate of tax applied to banks in Ontario in 1992-93 was the lowest or the second lowest in the country. I think Quebec was the lowest and Ontario was the second lowest.

We as a government moved, through the minimum corporate tax, to try to address some of that. I recognize the issue the members are going to raise: If you tax corporations too much, they're all going to pull their money and run away from here. The point is that we had moved, through the minimum corporate tax, to try to address that.

I was hoping that this government, in its attempt to redress some of the tax issues people really feel are an issue, would try to move on the question of corporate profit and the amount of tax paid by banks. I take it that if the government doesn't want to respond, it's because it feels that if it got up and said anything against banks maybe it'd get in trouble with its friends on Bay Street. Or is it that they're somewhat embarrassed to respond for other reasons? I'd be interested to hear what the members have to say.

Mr Sampson: I've listened intently to the member continue on with his ranting and raving about taxation. I would draw to his attention that this is primarily the reason we are here in government and they are there in opposition.

The previous government's focus and, prior, the previous Liberal government's was indeed on taxation; across the board, on the personal and corporate sides, they increased tax rates.

The focus of our government is jobs. We believe that our role as government is to create the environment for the creation of jobs, not to create the environment for tax; just to tax for the purposes of taxation. We believe the taxation here -- and that's the theme of this particular

section of the bill -- is to create an environment that will create jobs and growth and opportunity in this province, not simply to tax.

I draw the member's attention to the fact that his well-publicized corporation capital tax was not solely a bank tax as he is leading this House to believe today; it was a tax across all businesses -- small businesses as well -- paying taxes, and increased taxes, year over year over year, as a result of the implementation of programs of the previous government and the Liberal government that preceded that.

Our focus is jobs. Our focus is to create an opportunity for jobs, and that is what we are trying to do, working with financial institutions in this province.

The Chair: Our business is debating the amendment. Further debate?

Mr Bisson: Back on the amendment, to the government: I take it they're not going to respond to this question because they're afraid to stand up and say anything that would be contrary to bank interests in this province.

Yes, we as a government introduced a minimum corporate tax that applied to all businesses, including banks, which is what I said in the beginning.

The government takes great pride and the parliamentary assistant takes great pride in saying it is your agenda to create jobs. Where are they? We have been looking for the creation of the jobs that you've been talking about for the year that you've been in office, and the only jobs you can point to are $7-an-hour, minimum wage jobs that you're creating as you're privatizing services in the province of Ontario, including the foodservices of this Legislature. That's one of the issues.

Mr Sampson: Mr Chair, on a point of order: Could I encourage the member to debate the particular amendment that we're speaking to?

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mr Bisson: I'm almost finished. I'm responding to the comments that the parliamentary assistant made. I didn't go down this line; he's the one who started it.

The premise of what you're saying in regard to

section 66.1 -- my point is there are many people in this province who feel they're paying a high level of tax and an unfair level of tax as compared to banks and other profitable corporations in this province. The question I have asked you is, do you think that's fair?

The government has chosen not to respond. I take it what the government is saying in its silence is that it will not respond because it is afraid that if it says anything, it might upset either the voters, if they were to hear the real answer the government wants to give, which is that they don't believe they should do anything when it comes to doing fair taxes in this province, or you have to think the converse is true.

The parliamentary assistant stands here and says, "We don't want to do that because we're creating jobs." The jobs that you're creating, my friend, are on the backs of hard-working people who are losing them as you're privatizing services across this province for a lower wage. We're seeing it happen right here in the Legislative Assembly in many of the services that are done. We're going to be seeing it at Ontario Hydro; we're going to be seeing it across all kinds of services.

When you talk about a lower tax rate as specific to this section, the taxes may be lowered on the personal income tax of this province by 30% over a period of years in what you're doing, but the reality is, you know as well as I do that the big benefactors of that policy will be those with a lot of money. People like myself and others who are low-income or middle-income people are not going to benefit, and whatever we do get, we're going to pay back in user fees.

I can tell you now that the user fees that are applied in our community, in the city of Timmins and others, are starting to amount to a hell of a lot more than what we're going to get back in the tax break that your government is giving.

So I take it on this section, the government doesn't want to respond because it feels that corporations and banks are paying their fair share of taxes, and they're not going to move in this area because they don't want to upset their big business friends on Bay Street who back their campaigns in the Conservative Party of Ontario.

Mr Gerry Phillips (Scarborough-Agincourt): The member for Cochrane South has a legitimate point. Surely the government has to acknowledge that by introducing this

section on banks they are saying, "Bank taxes are too low." You are introducing a tax on the banks. You are saying: "We are going to increase the taxes on the banks. If they change their behaviour, they can earn the tax back, but if they don't change their behaviour, the taxes are going up."

I think it was a legitimate question: Has the government concluded that the taxes on the banks are fair or has the government concluded they should be increased? I gather the government's concluded they aren't fair and they should be increased. So I think we are debating a bill here designed to increase the taxes on the banks. I think that's quite a legitimate question to ask the government: What is your position on the taxes on the banks?

I think we're owed an explanation and a justification for what I gather the government has concluded: banks need to have their taxes increased. I think that the member for Cochrane South, if I recall his riding correctly, asked a legitimate question, and we are owed an explanation.

Mr Baird: I would ask the member opposite, who has indicated he thinks the taxes should be raised -- raised from what? What percentage of taxation are the banks currently paying that would lead you to believe that they should be raised? I know you're a member who's always prepared, who doesn't make statements lightly, who would have done his homework on this ground. What percentage are the banks paying now, and why would you feel it would need to be raised?

Mr Phillips: You're going to have to listen more carefully to what I said. I said, the government -- you -- you have decided to increase the taxes on the banks, not me. You've decided that. That's what I'm saying, if you listen carefully, and I'm simply asking for the justification. Your budget calls for an increase on the taxes on the banks. If you don't understand that, and you seem surprised by that, then I'm surprised that you're in the caucus because, surely Mr Eves should have told you, we are increasing the taxes on the banks. He must have said: "In our opinion, they're not high enough. We've got to take the taxes up in the banks."

Mr W. Leo Jordan (Lanark-Renfrew): What's your opinion?

Mr Phillips: The member says, "What's my opinion?" Frankly, we are here to debate your bill, and if you're not prepared to defend your budget you should quit. You should quit.

Mr Jordan: You're not prepared.

Mr Phillips: The member, Mr Jordan, is saying, what's my opinion? My opinion is, we are here to debate your bill, and if you say the tax on the banks should be going up, then give us an explanation. If you can't explain it, get the Minister of Finance in here; maybe he can explain it.

Mr Jordan: Then debate the bill. You'd better read the bill.

Mr Phillips: So the people at home understand, we're having heckling here. Why? Because the government doesn't understand its own budget. The government doesn't understand that it is taking the taxes up on the banks and will not give us an explanation for it. That is simply all we're asking for.

Mr Sampson: I always appreciate when my colleague from Scarborough participates in the financial debates, and I do believe he does come quite prepared.

The member is asking for us to justify why this particular

section is in the bill. He's quite correct: This does, if the banks do not participate in the plan, create an additional tax revenue for the province, tax expenditure for the banks to the tune of $20 million. I said that a while ago and I believe --

Mr Phillips: Tell your caucus that.

Mr Sampson: No. The caucus is quite prepared to stand behind this.

Mr Tony Silipo (Dovercourt): Some of them don't believe you're doing this.

Mr Sampson: The caucus is in support of this, as, I believe, the Liberal and the NDP are, unless of course they've changed.

Mr Silipo: They probably think you're lowering taxes for banks.

Mr Sampson: The member here is now heckling from the NDP. I gather he would not prefer us to tax the banks at issue, but maybe --

Mr Silipo: No, I said I agree with what you're doing.

Mr Sampson: Maybe that's a change in position from the NDP convention last weekend, I don't know. But I would say to my friend -- and I believe he is my friend -- from Scarborough that the intent, the justification here, is to encourage the banks to pick up a little bit more of the pace, pick up a little bit more of their involvement in providing capital to small business. I think the important question is, did we believe that the banks were playing as active a role as we would like to have believed they play in that sector? And I think the answer to that question, to my friend from Scarborough, is no; and that's why we've brought forward this plan.

The mechanism is, how do we choose to do that? Well, we chose to do that through a mechanism of adding an additional tax to their cost. There's no question about that.

Mr Silipo: There, that's finally on the record.

Applause.

Mr Sampson: My friend from Scarborough North is applauding. I don't always appreciate when he applauds as I get quite concerned when he applauds.

I will say to my friend from Scarborough, his colleagues in Ottawa, who have been in control for some time -- and we'll see what happens when they go back to the electorate again, but anyway -- chose to increase the capital tax on banks, but they didn't choose to link this by the way that we did, with what we believe is an appropriate job creation plan. They just said, "Give me the tax," and no provision or no requirement to earn it back. "Just give me the tax and I'll spend it somewhere else."

