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

October 22, 1991

35th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS' STATEMENTS

CAPITAL FUNDING FOR SCHOOLS

Mr Daigeler: Today I will do something I have not done before and probably will not be doing again for a long time. I will congratulate and thank an NDP cabinet minister.

Before the Premier and the government backbenchers get carried away with enthusiasm, I should say that my thanks would have come much earlier had the former Minister of Education listened to me in May. It was then that the member for London Centre decided to freeze the capital announcements for the Carleton school boards. This uncalled-for delay was supposedly put in place to let the Ottawa boards find an end to their long-standing accommodation quarrels.

As expected, when Larry Taman released his one-man commission report on October 9, he made one short suggestion: Release immediately the capital funds held back for the Carleton public and separate boards. My thanks go to the former minister for implementing the Taman recommendation and for authorizing an elementary school in my own neighbourhood of Barrhaven. Barrhaven parents have long been waiting for this good news. As I said, though, in a press release on October 10, late funding for Barrhaven is better than no funding.

PUBLIC LIBRARIES

Mr Harnick: The city of Mississauga has proposed presenting a private member's bill that would replace public library boards with committees of municipal councils that would include citizen representation. The city of Mississauga wishes to implement the above change in order to make its elected representatives more accountable for the library system. But while the proposed changes may work in Mississauga, they should not be imposed universally. Mississauga is not asking this for any other municipality.

The governance of public libraries in this province falls under the jurisdiction of the Public Libraries Act, 1984. The act ensures that a library board is fiscally accountable to the municipality. The proposed bill would allow Mississauga to have control over priorities and spending, but libraries and all cultural institutions must be guaranteed an arm's-length relationship from their political masters.

Libraries must be guaranteed intellectual freedom. The residents of North York do not want politicians determining the priorities and the use of resources for the North York Public Library. Existing legislation guarantees the separation of cultural institutions from elected officials while creating a balance between citizen participation and fiscal control by the municipality.

The city of Mississauga's proposed bill would have the effect of eroding a specific and important principle of public policy for the province, and therefore I ask the government on behalf of the North York Public Library to support the existing legislation.

SURVIVORS PSYCHIATRIC ADVOCACY NETWORK

Mr Drainville: I would like to focus the attention of the House for a moment on a group of courageous men and women in my community who are working to improve the lives of many people in Victoria-Haliburton. I am referring to the organization called Survivors Psychiatric Advocacy Network, or to use their acronym, SPAN.

Founded by Fred James, Doug Mitchel and Dayle MacCharles, it is the first time this government has funded a group of psychiatric survivors to design, develop and run their own programs. The funding of $103,000 was provided by the Ministry of Health through the anti-recession funding program. Services provided by the group include an advocacy network, one-on-one counselling for people who have an ongoing crisis, a 24-hour crisis phone, as well as training and information to professionals and volunteers who work with the psychiatric survivor community.

I think the most important role the organization plays is the empowerment of a group of people who have been marginalized by our society. SPAN has formed self-support groups which are controlled and run by those suffering from a psychiatric illness. SPAN is also encouraging psychiatric survivors to get on the boards of organizations such as the Canadian Mental Health Association and the local hospital to ensure their programs and services will truly help.

The work of SPAN is the type of effort we need to encourage. It is empowering people to work with the system in order to create solutions that meet the real needs of people receiving assistance.

CHILD CARE

Mr Sola: The Peel lunch and after-school program was founded in 1975 with the mandate to provide high-quality, affordable and accessible child care in communities where there is a demonstrated need.

At its annual meeting last night at the Meadowvale Delta Inn in Mississauga, the board of directors reported another successful season of operation. Despite the additional burden the recession has placed on PLASP, it remains responsive to the child care needs of Peel. This it accomplished while maintaining program quality, expanding services, controlling costs to maintain affordable fees, improving communications and recruiting, and developing and retaining staff.

Co-operation between the Dufferin-Peel Roman Catholic Separate School Board and the Peel Board of Education is essential for the success of PLASP. They should be congratulated for this and should serve as a model of good relations for the rest of the province.

Another essential ingredient in the success of PLASP is the collaboration of the cities of Mississauga and Brampton and the town of Caledon, and provincial support through the Ministry of Community and Social Services.