We took a different tack, again because our focus here is to encourage the creation of a capital pool that will be used by small businesses in this province to generate jobs. Many of us have heard the horror stories of small businesses finding it very difficult to raise capital to create jobs in this province. I would say every member in this House has had those stories come to them, and I can speak perhaps a little bit more directly to those because of my prior experience.

Clearly what we're saying to the banks is: "Listen, we want you to be more aggressive in lending and providing capital to small business. Here is the mechanism we have created to encourage you to do that, and we're prepared to work with you to create that capital pool." Because small business, as we all know, and as I stand here in this Legislature, is by far the biggest generator of jobs in this province.

It's not the Fords and the large auto companies that create the biggest slug of jobs; it's small business, people working 12 or 15 hours a day, no holidays, working weekends, the small business owner who needs to generate the jobs, and they need capital to do that. That is the intent; that is the justification for this particular

section of this bill and subsequent amendments to the section.

Mr Phillips: That was helpful, and the member for Cochrane South asked the question some time ago. Just to confirm, I think what the member said is that they've decided that the banks are not performing as they want. The way they will get them to perform is to increase taxes and -- well, that's what the member just said. Mr Jordan is smiling, but they'll increase taxes, and if they perform as they want, they'll refund them. I just wanted to get that on the record because it's important for the future action of the government.

In terms of jobs, we are anxiously awaiting them. The headline in the Ministry of Finance document dated June 7: Employment in Ontario decreased 17,000 in May. We're down 10,000 jobs over the last three months in the province of Ontario. The government promised 145,000 jobs a year, and believe me, you will be held accountable by the people of Ontario for delivering that. So far it's going in the wrong direction, 17,000 fewer jobs in the month of May, so the Common Sense Revolution has been revolting for a year now without the promised job performance.

The Chair: Further debate? Is it the wish of the House that the amendment carry? Carried.

Shall

section 20, as amended, carry? Carried.

Shall sections 21 through 23 carry? Carried.

Section 24.

Mr Sampson:

Section 24 of the bill, subsection 1.1(4) of the Financial Administration Act. I move that

section 1.1 of the Financial Administration Act, as set out in

section 24 of the bill, be amended by adding the following subsection:

"Regulation

"

(4) The Lieutenant Governor in Council by regulation may provide that an amount other than $1,000,000 shall apply for the purposes of clause (1)(

b) and prescribe that amount."

Just to clarify, the subsection added by this amendment will allow cabinet by regulation to change upward or downward the figure of $1 million, which is the threshold for determining which assets of the crown or crown agency, when sold, will have their sale proceeds credited to the Ontario opportunities fund for the reduction of the substantial debt and deficit in this province.

Mr Phillips: A question of the member. This has to do with the Ontario opportunities fund. Can the member explain to us what impact it will have on the debt of the province, how by implementing the Ontario opportunities fund the debt of the province will be changed from the way it was previously reported? What impact will this have on the debt of the province?

Mr Sampson: I'm not exactly sure of the direction of the member's question, but I'll attempt -- it's one of the very few times that I have difficulty with his questions.

The intent here is to provide some flexibility in regard to the application of the sale proceeds of certain crown assets to the debt and deficit. So really the net impact on the debt and deficit we can't determine until we know what those sale proceeds are. Again, the intent is to be able to apply -- if the sale proceeds are, for instance, $750,000, under the current bill without the amendment we would not be applying that to the principal of the debt, but under this amendment we could.

Mr Phillips: Just briefly, the Ontario opportunities fund, with all due respect, is a public relations exercise and nothing more. It has zero impact on the debt, and I think the members opposite understand that. It's a trick to say, "Boy, we've created this opportunities fund," but let's imagine you sell an asset for $1 million. Right now it goes to reduce the deficit. Whatever the deficit is each year, that's added to the debt. Now you say, "Well, we're going to set up this red tape called the Ontario opportunities fund, it'll go in there, and then we'll channel it over through to the debt." The net result is exactly the same.

You've got this Ontario opportunities fund, and Chelsea and Samantha Smith came down here, six- and five-year-olds, but the net result is exactly the same. Now, you can do it. You can put out your nice public relations stuff. You can say you've got it. You can set up a new red tape. But it has absolutely no impact on the debt. Eventually people will see it for what it is, which was a neat little public relations thing in the gallery where the Smith sisters -- it was a neat photo opportunity. That's not the Smith sisters today; I mean on budget day.

Interjection: You're just jealous you didn't think of it.

Mr Phillips: Well, jealous we didn't think of it. But it will be shown for what it is, and we all will know that. So it's a one-day sort of PR exercise, but it's a permanent piece of accounting that has to go on that add costs to the people of Ontario purely for a public relations exercise.

The Chair: Just to clarify for all of us, I want to introduce Brian Gropp and his wife, Barbara. Brian is the manager of the Stratford and District Agricultural Society complex and certainly not the Smith sisters. Welcome to Toronto, Brian.

Mr Sampson: Thank you, Mr Chair, for alerting me as to who was in the gallery. I appreciate that.

In response to, I think he still is, my friend from Scarborough, I want to tell him that he may see this as a public relations fund but, frankly, I think people who make contributions towards the net reduction of the debt of this province need to be assured that those funds will go there. They need to be assured that those funds won't be --

Mr Baird: Used for current spending.

Mr Sampson: Well, redirected? We've seen a little bit of redirection in the previous government's management of the fiscal books of this province. When I say a wee bit, I'm withholding my comments slightly. I think the people of Ontario deserve to be assured that moneys placed in that particular fund for the purposes of debt reduction will indeed reduce the debt and not be spent in other areas where they were not intended to be spent. It's not a public relations exercise; it's purely -- I was going to say something but the member for Beaches-Woodbine is still recovering from last weekend.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): Now, be nice.

Mr Sampson: You were very nice to me; I appreciate that. I'll withdraw that comment.

It's not a public relations exercise. This is an exercise to provide some level of confidence to the taxpayers of this province that we are going to seriously address the reduction of the deficit and debt in this province.

The Chair: Further debate? Is it the wish of the House that the amendment carry? It is carried.

Shall

section 24 of the bill, as amended, carry? It is carried.

Shall sections 25 through 28 of the bill carry? They are carried.

Shall sections 1 through 3 of the

schedule carry? They are carried.

Shall the

schedule stand as part of the bill? It is carried.

Shall the title carry? It is carried.

Shall the bill, as amended, carry?

All those in favour, say "aye."

Those opposed, say "nay."

In my opinion, the ayes have it. It is carried.

Shall I report the bill to the House? It is agreed.

Hon Mr Palladini: I move that the committee rise and report.

The Chair: Shall the motion carry? It is carried.

The committee of the whole House begs to report one bill with certain amendments and asks for leave to sit again.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Shall the report be received and adopted? It is agreed.

TAX CUT AND ECONOMIC GROWTH ACT, 1996 / LOI DE 1996 SUR LA RÉDUCTION D'IMPÔTS ET LA CROISSANCE ÉCONOMIQUE

Mr Sampson moved third reading of the following bill:

Bill 47,

An Act to cut taxes, to stimulate economic growth and to implement other measures contained in the 1996 Budget / Projet de loi 47, Loi visant à réduire les impôts, à stimuler la croissance économique et à mettre en oeuvre d'autres mesures mentionnées dans le budget de 1996.

The Deputy Speaker (Mr Bert Johnson): Mr Sampson?

Mr Rob Sampson (Mississauga West): I do not have any further comments.

The Deputy Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Alvin Curling (Scarborough North): What an honour and a privilege it is for me to respond to this long-awaited budget of this Conservative government, which had waited such a long time to present the budget to this House. I thought that with the fiscally responsible manner they ran on, one of the first issues of the day when they arrived would be to bring forth a budget. However, we waited and we waited, and here it is. This opportunity is given to me to respond to that. There are so many things that have happened so far over the year of this government that I may just focus on a couple of issues here that are extremely important to the people.

I would first say that my understanding for a government to present a budget is the way in which it distributes the wealth of this province, in a manner that would make sure that all those in our society are equitably looked after, especially those who are most vulnerable, especially those who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, find homes, get on with life -- the disabled, the seniors -- who need the support. This is an extremely rich province. With all that is being said about deficit and debt, this is an extremely rich province.

The problem we have of course is how we distribute that wealth, and the Conservative government has come consistently -- their ideology is to give it to the rich and then hope that when the rich are well satisfied what is left over will be given to those who are disabled or discouraged, the seniors -- those who need it more than anybody else.

The problem we have though with that kind of theory, which they call the trickle-down theory, is that the appetite of the rich is so enormous that they find other bellies, even outside Canada. Therefore, by the time the others are to get some of that wealth, nothing is there, so we scream about debt and deficit and focus on that.

But let me emphasize that as long as I am here and as long as many of my colleagues in the opposition are able to say to them, "We will not allow you to bully your way through" -- and one of the first things this arrogant bully government has done is to make sure that we have a bill, legislation, that gives it ultimate control. In a democratic way, of course, we feel there is a process to do that. If you want ultimate control, you put forward legislation.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: There's much too much talking. There is only one member who has the floor. He is the only one I would like to hear.

Mr Curling: I appreciate that very much, Mr Speaker, and I hope they would have taken the approach you have taken, because I know it's very difficult to listen. It's very difficult to understand that the things you are doing to the poor and to those who are the most disabled in our society -- although you're doing it, you're closing your eyes. Those who are freezing on the streets without any homes you hope will just go away. For anyone to bring it forward to you, it's a bit of an embarrassment. The government -- I know they have a soul, I know they have a heart, but someone has to tell them.

While we tell them that, it's a bit painful, so they respond in that manner. So I'm glad, Mr Speaker, that you maintained some order so they'd listen. If they don't, they can leave if they want or they can read the Hansard, so to speak.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Scarborough North has the floor. The rest of you will get your turn. I'd like to hear the debate from him right now.

Interjections.

Mr Curling: Mr Speaker, regardless of the noise, I'll remind the Tory government, I'll remind those people without a heart that when they tried any kind of legislation itself --

Interjections.

Mr Curling: It's okay, Mr Speaker, I'll speak above them. I'm telling you, the people have more power than you. The people out there whom you are discriminating against, whom you are depriving of their basic income, whom you are depriving of the basic way of training, whom you're depriving of education, are much more powerful than you. This democratic process works very well. The thing is that many of us who believe that we are more powerful than the cause, then the cause will get you somehow sooner or later. I, on my side, hope much sooner than later.

Let me just focus directly on a plot that this government has done. I want the people of this province to understand that, and if you feel, as one of the poor that will be reeling with this kind of pain, you will then sooner or later realize what this vicious, dictatorial government has done.

I want to go back to Bill 26 when they, in a democratic way, should have put this process through in a manner that we all can debate and understand it. These people were running this bill through in a very short time, hoping that of course the members over there who follow blindly their leader would not understand the implications of this bill.

Even today, many of their own members, many of the members of the Tory party, of the Conservative Party, are asking many of their ministers about the user fees that have invaded their municipalities and invaded their community, not realizing that we were warning them all along that when they brought this Bill 26 in, the kind of power that they were giving and the kind of manner in which it was being administered was basically to change the name of taxation into user fees and copayments.

The individual on the street, the individual in the home, the individual community is paying more today than they were when this government took place.

I want to speak about this plot, this plot that this government has done.

Mr David Tilson (Dufferin-Peel): A plot?

Mr Curling: The plot that this government had started immediately when it came into office. And I would ask you, Mr Speaker -- and I will respond because I know you know the answer -- the first thing they did was to attack the poor. They took 22% from the most vulnerable people in our society, 22% of their income from them. How would you, Mr Speaker, or many of these members here feel if they had taken 22% of your salaries? You'd be screaming and doing all sorts of things. I think the first thing you should have started is cut 22% from your income and then see how it felt.

They took those on welfare and took 22% of their income and said: "Now you go out and pay your rent. Now you go out and feed your children. Now you go out and buy food." And the response from the Minister of Community and Social Services was that he will prepare a menu for them, they should buy tuna, and they should have a different diet altogether. He wasn't having that.

The Acting Speaker (Mr Gilles E. Morin): There's too much noise, honestly. Too much noise. I can't hear. If you want to hold conversation, do it outside, please.

Mr Curling: And as the plot boiled, as the plot went on, as they cut 22% from the most vulnerable people, they went ahead again and cancelled all the non-profit housing that was being constructed for those who can't afford the market rents outside there. Immediately they went out there and they cancelled that. I'm sitting here wondering, why would they be doing that? Why would they be cutting 22% off the most vulnerable people in our society? Why would they in the meantime cancel all that non-profit housing that would provide decent affordable shelter for those people? The plot continues.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing announced that he's going to eliminate rent control in this province. So here it is: the individual, less money, and that individual consumer, after having less money, has no other place --

Mr Ron Johnson (Brantford): How did you vote on it?

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr Curling: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It's very difficult, I know, for them to listen to this. It's painful because I know, when they go home, there are people on welfare, there are people who need affordable housing, there are people who were expecting fair treatment of this government, a budget that would show that they are supportive of them, not a government that looks for the rich, not a government that would see that landlords who have the control of tenants would get more, or the bankers, or all those who are in a most comfortable position. It's very difficult for them to listen, and I understand that very much so.

This minister -- to come back to the point -- the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, when he arrived on this job he said, "You have a friend," to all the landlords and to the builders. "Now you have a true friend." All along he's only a friend of the landlords and the developers. The tenants were very scared. The seniors were scared. They were frightened because they saw now that they'll be pushed out of their homes.

The landlords told them, "If you get rid of rent control, we will build." That's what he was telling us. I checked with those landlords; I checked with those developers. You know what they told me? They will not build if you take off rent control. They said rent control is not the demon in all this problem of having affordable housing; that's not it at all.

Then here comes a by-election and the greed of power hung in the heart of those of the government and they changed their tune. They said, "We're going to have a tenant protection package." We said, "What's that?" "It's a tenant protection package." We said, "No, you told those that you were going to cancel rent control." You said, "No, this is a tenant protection package." I watched them through the by-election. To buy votes, they promised to have a tenant protection package. People did not believe them.

I just told you as I started that the people are much more powerful than you are, because that's where the power lies. They know what you've done to them. They know very much that you have conned them in this, telling them one thing and doing something else.

The Minister of Municipal Affairs announced his white paper. What did the white paper tell them? The white paper told them that if you ever move from your home, you will no longer have your home in that affordable manner in which you have it now. Once you vacate, the price of that vacant unit will go up. In other words, "I'm going to give to the landlords the right to raise that rent whatever price they want," because it will be no longer under rent control.

So the individual who would like to move, because it's a free society, to move anywhere they want, to go to school where they want to, to work where they want, to go to church wherever they want, and decide that they will change that venue, is not able to do so because they have to consider now, "If I move from my environment, from my community, or choose another community, I will be penalized by a high rent that a landlord will be instituting on us by the power given to them by this Conservative government." So what they do is they may have to stay.

On the other hand, if the landlord chooses that he doesn't like this tenant and starts to put some harassment on this tenant in all kinds of creative ways and forces that individual out, what else can they do? They would have to go and are forced to pay more for their accommodation.

I think I will be out in that province and telling all those tenants: "Don't be fooled by this. Don't feel that this is the ultimate power of the government. You do have the power to tell this government to stop, that they are the one who's harassing." The government itself tells us that in its white paper it's going to have this harassment unit bureaucracy, this huge bureaucracy that will deal with any of those infractions.

Let me tell you about some harassment infractions and a bureaucracy that's been established to deal with that. It's called the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If you ever see that backlog in there, if you ever know the backlog that exists in there, you would not carry any of your cases there. I know people who have been there for five years waiting for their issue to be addressed. But this has not been so; they waited.

So they're going to create this bureaucracy about the harassment and say, "If we do find someone harassing you, we'll charge that individual $5,000 and we'll charge this other individual $10,000 to $50,000." But where is that poor tenant going to find anyone to go each day to put their case, to define what is harassment? I see a long lineup.

The other issue I want to speak on is that same white paper that was presented said they're going to build a lot of affordable units. I'm trying to find a very parliamentary expression to use. I think it's hogwash. They will not do so. They're trying to model their program on the BC model. In Vancouver it's there. There are almost no vacancies for apartments in Vancouver, yet they have not built any new units -- not one new unit.

I can't understand this government, which is so vicious to the poor, which closes its eyes to the seniors. They are fearmongering to the poor seniors out there. Those who are comfortable in their environment are finding today that a government that should protect them is not doing so. Not only are they being attacked by high user fees on prescriptions and drugs and higher fees all around us, for using the parks and using the libraries and what have you, but now they're being attacked, they're coming right inside their homes, to invade them, to push them out, all for the price of a profit for the landlord.

I want very much to make the point that I'm not against landlords or developers. I'm not at all against the landlord or the developer, because I think we need them in our society. They can continue to build, and I'd encourage them to build, but I will tell you, they will never build for the lower-income people. I would say to them, "If you're not making a profit, don't build." Why should they be subsidizing the poor? They should not be subsidizing the poor. They are in this business to make a profit, and that's fair.

What we as a government should do is to make sure we regulate that industry properly, because we realize the free market system doesn't work in housing. It does not work at all in housing. If you don't believe me, you can look at 1975 when the same government understood it wasn't working and decided very much so to introduce legislation of rent control. That's why you did that. But you did it in a half-hearted way that made matters worse. If you're going to do something, do it all the way.

In 1985 another government came in and tried to introduce a wider process of rent control, and later on, in 1990, another government improved the conditions in some respect. And here comes 1996, and this Conservative government has decided they're going to sacrifice the poor, they're going to sacrifice those tenants who are having extreme difficulty in paying affordable rents, and pass their fate over to the developers and to the landlords, pitting one against the other.

The Conservative government has abdicated their responsibility to protect those in our society who are most vulnerable. It's evident in the way in which they have passed laws; it's evident in the dictatorial way in which they have practised their policies; it's evident when they eliminate employment equity; it's evident in whom they have targeted.