Particularly noteworthy is PLASP's budget. Total revenues of almost $6.7 million were financed 88% by program fees, 11% by provincial grants and 1% by interest and fund-raising, resulting in a surplus of $8,600.

On behalf of the 5,555 kids and 4,415 families enrolled in the program, congratulations to the board of directors, management, staff and volunteers for a job well done.

COMPENSATION TO SHEEP FARMERS

Mr B. Murdoch: Sheep farmers in my riding are growing quickly more confused with the Ministry of Natural Resources policy, or non-policy, on hunter compensation for coyotes that kill their flocks. No one can get a straight answer on this issue from either my local office in Owen Sound or the minister's office in Toronto.

On the one hand, we learn that compensation will be paid to anyone who fills out a form swearing that his or her sheep are being threatened and that certain hunters have been given permission to kill the coyotes within the vicinity of the endangered sheep. On the other hand, we hear that in order to collect compensation, a hunter must present proof of a kill. In other words, he or she must watch a coyote come on to the land and wait until the wolf has attacked a sheep before he can kill it, so that he can give evidence the coyote was doing harm.

This is ridiculous. If this is the case, I can only feel this government has sunk to its lowest level yet in terms of policy decisions. I would ask that the minister and the local office get together on this matter and decide which program is in place, and advise sheep farmers in Bruce and in Grey as soon as possible in order to end this confusion. I realize the wolf has been at most farmers' doors for a very long time, but is this government honestly thinking of now letting it loose in the sheep pen?

COAT DISTRIBUTION PROGRAM

Mr Hope: There is a coverup going on in my riding of Chatham-Kent and I am going to expose it today. It started yesterday and is being carried out by the Chatham Police Association, the United Way, the Salvation Army and several area dry cleaners. To be precise, it is called Operation Coverup. It is a mission to make sure everyone in Kent county will be warm this winter through a coat distribution program.

Over the past few weeks, Kent county residents have been urged through the media to take their used coats to a host of local dry cleaners. In turn, the neighbourhood dry cleaners clean the coats free of charge before giving them to the Salvation Army for distribution. Through Friday, donated coats will be distributed at the Salvation Army Citadel Church on Victoria Avenue. Distribution will be held from noon till 6 pm each day to make the free coats available to every needy person.

This is the sixth straight year the good people of Kent county have participated in this program. Last year, almost 2,000 coats were donated to the residents of my riding. This October we are hoping for an even bigger success. Once again the residents of Chatham-Kent and Kent county have done a great job.

The leader of the third party, who I understand is looking for a new leather coat, ought to stop by. They may even have a coat for him.

COMMUNITY ACTION TEAM

Mr Mahoney: As the Premier and all members of all parties will know, we were visited this morning by a community action group, actually called the Community Action Team, from my home town of Sault Ste Marie. I would like to congratulate them for the wonderful work they have done in putting together an extremely positive report, which I know they presented to the Premier and to the Conservative Party as well as to our caucus.

I would particularly like to note that in their final recommendation or request, they state: "We are not here today asking government to do those things that the community should be doing. We are doing our part, the company and its employees are doing their part and we need government to do its part."

This is a volunteer group with a membership of approximately 10,000 people in Sault Ste Marie and Wawa. It really addresses a very critical problem in that if Algoma Steel were to close, they would lose 10,000 jobs, a 20,000 population reduction would be in effect, and they would lose local tax revenues of $20 million and a payroll of $300 million, an extremely important issue for the people in Sault Ste Marie and Wawa. There would be additional jobs lost in all parts of the province as a result of the lost revenue.

I would like to say that I consider this to be a totally non-partisan issue. I am quite prepared to work with the government, and hope that it will see fit to find a way to help this very progressive, positive group called the Community Action Team from Sault Ste Marie.

BREWING INDUSTRY

Mrs Witmer: My statement is for the Treasurer. In June of this year, I raised the issue of the serious repercussions of the phased-back ad valorem rate to small brewers in Ontario. At that time, the Treasurer indicated that this was a matter which he took very seriously and that he would "take a careful look at it."