I am so happy, so glad that I am in a democratic process, that I can see the back of you all a couple of years from now, because the people will have spoken, the people who have been subjected to the abuse and the bullying by you, by the Premier and his government. The people will not forget. They will not forget when they find themselves living in worse conditions, when they find themselves not able to get jobs because they are being discriminated against and there are no laws to protect them, when they find that budgets have been cut in the Ontario Human Rights Commission in order to carry out their work efficiently, because they do not care about those who are vulnerable in our society.

I say to the people outside, don't give up, don't give up any hope on this, because we know that things will get better as soon as we see the back of this Conservative government which has so viciously attacked the poor in our society.

We'll be happy when our kids -- mind you, some of them will be in pain. There will be pain in their hearts when they realize that the tuition fees for their children have gone up almost beyond the reach at which they can educate their children. Today we need more education in order to access jobs. But what they have done is increase tuition fees. They've increased the rents for students. Every September -- and I have spent a lot of time in the education system helping students get accommodation -- they are seeking accommodation.

I tell you that not only their tuition fees went up, not only user fees for every other thing within that system, but also rents for students will play an adverse effect on those who would like to access higher education and training. This government doesn't care. They hope that the rich, who are able to send their kids somewhere else or to private school, are better off and they don't have to worry.

They have made some tax cuts that we talked about. One person in my riding of Scarborough North said to me, "Will I be getting a tax rebate?" I said, "How much do you earn?" They said, "I get about $22,000 a year." I said: "No, you'll be paying for the rich, those who can more afford it. You will not get a tax rebate because it's not for you, you see. It's for those at the top end of the scale."

People out there waiting are those who may get $200, and then this government tells them that they go and pay it down on a house or buy some furniture to stimulate the economy. You know what they're going to do with that, Mr Speaker? They will pay the debts they have on their Visa because the other capitalists are all waiting there for it. The bankers are saying: "Your Visa is due. Give me that money."

It didn't going anywhere. Where did it go? Where did it improve the economy? It has in no way improved that person's life because it may have given them a bit to pay down, $200 or so, on the debt they have, but not to buy furniture, run out and take a trip, as the Premier said, and go to a ski resort, hoping that will stimulate the economy so jobs are given in tourism. No, that's not the way it's going to happen. This government has brutally and viciously attacked the poor. They have done it in such a vicious way that they will not forget. That day of reckoning will come when they will vote this Conservative government out.

On my last point, just quickly, some of my constituents asked me to give some awards out here and I think it's appropriate. In giving some of these awards, I want to read this. This one is for Steve Gilchrist. It says the Most Talkative Politician Award. This award goes to the politician who speaks the most and says nothing.

Another award that is given, and I thought it was a wonderful award, is the Mismanagement Award, to Al Leach. This award is for your mismanagement of the TTC and now the destruction of tenant affairs. That's another award they have asked me to give. They also gave me an award, and I won't bother to read that award here.

I want to read another award, the Hot Water Award to David Tsubouchi. This award is for the man who ends up in hot water the most: welfare cuts, dented tuna, shopping list and cutting 100K off welfare etc.

This is what people out there who have more power than you, who vote, are thinking. They are very discouraged. I said, "Have faith," because in the next three weeks, when you take that white paper on the road, that discussion paper about eliminating rent control, you will be hearing from them.

I am extremely discouraged about this budget. I'll be voting against it because I don't think it does anything for the poor or for the disabled. It doesn't do anything for the man who froze on the street, and they could not even recognize him because he was frozen with his hands over his face, frozen because he had no home and because this government does not care. Any government that does not care deserves to be voted out.

Mr Bernard Grandmaître (Ottawa East): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I think my friend failed to announce another award: Most Considerate Member of Parliament, Alvin Curling.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please. Questions and comments?

Mr Peter Kormos (Welland-Thorold): I stand to endorse Mr Curling's ringing condemnation of the free market system and its inability to provide housing in a fair and equitable way along with a whole lot of other products and services. Here we are on the last day of this House sitting in this session, the last day for this group of pages here, as fine a group of pages as has ever served this Legislative Assembly.

They should be awfully proud of themselves, because I know their families and their communities are proud of them and so are all of us, but they've been witnesses to some of the cruellest attacks on the weakest and most vulnerable in our society by this government, by the Harris Tory government.

Who pays for the tax break for the very rich? Those 22 women and men downstairs in our cafeteria and our foodservices are paying the price. While these fat-cat Tories come back here, where they continue to get their $80,000-plus a year salary, Monday, for those 22 women and men downstairs in the cafeteria and dining room, there is no place to go to work; there's no paycheque.

Here we are, I've got around 11:20 on Thursday at Queen's Park, and the foodservices are going to start in just a few minutes down there. I ask the public who are watching right now to come on down to Queen's Park today. Come down to the cafeteria, come down to the dining room and take a look at the faces of the victims of Mike Harris and share some of their despair and tragedy. Understand the price they're paying for Mike Harris's revolution. Understand the price those workers are paying for Mike Harris's fidelity and his obedience, like a lap-dog, to the very rich and the powerful in this province.

Come down to Queen's Park and watch blue-suited, fat-cat Tories chow down after they've condemned those workers to destitution.

Mr Joseph Cordiano (Lawrence): I just want to congratulate my colleague the member for Scarborough North on his most eloquent and passionate speech. There are few members who can address the House in as passionate a fashion as can the member for Scarborough North.

As always he demonstrates an ability to reach beyond what is seemingly debate in this House, reach beyond this assembly to the real people out there who are concerned about what this government is doing with their lives, who are concerned in community after community, as was pointed out by my colleague, about the consequences of total neglect in some cases by this government of those people who are going to suffer the consequences and the wrath of this government, the wrath of this budget, totally neglecting the difficulties and suffering that will take place in community after community across this province.

My colleague's remarks pointed towards the back benches of this government are called for because it is that back bench which at the end of the day can make a difference.

If they were to be real members of provincial Parliament, members of this Legislature and interested in what would happen in all those communities beyond their own partisan considerations, beyond their considerations for what's going to happen in the pecking order, who's going to be in a cabinet position, who's not and who's going to get a parliamentary assistant's position and who's not, who's going to sit on which committee and who's not -- forget about all that. You're here to consider the concerns of all your constituents, regardless of their partisanship, regardless of your partisanship.

Ms Frances Lankin (Beaches-Woodbine): I will have an opportunity to speak to the third reading of this bill, so I just want to respond very briefly to the member's comments and particularly on the awards he read out from the Lawrence Ave East Tenants' Association. I think it was an award for the worst management or the greatest mismanagement that went to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing, and the award for the minister who was in the most hot water went to the Minister of Community and Social Services.

The member very modestly didn't read out the award that went to him as the most considerate member of the Legislature, and he very nicely sent down one that actually came to me. I'm very appreciative of this. It was Member of Parliament Petition Award to Frances Lankin: "This award goes to a member of Parliament, a person who has given in the most petitions for all Ontarians, such as Bill 26, housing" etc. I'm quite impressed to have received this award. I think the member for St Catharines might want to contest the accuracy and the fact of whether or not I have put in the most petitions. I know he's at it every day, so he might want to contest that.

I want to say to the folks from the Lawrence Ave East Tenants' Association, Veronica Hering, who is the chairperson, Ruth Lunel, who is a fearless advocate on behalf of seniors, whom I've known and worked with over a number of years, that I appreciate their taking the time to observe what goes on here, to comment, to provide their feedback and particularly the kind of work they've done on issues like housing, like Bill 26, like standing up for seniors in Ontario. It's that kind of participation in the democratic process that keeps all of us in this House accountable.

It's that kind of response from the public that I hope in the long run will bring about a change in direction on the part of this government, a realization that they're not acting in the best interests of all Ontarians.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Scarborough North has two minutes.

Mr Curling: I just want to thank the members who have commented on my speech. I appreciate it very much.

I also want to read one last part, just to round off these awards: "Most Inconsiderate Politician to Mike Harris. This award is for your total disregard for the poor, disabled and especially the seniors." That says it all, in the sense that the people out there are frustrated. These people are so frustrated, as I meet with them each day, even up to last night in the riding of my good friend the member for Yorkview, where over 50 or 60 tenants came together to express their fear about the fearmongering that goes on in this government, that they feel they must react and stand up for their rights.

I encourage them to continue the fight. They should not be fearful of any ministers of this government who seem so mighty and powerful that they're beyond democracy.

I never had an opportunity in that Bill 26 demonstration, but I want to thank many, as a matter of fact most, and all the members of the opposition who stood up to this arrogant government's ramming this bill through. I say to them that it encourages me to know that there are people who believe in democracy and see that it must carry through regardless of the dictatorial way of this government.

Over the next year people will be coming before legislative committees to express their concern, and it will be heard. I will make sure it is heard.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Ms Lankin: I'm glad to have an opportunity to speak on third reading of this very important bill, this tax bill, this bill that comes directly out of the finance minister's budget. It's not with pleasure that I take

part in this debate because I'm concerned. I'm very concerned about the direction this government has set out in its Common Sense Revolution and as it follows through on that. I'm concerned about the impact on people in the province.

The centrepiece of this government's budget, of this government's commitment to the public of Ontario really was that 30% tax break. Give credit where credit's due: At least that's one promise they're living up to. But I can tell you that this is a promise that is very dangerous, not just to the economy of this province, not just to the government's fiscal situation, not just to the ability for government to continue to deliver important services, but to the lives of people.

I really hope over the break of the Legislature over the next few months Conservative MPPs go home to their ridings and meet with people in their ridings who are starting to feel the very direct result of this government's policy.

It won't be people who will come in and say: "Thank you very much. I now have a job I never would have had."

It won't be people who will come into your office and say: "Thank you very much. I now have this wonderful tax break I can go out and spend on all of these things I've always wanted to have or pay down my debt or do whatever I choose to do with this money."

It won't be from people who'll say: "Thank you very much. You've made me feel secure in my future in terms of my rental housing situation."

It won't be from people who say: "Thank you very much. I feel my health care system is going to be preserved and that medicare will survive these very difficult challenges that governments face in dealing with fiscal situations."

It won't be from parents who will come in and say: "Thank you very much. I know my kids are going to start to get a better quality education. I know class sizes are going to be controlled. I know the resources are going to be there when they need them. I know the supports in the school are going to be there when they need them. I know my child's teachers are getting the backing they need to be able to do the very best job possible."

It won't be from seniors who are going to come in and say to you: "Yeah, I can afford the user fees you've put on drugs. This is not a problem. I'm going to be able to maintain the pharmacological treatment that's been keeping me out of hospital, out of institutions."

Those are not the sorts of things you're going to hear. People are not going to thank you for that. And all of this because you're so committed to this 30% tax break, which costs the government $20 billion in a combination of lost revenue and money you've got to go out and borrow. I genuinely thought Conservatives prided themselves on some sort of fiscal common sense. How can it be common sense to have to go out and borrow and pay interest on the money you've borrowed to give a tax cut in the order of $20 billion over the next number of years that in fact goes to the wealthiest people in this province?

This is what is just so inane about the approach you are taking. Middle-income earners, working families, who are going to get back a couple of hundred dollars out of this tax break aren't going to see it, because you know the cuts you've made to municipalities mean that municipality after municipality is taking decisions either to increase their property taxes or to impose user fees for picking up garbage, for kids going to the skating rinks, for seniors having aquafit programs in the local pool, things the municipality used to be able to provide without additional fees out of their property tax base.

Because you've cut back on the transfers for municipalities, they're raising property taxes and they're imposing user fees on the citizens of their municipality, and working families are not going to see a penny of that great, wonderful, Tory promise of the provincial income tax cut.

Mr John R. Baird (Nepean): Yes, they will.

Ms Lankin: You know who will. Of course you do: the wealthiest in this province.

Mr Baird: You will.

Ms Lankin: One of the members across, the member for Nepean, says I will. Well, you know what, sir? In this province of Ontario, members of the provincial Legislature in fact are among some of the wealthiest. The salaries we get are pretty damn good salaries and I don't need that tax break. Do you know what I need? For my community to be safe and healthy, I need a health care system, I need a good education system, I need roads I can count on that do not have potholes, I need a transportation system like our TTC. Those are the things that make my community healthy, that make my community a safe and wonderful place to live.

Those are the things you are just ripping out of Ontario and we are going to suffer the consequences of that in the deterioration of the network of support, of the networks that pull us together in our communities, of the networks that provide the quality of life that we have and enjoy -- have had and did enjoy -- in the province of Ontario.

There are many ills I could speak of when I look at the agenda as it has been unfolding over the last few months under this government. Every time I look at this, I say: "Why? Why are they doing this?" There are one or two answers only: either it's a move that benefits your friends -- I'll talk about rent controls and some other examples of that; privatization benefits the private sector -- or it's a move you have to make to pay for this inane, stupid tax cut you're proceeding with.

Why would you force on Ontario an additional $20 billion of debt over the next four to five years to pay for this tax cut, and also, to deal with the government's fiscal situation, have to cut that much more out of services? This does not make sense.

This is not about deficit reduction; this is about smoke and mirrors which allow you to go out with the excuse of the deficit and say: "Gosh, we've got to downsize government. Gosh, we've got to pull government out of the way. Gosh, get government out of your face and let the markets take over." The markets, my friends, don't share my values. My values are values that put people first.

My values are values that say families need to have the support in their communities to provide for their kids, to make sure their kids are nourished, that they're well fed, that they're healthy, that they don't go to school hungry like we see more and more in this province, that those kids have got a good opportunity for the future, a good education system that's going to provide them the basis to learn and to be able to go on and develop a career, that there will be a possibility for a job.

My parents worked really hard. They understood the work ethic. They worked really hard, and one of the reasons they did it is because they wanted my brother and I to have a better shot in this world than they did. They wanted me to be able to go to school, to be able to go to university, to be able to get an education, to have dreams about a career, to be able to pursue a career in a field of my choosing. They worked hard and invested hard in my future, and of course left it up to me to do the best I could with those opportunities. But they believed they could create that opportunity. And we lived in a province that said: "Yes, you can. You can do that for your kids."

That's not how parents feel today. That is not what parents -- working families -- believe today. They don't believe they can provide better for their kids. It's killing parents to think about their kids not having the same breaks they did, not having the same opportunity.

I must talk for a moment about the youth who are coming out of school right now and the bleak sense of despair so many of them feel. I came out of school with a sense of optimism, a sense of confidence, a belief that I would have a job -- a belief, a full expectation. I never doubted it for a minute. I never worried about the possibility of having a job, of having a career I could build. Not for one moment did I worry about that. You talk to youth today who are coming out of school. You ask them how they feel about their futures. You ask them if they think they're going to have a job and a career.

Let me tell you, the bleak sense of despair, as I said, the lack of optimism and of confidence is a frightening thing to confront sitting and talking to young people who don't know what the future will hold for them.

There's a growing part of the population for whom this is true, and I say this to politicians of all political parties, how we must strive to become more relevant to the real lives of people. There's about 30% of the population out there, working adult population, who may find work but who are not likely to find a job in the traditional sense of a job with security and benefits and the things that I at least took for granted and expected would be part of my life.

Those are people who are working part-time, who are working on contract, who are working on fee for service, who are working seasonally, who are working in the grey market. They're not attached to the workforce in the same way that we expected most people would be.

When we talk to them about regulation and red tape and the sorts of things that we hear from this government are going to make the world so much better, when we talk to them about employment standards and those sorts of things, what does this mean to those people? Very little. Politicians and governments are becoming irrelevant to their lives.

We must find a way to speak out -- first of all, to listen -- but to speak out to the issues that affect people's real lives and to provide a sense of possibility, of hope, of vision in their lives, to create a situation where we, as elected representatives on behalf of our constituents, are here actually debating a vision of community, of the society that we want to live in, and then talking about what are the right steps to take to actually achieve that. Not the other way around. Not the way I have heard for months from this Conservative government.

Not the: "Get government out of the way, get elected representatives out of the way, there is no role, let markets take over. Somehow all the good economic stimulus that will come with this will trickle down and everyone will benefit."

Just think for a moment of some words from south of the border, some words from Ted Kennedy actually, in response to that old saying about a rising tide lifts all boats. As he pointed out, it seems like the yachts, in fact, are being lifted, but the skiffs and the rowboats and others are slowly sinking.

The polarization that is taking place in our North American society, but very, very certainly here in our Ontario society, is one which leads to a decay of the social fabric. It's one that leads to the world of the haves and the have-nots. It's one that leads to social discontent, families in poverty, in desperation, seeking alternatives to the desperation of their lives. It's one that leads to inner cities that are reminiscent of Detroit and New York and many other large US cities, not our Canadian experience. It's one that leads to what we see more and more: homeless people, people living on the streets.

A couple of months ago I attended a fund-raising dinner and it was for a very important environmental cause and I was invited as a guest of a prominent member of the business community to be at a table this person had purchased. I was proud and pleased to be there, I'm very supportive of this cause, and it took place in a lovely, old, posh club that has been around since virtually the time of Confederation.

Hon William Saunderson (Minister of Economic Development, Trade and Tourism): Not the Albany Club?

Ms Lankin: It's down on Bay Street. I came out of that at the end of the evening and walked out the door and down the few steps to the sidewalk on Bay Street. Right outside this building there's a large grate. It was winter; it was cold. There were two men with sleeping bags on this grate. This is where they would spend the night. I was hailing a cab to come back up here to Queen's Park to get my car, and there were many other cars lined up, and the imagery -- and I'm sorry, I don't mean to exploit this -- was pretty powerful.

There were BMWs and Mercedes and limousines lining up to pick people up coming out of this event, a very worthy event, and this is no comment on the people who were there or the worthy cause they were supporting.