In late summer, the Treasurer had an opportunity to meet with representatives of the small brewers of Ontario to discuss the ad valorem tax issue. Since that time, the brewers have had no response from the Treasurer. These small breweries have been paying the increased tax since June 15 of this year and it has caused them considerable economic hardship.

The small brewers would like to be allowed to return to the reduced rate until the review of this issue is completed by the Treasurer. They are also quite anxious to have this matter resolved as quickly as possible, as they are unable to make any future business decisions or provide increased employment opportunities until they receive a response.

I would like to urge the Treasurer to provide assistance to this important local industry by giving it a temporary respite from the increased ad valorem tax until he has completed his review of this matter, and I would encourage him to make a decision at the earliest possible time.

RECYCLING

Mr Sutherland: Environmental concerns are one of the main issues facing us as a society today. As a government we are actively promoting the 3Rs: reduce, reuse and recycle.

Today I would like to take the opportunity to commend the University of Western Ontario for its recently expanded recycling program. The university's green plan is the result of a co-operative effort between the UWO administration, students, employee groups and affiliated colleges.

The campus recycling committee is composed of representatives from faculty, staff associations, students, residence operations, food services and occupational health and safety. A major portion of the program's funding comes from the students themselves. Last year the students on the main campus and at its affiliated colleges approved a $5 levy that goes directly into the green plan.

The green plan includes the recycling of fine paper, newsprint, beverage cans, clear glass, cardboard and computer paper. Under this plan all newsprint, glass and cans are being recycled on the main campus and at the affiliated colleges, and for the first time, cardboard from the UWO bookstore is also being recycled. In the first month the program collected almost 17,000 kilograms of recyclable material.

The University of Western Ontario's green plan is an important step in the right direction for our environment and one that I urge other institutions and businesses to consider as a blueprint. Once again I congratulate everyone, particularly the students, at the University of Western Ontario for a job well done.

ORAL QUESTIONS

GOVERNMENT ASSETS

Mr Conway: My question is for the Treasurer and it concerns the budgetary policy of the government. Like many people in the Legislature and across Ontario, I have read with real interest in the last few days the Treasurer's reported inventory-taking of the capital assets of the province of Ontario. It is plain that a bad budget gets worse as we approach the end of the second quarter, the beginning of the third quarter, and it is increasingly clear that my good friend the member for Nickel Belt and his colleagues, good people all, just do not know what they are doing.

I was struck this morning to read in the press that the Treasurer is now acknowledging that, quoting the Treasurer from this morning's press: "Everyone knows that we're struggling with our expenditures, which are going up, and our revenues are not going up. Maybe there's an alternative to reductions in programs, namely the disposition of some assets."

Does the Treasurer honestly believe that the only substantive way to deal with the budgetary problem that he and his colleagues have written for themselves is to sell off the crown assets?

Hon Mr Rae: That's not what he said. Let him have it; both barrels.

Mr Sorbara: Why don't you sell Howard? He's disposable. He's a liability.

Hon Mr Cooke: We would sell you if we thought we could get anything for you.

Hon Mr Laughren: Do those answers satisfy the member? It is completely inaccurate to even imply that I was inferring that the way to meet our expenditure problems was the disposition of assets. I did not say that was the only way we could stay within our expenditure forecast. That is simply not the case. What I did say was that we should look at the entire allocations of government, which I gather had not been done ever, despite the efforts of the former government, good fellows and persons all. They simply had not done that, and we are doing that.

I think it would be irresponsible for us not to look simply at program expenditures but to also look and see if there are some assets which are not strategic assets and see whether the disposition of those assets would go some way to helping us solve our problems.

Mr Conway: I want to say to the Treasurer that no government in the history of Ontario has ever brought to this Legislature a budget and a four-year fiscal plan that contemplates annual deficits in the range of $10 billion. His budgetary difficulties are real. Everyone out there has been telling him that for the last number of months, and now, 13 months into his term, he is awakening to the reality that there are real difficulties, even if he hopes to bring the plan on target at a $9.7-billion deficit for this fiscal year.