But the contrast, I say to my colleagues in this House, the contrast was so startling and so upsetting, it was like being punched in the stomach. You come out and you see this in our city, more and more people who are homeless; as I said earlier, more and more kids who are going to school hungry. Well, we have a responsibility, colleagues in this House of all political parties. We have a responsibility to say "No. That is not our vision of the community. That is not the Ontario we want to live in, and we have a responsibility to work together to create something different."

I have to say to you yet again, a stupid tax cut which is giving most of the money to the people who already have in this society and causing you to cut services from those who have not does not contribute to my vision of Ontario, to my vision of the community that I want to live in.

Just look at some of the things you've done this week, because there are so many. That's one of the things I'm trying to debate or to talk about, this government's agenda. You have to have a shotgun, you have it cocked in all directions, because you got your fingers in all sorts of little parts of what goes on in our community. Things are changing so quickly and so dramatically, and the cumulative effect you have not thought about, and that's where the danger lies.

But let me just talk about this week. This week we see the introduction of the white paper talking about changes to rent control, gutting rent control, destroying rent control. But rent control is the name of a process of a protective piece of legislation so let's not worry about the law, the name, the whatever. Let's talk about the people.

Let's talk about the seniors whom you are saying to, that they are now economic hostages in their apartments, because if they move, their rent control protection is gone. So, if a senior gets to the point where they need a little more help, the need to rely on their family a little bit more, but they still want to live independently, and they want to move from Peterborough, where they live, to Kingston, where their son or their daughter has relocated for business, for work, they want to move to be closer, gone is their rent protection. They're economic hostages. Think about this.

Mr E.J. Douglas Rollins (Quinte): They might even get cheaper rent.

Ms Lankin: Oh, the member says, "They may get cheaper rents." In a dream -- in a dream. Mr Speaker, I know. You always remind me to keep my remarks directed to you. Mr Speaker, this kind of wish and hope does not comfort the senior who is in their home now protected by rent controls knowing what will happen with their rents.

Mr Bill Murdoch (Grey-Owen Sound): Protected by Big Brother. More government control.

Ms Lankin: I'm just listening over here to the member who is saying, "Oh, yes, government should be Big Brother and control everything and protect everything."

Mr Murdoch: It shouldn't be. That is what you want.

Ms Lankin: You know what? When it comes to a senior who's living on a fixed income, I want my government to protect that senior.

Interjection.

The Acting Speaker: Order, please, the member for Grey-Owen Sound. There's a period afterwards where you can pass all your questions and all your comments. Wait for that period.

Mr Murdoch: Tell her to keep her finger to herself. Don't point your finger.

Ms Lankin: The member has counselled me not to point my finger. If he remains quiet and doesn't provoke me, I won't turn to him and point my finger. We have a deal. It's an easy deal to strike.

The point I'm making is, I want my government to play a role in protecting that senior. I want my government to work with the private sector to create employment opportunities, to create economic growth, but government's role is to curb the excesses of unbridled capitalism.

That's what these folks have forgotten. They're sort of saying, "Take the reins off." Government has a role to step in and provide that balance on behalf of people. I want the seniors who live in my riding and across this province to have a government that cares enough about them to protect them, to make sure they have a home and don't become part of the homeless. I care about that and you should too.

I care about the students who have gone off to university or college and who come home to a home community in the summer and then go off again for a school year. If they leave the apartment and come home for the summer or go to another community for a job, they've lost their rent control protection. Think about this. Think about the economic hostages you are creating in this province.

That was one thing that was done this week. What's another thing?

Within a couple of days we will see the legislation that was passed come to fruition and we will have user fees, new user fees on drugs for senior citizens in this province. The Minister of Health stands in his place and says: "Seniors are very supportive of this. Seniors know that in other provinces we have copayments." Is that the test?

With the changes that are necessary in the health care system, with the changes that those who have a vision for health care reform believe in and argue for, which are the changes that take our system and spend more of our resources out of the institution and in the community, out of illness treatment and more on illness prevention, on health and wellness promotion, pharmacological treatment, prescription drug treatment is a very important part of quality health care nowadays.

It's taken on more of a role with the advances in science and the development of new products and new drugs that can treat conditions, that can keep people stable or help people become healthy without having to go for more intrusive types of treatment, surgery or into hospital. It's an important part of the shift of what has to happen in the health care system. We should be looking at other provinces moving to the Ontario situation where there is not a user fee, not the other way around.

This just speaks to your total lack of vision of what needs to happen in health care to preserve quality health care, to preserve medicare. If I sound passionate when I talk about medicare, any New Democrat would be. It's part of our heritage. We speak of medicare with burning, fierce pride. It doesn't mean we defend the status quo. It doesn't mean we don't believe there are changes and natural evolutions, and we're absolutely willing participants in seeing those changes brought forward.

But that's not what's happening here with this government. There isn't a vision for the protection of medicare. Of course not. Just look at Bill 26. Just look at all the changes which open the door for the Americanization and privatization of our Canadian health care system. Let me tell you that I and my colleagues will fight you every step of the way on that, because medicare is important. Medicare provides the best system we know anywhere in the world for people's health, for the quality of health. Just look at the population statistics in terms of our quality of health in this country.

Look at all the measures. We will fight you and your destruction of this important national heritage of medicare. We know where you're headed, but we know you will meet great resistance along that path. That's another thing that's happening this week in Ontario.

Another really good example: With this government, bottom line means everything, privatization, giving over chunks of work to your friends in the private sector. Let's just talk about the 22 men and women who are out the door tomorrow from this building, who work here, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, in the food and beverage services. The public might not know a lot about that, but there is a dining room downstairs and there's a cafeteria downstairs.

The men and the women who work there are waiters, waitresses, servers, cashiers, cooks, short-order cook, chef, people who work in the beverage services, people who do some of the minor catering work to some of the meetings that happen in the building.

These are folks who have worked here for a long time. The government comes in and says, "Oh, my gosh, there's a deficit problem here in that we don't take in as much money in the food and beverage services as we pay out in salaries, so we've got to solve this problem."

You know what? I can agree with you. Okay, let's solve the problem. What's the solution? You could put up the prices. Why should the taxpayers of Ontario subsidize the cost of your lunch or my lunch or any other member of provincial Parliament's lunch? So let's put up the prices. Why is that such a stupid response to this problem of a deficit in the food and beverage services? Why wasn't that a possible solution? Ideologically, of course, this is in the public sector, this must be bad, so therefore the only solution is to hand it off to your buddies in the private sector. So who's coming in? Marriott's coming in to run this.

How are they going to deal with this deficit problem? Well, two things to it --

Mr Wayne Wettlaufer (Kitchener): How much was the staff making?

Ms Lankin: Mr Wettlaufer, I'm going to get to that, so you can wait for that point.

Marriott comes in. How do they solve this problem? They're going to do two --

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.

Ms Lankin: Marriott's going to come in and solve this problem in two ways. First of all, I predict that in fact the prices will go up anyway. Fine. So what else is going to be part of the solution, because it's not just breaking even that is their goal? Would a private sector business come here just to break even? Of course not. We know that as part of the business world, a very admirable motive in business, there is a profit to be made. Investments and return on investments are an important part of what goes on out there in the business world.

But my friends, how they're going to do that, how they're going to achieve that, is by dramatically slashing the wages and benefits and hours of workers, of servers, of cashiers. Think about the people we're talking about here.

Mr Wettlaufer said to tell the public how much these people made. Yes, you're right, about $17 an hour these people made. Some of them, like Anna, after 18 years of work in this place and seniority, made $17 an hour. I'm assuming the member wanted me to tell the public that because they should be outraged that someone as lowly as a waitress or who works behind a food counter could make that kind of money.

How indignant we should all be on behalf of the taxpayers that there's a decent wage being paid to this woman who worked for 18 years, who is 57 years old and who is on her way out this door with an offer of one-year bridging to a pension at 60 so she will have two years plus with no income, her husband on a disability pension; no way to support her and her husband through that. Where do you think she's going to get a job?

I hope people are indignant that she was getting that kind of money. I suspect people will feel a real sense of sympathy when they realize that she's not employable, has nowhere to go and is out the door so that your business friends, your buddies, can make a profit off this operation by screwing workers, because that's what it comes down to.

There's another woman who works down there, eight years' seniority. Her situation is she's going to go from $16, $17 an hour down to just over $7 an hour -- that's what's been offered -- no benefits, and no guarantee of hours. Currently I think her situation is 35 hours a week, 35 or 37 regularly -- no guarantee of hours. How does she make this decision about her child in child care, to pay for the child care, when she's got no guarantee she's going to be able to pay for it out of her paycheque because there no guarantee of hours? What are you doing to her?

Forcing her into a situation without work, where she has to keep her child at home and an inability to put a child in child care, and perhaps ending up on social assistance. Does this make sense?

These are 22 people. I understand from the attitudes in this place and some of the things that I've heard, like, "Tell the people how outrageously much these people earned," that you don't care about the 22 people. Well, some of us do. Some of us know them personally and feel deep in our hearts their pain.

Hon Al Palladini (Minister of Transportation): On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I seek unanimous consent of the House that we continue to meet from 12 to 1 o'clock for the purpose of continuing consideration of government business and that at 1:30 we proceed to consideration of routine proceedings as prescribed in the order of the House, June 26.

The Acting Speaker: Is there unanimous consent? Agreed.

Ms Lankin: The point is not just that some of us care about these 22 people, because we do, but that this is such an illustrative example of this government's approach to the people of Ontario, its cavalier approach of dividing people into the haves and have-nots, of dehumanizing anyone who has a legitimate complaint about this government. Just the example of saying, "Tell the public how much these workers were paid." It's the workers' fault? Come on.

Mr Sean G. Conway (Renfrew North): How long are you going to speak?

Ms Lankin: Not long. There's a question about how much longer I'm going to speak. Probably a few more minutes -- it won't be long -- just to facilitate the members in terms of their participation so that they know.

I think often of the way in which this government plays the politics of blame and the politics of division. I think often of the way in which this government responds to anyone who has a criticism of it as a special-interest group. There are two moments in time that I think of.

A couple of months later in Hamilton, when he was sitting in his big, cushy hotel room at the Tory convention and 125,000 Ontarians were in the street ringing that hotel, calling on this government to wake up and to understand that the devastation it was bringing to this province was hurting real people, our Premier proudly stood and said, "Special-interest groups."

Oh, the double standards are amazing. The politics of blame, the politics of division are amazing. Once again, let me tell you that is not my vision of the community I want to live in, one where it is "us" and "them"; one where there are haves and have-nots; one where it's okay for a member of provincial Parliament, with disdain, to talk about ordinary working people behind a cash register or serving tables earning $17 an hour. That's not my vision of my Ontario and I'm going to fight for my vision of my Ontario, as will many Ontarians, in response to the ongoing onslaught from this government of decisions which serve --

Mr Wettlaufer: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: The member for Beaches-Woodbine stated that the members of the government spoke with disdain. That's a question of motive, which is not allowed. We were not speaking with disdain on what the average worker --

The Acting Speaker: Take your seat. That's not a point of order.

Ms Lankin: Far be it for me to impute motive, so let me speak of my own motive. I speak with disdain for the comments that the member made.

I speak with disdain for the direction of this government, which is hurting real people, people whom I represent in my constituency; families who don't know whether they're going to be able to keep a job; kids who don't know whether they're ever going to have a job; seniors who are going to feel like economic hostages in their apartments because if they move their rents will go up; youth who have invested energy and vigour and idealism into obtaining an education and who have no confidence or hope that they'll ever be able to use it or apply it to the development of a career in their lives.

I want a different kind of Ontario. I will fight for a different kind of Ontario. I believe the people of Ontario, as they start to feel, day after day, the effects of the decisions of this government, which are made every day on the basis of who benefits -- when it's your friends who benefit, when it's the landlords who benefit, when it's the sharks on Bay Street who are circling around just sniffing the blood money that will come from the privatization of so many public-owned assets, when they benefit, your decisions are clear.

When it's a decision to cut to pay for this tax giveaway to the wealthiest in our province, your decisions are clear. We know whose side you're on, and the public will understand soon whose side you're on.

My friends, when it comes to being a representative of the people in your riding, at some point in time those people will demand of you that you bring to the debate, bring to the discussion, bring to the decisions of your government a sense of their interests, a sense that you're on their side. If you fail to do that, the consequences will be only too obvious at that time.

I appreciate having the opportunity to participate in the third reading debate on this important bill coming out of the finance minister's budget. It's clear that I and my colleagues are very concerned about the direction of the government.

As we head into a period of reflection, when the Legislature is not sitting over the next couple of months, back into our constituencies, I hope the public will make clear to all of us in our riding offices their points of view so that it's not only members of the New Democratic Party and members of the official opposition who speak on behalf of those views, but perhaps some of the members of the Tory caucus will begin to bring those points of view back to the discussions in the government and we might see a different approach. One can always live in hope.

The Acting Speaker: Questions or comments?

Mr Baird: The member for Beaches-Woodbine talks about the lack of hope and opportunity out there. That's exactly the message that those of us on this side of the House heard during the election campaign -- that there was no hope and no opportunity for a better future, particularly for young people in this province. That's why we know that if we continue to go down the same road we were going down we would get the same results. That's why the problems and challenges facing the province required a real change in direction, and that's the change the people of Ontario voted for. That's important to get on the record.

I am concerned with the member's discussion about how the tax cut will only affect the most wealthy in society. That's class warfare. We know that the tax cut to create jobs introduced by this government will benefit all income taxpayers in the province; it will benefit those families making $30,000 and $40,000 a year. That's good news, because with an increasing debt burden and declining income, they don't have the resources to raise their family they used to have.

The member talks about the lack of hope and opportunity among youth. That's something that's built up over recent years. It didn't stop them, when she was in government, from raising tuition for university students. They promised to eliminate tuition, and they raised it. With great respect, where was the hope and opportunity for young people then?

She talks about the reality of the restructuring going on here at Queen's Park with respect to foodservices. I don't think any one of us is pleased that this is going on. I don't think any one of us takes any pride in what's going on. The reality is that we cannot spend $800,000 as a subsidy for a restaurant, for a dining room.

Ms Lankin: So raise the price of your tuna sandwich.

Mr Baird: I went there for breakfast last week and paid $9 for bacon and eggs. Regrettably, we can't afford that $800,000 subsidy. But it's very important to put our motive. No one takes any pleasure in this. No one is happy about it. For the member to stand there and assume that this is somehow a joyful occasion is regrettable.

Mr Conway: I want to commend the member for Beaches-Woodbine for her remarks this afternoon. I don't, obviously, agree with all that she said. She reminds us, however, that there are a lot of people in the community who are not sharing in the cornucopia of economic good news that seems to encourage the young Turks of the government bench. The previous speaker reminds me that so much of this is about faith and ideology, and I'm quite prepared to say let's give some benefit of the doubt.

Quite frankly, when I hear some of what I've heard in this place in the last six or eight months -- and I understand what the voters were saying in Ontario a year ago -- this "Let's just open the place for business; let's just settle some accounts," it reminds me of Grant Devine in Saskatchewan in 1982. The last time I checked, half that government was either under indictment or in jail.

I know that's not going to happen in Ontario, but boy, does some of the speechmaking remind me of the kind of wonder that rigorous, right-wing conservatism was going to provide to the people of Saskatchewan under the Devine administration. Ten years later we have an opportunity to assess performance against promise. I don't know whether I'm the only one who notices how many in that government and caucus have gone to jail or are under indictment for some really interesting behaviour.

Much has been said here this morning about the situation downstairs in the dining room -- Herr Wettlaufer was interjecting enthusiastically during Ms Lankin's speech -- but I just make this point: 20 years ago, if I remember correctly, long before the socialist hordes ran the place or the Liberals were in charge, we were paying to a private operator something like three quarters of a million or a million dollars in subsidy. Mr Dineley comes to mind. What goes around, comes around, and I guess we're on that carousel again.

Mr James J. Bradley (St Catharines): I enjoyed the member's speech very much. I was observing it in my office and then later on in here. It really makes me wonder how the New Democratic Party could have chosen anyone other than the member for Beaches-Woodbine for leader, because of the points that she made so eloquently and with so much conviction. I want to commend her on that. I think she outlined very well the general direction in which we're moving.

I wish I had an American flag with me today, as my friend the former member for Mississauga West used to have, because that is clearly the direction in which this government is moving, the American model, particularly some of the states that have widened the gap between those at the bottom rung and the top end of the economic ladder. I find it unfortunate that this government is allowing it to move in that direction.

I don't know if the member had a chance to mention the need for the appropriate provincial funding for the environmental cleanup of Martindale Pond, because I know there was a time limitation, and the appropriate funding of --

Ms Lankin: For the MRI, the magnetic resonance imager, for St Catharines?

Mr Bradley: We have the MRI in St Catharines now. I've mentioned that many times.

Ms Lankin: Thanks to the work I did when I was minister.

Mr Bradley: Thanks to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who gave that approval.

Subsequent to that, I was wondering whether the member will be commenting further on the need for funding for the 1999 World Rowing Championships to be held in St Catharines, which will generate all kinds of funds for the provincial government, funds which I hope they would apply eventually to assisting those who are most in need and who require the intervention of government, as opposed to those who certainly do not require that assistance from government.

The Acting Speaker: Further questions or comments? If not, the member for Beaches-Woodbine.

Ms Lankin: Let me say to the member for St Catharines that no, I didn't have a chance to mention those very important things, although when I did have an opportunity in government to serve in the portfolio of economic development and trade and work on community economic development initiatives, the beginning work on attracting the rowing championship was a very important project, along with enhancement of the rowing lanes in Welland.

It's a very important tourist and economic stimulus project and I hope the government will look seriously at it, although I know they cancelled all of the community economic development program I put in place so I'm not sure whether you should hold out much hope for that.

Mr Conway: It would make a great movie: On Martindale Pond.

Ms Lankin: On Martindale Pond, right. In any event, let me say to the member for Nepean, you say you don't take any joy in 22 people going out the door from the foodservices. Fair enough. We have an opportunity this afternoon. The Legislative Assembly committee is now going to sit to hear from the Speaker and to hold the Speaker accountable for some of these decisions. Join with us then in asking for a review of the alternatives, the alternatives that were never seriously considered by the Board of Internal Economy because the direction had come from the front benches to the board members, from your caucus, with respect to what should happen, and that was the course of privatization.

Join with us this afternoon to search for an alternative and, most importantly, to ensure that for those people who are most harshly treated in this, the Annas and the other examples we've brought forward, there are some individual solutions that are found if you refuse to join with us in the support for overall review.

I just want to say, when it comes to youth and it comes to hope, I just saw a friend of mine, a young woman sitting here. She is our hope. Not our future; our present. I'm pleased she's been here to hear this today.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. Time has expired.

Ms Lankin: I appreciate the opportunity, Mr Speaker.

The Acting Speaker: Further debate?

Mr Cordiano: I'm delighted to speak on Bill 47, the budget bill, and I'm delighted to comment on this government's outlook and vision for Ontario because this budget in effect determines where we're going for the years to come before us. This one budget, the first budget this government has brought down, will cement the fate of this government and set a course for all Ontarians which I think will be difficult to deal with in the years to come down the road.

For those of us who do not agree with the budgetary measures that are outlined, those of us who strongly feel that this budget will set a course that will be destructive, that will be very painful for the people of this province, we lament the fact that this government has taken these initiatives.

Let me deal with some of the myths contained in this budget, because I think there are many. One of the myths is essentially that this budget, through its tax-cutting measure, the income tax reduction that has been proposed by this government, will result in real net job creation amounting to 725,000 new jobs for Ontario.

Well, if we look at the government's own projections contained in the budget, this fiscal year, 1995-96, the unemployment rate will go up as a result of the introduction of this budget. If you further factor in the projections made by this government contained in its own forecasts in the budget, there will not be the kind of job creation that this government stated would be the case in the Common Sense Revolution document that was put forward in the last election campaign.

I do not believe this government was being straightforward and coming clean with respect to its job creation numbers when it stated so in the budget and, prior to that, in the election campaign. We know that's going to be one of the first promises that will not be kept. We can't see that today, but I think in three years' time it will become evident that this government is bankrupt of ideas when it comes to ensuring that job creation is taking place.

They will simply rely on what will happen out there in the private sector; that is to say that suddenly there will be a tremendous influx of investment, suddenly there will be a tremendous increase in job creation, when the opposite is taking place. A number of jobs are disappearing out there in the corporate sector. Every day we hear an announcement whereby jobs are being lost.

Yes, there is some job creation going on. I read today in one of the clippings that 200,000 new jobs were created across the country this year and that only 48,000 of these were created in Ontario. Now that's an interesting figure because, as everyone knows, Ontario accounts for almost 40% of the GNP of this country, yet when you look at those 48,000 new jobs that are being created in Ontario compared to the 200,000 across the country, that's less than 25%. That's approaching somewhere between 20% and 25%.

We are certainly not getting the kind of job creation numbers we should be getting in this province of ours to keep up with the number of new entrants into the labour force. In fact, the number of people who are still unemployed in this province approaches half a million. Let's not mention the fact that there are half a million others on social assistance who are able-bodied adults who could be working. Together, that is one million people who could be working in this province and do not have the opportunity to do so because there are not the jobs.

That is one of the first myths created by this government in its budgetary policy and its proclamations through its budgetary statements.

The second myth has to do with the fact that the consumer will benefit, the mythical one taxpayer will see an increase in purchasing power as a result of this government's budgetary measures. The income tax cut which was put in place through the budget will kick in at some point during the summer, and then following that there will be additional cuts made. If we examine the logic of what the government is saying with respect to its tax-cutting stimulus program, follow it through, on the one hand you have income tax cuts which are designed to put more money in the pockets of consumers so that in effect consumers will go out and spend, thus creating jobs in Ontario.

One wonders where those consumers will spend their money and if it will be on goods that are made in Ontario. We know there are many goods that come into Ontario from all over the world. Furthermore, those same people could pay down their mortgages, which is a good thing because it's adding to savings, but it does not stimulate the consumer-driven economy, which this government was banking on to create jobs. Furthermore, those same consumers could purchase a vacation in Florida, and that money leaves the country with no net impact in Ontario in terms of job creation.

Even if you concede that to the government, following through with their logic that you cut income taxes to individuals so that they can have more purchasing power, follow that through, but then how do you explain that on the other hand you're imposing, as a result of all the cutbacks that have been undertaken by this government, additional user fees? What do those user fees represent to that one mythical taxpayer? Well, add it together. You're not going to have any additional purchasing power on the part of that one taxpayer because those user fees eat away at any savings that might have accrued to that person by way of an income tax cut.

What you're left with is really no stimulus. Even following the logic of this government's plan, that mythical one taxpayer does not even get the benefit of that tax cut in the end, because the very purchasing power that this government likes to speak about going up will not be there, in effect because it will be taken away by user fees. What kind of user fees? All kinds: property tax increases, increases that will be imposed by municipalities for recreational services, other types of municipal services, other types of provincial services.

There is a plethora of additional user fees that will be imposed on the one mythical taxpayer. So, following through on the logic, the government defeats itself with an illogical plan that on the one hand talks about having consumer purchasing power going up and on the other strips away that very consumer purchasing power that was supposed to create the jobs. So you have these myths contained within the budget.

I thought about this budget and the direction that this government is taking us in and the vision set forward by this government, and it goes well beyond that. The vision that this government has laid before the people of this province and the undertakings of this government will lead to the kind of society which ultimately we won't be able to recognize once this government gets through. It will be a pale version of what Ontario was throughout its glorious past and history.

When I think of this great province, the thing that comes to my mind are its people, the people around this province. I've been travelling this province for a number of years now, and more recently in the last number of months I have visited many communities across the province. What I've understood about the strength of this province are its people, their dedication, their commitment, their perseverance, their spirit, and this government is violating that very spirit, that very essence of what made Ontario great.

There is no consideration for people, as befits any government in this province, to undertake a commitment to ensure that we view people in this province as the assets of our economy, of our society, not its liabilities, and that's precisely what this government has done with those one million people who are sitting on the sidelines, who are unemployed or on social assistance. They have basically discounted those people as liabilities to all of us, and you cannot have that in a society that is successful.

The most successful jurisdictions in the future will be those that invest in their people and those that make those people who are not now productive more productive in the future because we cannot sustain this kind of society, a society which is bent on having two types of lives, two types of worlds: one world, one society where people are well-off, well-educated, highly trained and earning the kind of dollars that most people could only dream of. That's a minority. And all the while there are many, many -- too many -- people who are unskilled, untrained, uneducated, lagging far behind.

That is the circumstance we face in our province and it is a malady that is inflicted upon many societies today in the industrialized world. I understand that. But the solutions being proposed by this government, the new directions, the vision that has been set forward by this government, is the wrong course of action to take. It will propel this province further and further behind. It will not take us forward into the future, will not allow this province its true destiny, will not allow us to move boldly into the future to realize a future that is full of potential and far greater than what it is today. This government is shortchanging the people of this province as a result.

I started to think about what is the true description of this budget and what is the true image that comes to mind when this government puts forward this vision in its budgetary policy. How does the government view Ontario? I started to think about it, and what I came up with is this: This government views an Ontario where there's no room for exceptions, there's no room for people who don't fit in.

It's almost an idyllic kind of outlook that this government has of a world that no longer exists, of a province that no longer exists, of a province that hearkens back to an era when people lived in a single-family dwelling, there were two cars in the garage, women stayed home, looked after their children, were by and large housekeepers, didn't work, and husbands went off and earned a living. They were the sole breadwinners.

Those are the policies that this points to as put forward by this government. It's almost an imaginary world. It's almost like looking at a bunch of plastic dolls and this government's saying, "This is what we want." I have two young children, two daughters. What do they play with? They play with Barbie dolls. This government looks upon this province almost in the way that those children look upon their dolls -- they're playthings. They've imagined a province, a society, where everyone perfectly fits into these slots, where it's an imaginary world. That's the only way you can describe it because there are no exceptions for people who can't fit in, through no fault of their own.

Let me give you an example of what I mean. I raised in this House the issue around a constituent of mine, a Mr Jim Wade, who is a disabled person who had been working for this provincial government of ours for the last 22 years. He had been given that opportunity by the Progressive Conservative government of Bill Davis through a vocational rehabilitation program. I take this as an example of what this government is doing to many, many people across this province. They've simply said, "Well, Mr Wade, you no longer fit in." "How so?" Mr Wade asked.

"I had done my work diligently; I had all kinds of good performance records. How can you tell me I don't fit in? I've been a very productive member of the Ontario civil service and now you're telling me I don't belong, there's no room for me here."

That's not acceptable. It's not acceptable to me,