Would the Treasurer not agree that his real problem has to do with the program spending, and that contributing to that real problem is the decision made by his government this year to increase the Ontario public service wage bill year over year by 14.5%, to settle with the doctors at a cost of nearly half a billion dollars and, just 10 days ago, to announce that the teachers' pension fund will require another $215 billion, to name but three examples that speak to the unwillingness or the inability of the NDP government to control spending? Selling off the garage surely is not going to help the Treasurer pay the grocery bills.

Hon Mr Laughren: First of all, it is true that no other government has brought in a deficit of $9.7 billion, but I remind the member opposite that no other government has been faced with the recession we have been faced with at this time. I am getting a little weary of members of the Liberal caucus standing in their place and saying that we should be spending more money on programs and then during question period having them tell us we are spending too much on programs. I wish they would make up their minds over there.

As far as being critical of this government for laying out our three-year program of expenditures and revenues beyond this year is concerned, I only wish the former government had had the courage and the integrity to do the same thing.

Mr Conway: Ten days ago the Treasurer, with a midcourse correction -- because he is now understanding what people out there have been telling him and his colleagues for weeks and months: that there is a real problem and it lies on the expenditure side -- had a chance to show what he was prepared to do around tough decisions, particularly on the expenditure side. He did virtually nothing in this fiscal year. He deferred most of the pain to next year.

I want to ask a final supplementary of the Treasurer, who is clearly casting about for some kind of remedy for his budgetary problem. Members of this government are travelling around telling farmers in communities like the Niagara Peninsula that the NDP government is not going to allow the farmers of this province to sell off portions of their farm to raise revenues to allow them to stay in the beleaguered business of agriculture.

Will the Treasurer commit to this House that he is prepared to live by the same advice, that he does not intend to start selling off the farm, selling off the family garage, to pay the grocery bills and that he will get serious about meaningful restraint on the expenditure side, particularly on major programs like public sector spending?

Hon Mr Laughren: First, I tried to say as clearly as I could that any disposition of assets would not be strategic assets; they would be assets that we conclude are no longer appropriately held by the crown in this province. Second, it really does wear a little thin hearing my good friend the member for Renfrew North, the same member who, with his cabinet colleagues, got us into some real messes, along with the third party, whether it was Suncor, whether it was the domed stadium --

Mr Bradley: Not pointing a finger, says Bob Rae.

Hon Mr Laughren: No, I am not suggesting that we do not have difficulties in the middle of the severest recession in this province in 50 years. It would be ridiculous to imply that we do not have expenditure problems, because we are determined to continue to fund essential services in health care and education and social services. We are determined to do that. If the member wants to stand in his place and tell us that he wants us to start cutting those essential services, he should do so, but he should not pretend he can have it both ways.

Mr Conway: Settling electoral accounts with public servants and teachers and doctors is not my view of taking a responsible approach to budgetary planning in the heart of this recession. If I ever thought I would see Floyd Laughren pursuing a Thatcherite/Mulroneyite plan to sell off crown assets, I would have thought I had died and gone to another place.

The Speaker: To whom is your second question directed?

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Conway: My second question is for my friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough, the Minister of Agriculture and Food. A few days ago the Minister of Agriculture and Food stood in his place and to his credit announced a $35-million farm relief program for the beleaguered farm community of this province. My calculations suggest that the $35-million program will provide an average of roughly $600 per farmer in Ontario, and for that we are appreciative and thankful.

Having regard to the fact that the government has just provided a $600 benefit to farmers, is the Minister of Agriculture and Food aware that as a result of the Bob Rae Ontario Hydro policy, a farmer in my community -- and there are several like my farmer in the county of Hastings -- with a hydro bill of $12,000 a year, is going to have an increase this year of some $1,500? What kind of relief is the Minister of Agriculture and Food going to provide to the thousands of beleaguered farmers in this province who are struggling in the midst of this recession with the government's hydro plan, which is to increase their essential electrical bills by nearly 50% over the next three years?

Hon Mr Buchanan: I am not sure whether that is an agriculture question or an energy question or what category that falls into, but I will try to answer the member.

This government is committed to protecting and preserving the family farm. The $35 million we announced a couple of weeks ago was an emergency aid package. It was not a universal, general policy statement that was going to provide for the future of farming in Ontario. It was an emergency package. I do not think it is fair to divide the number of farms into the amount of aid and come up with a figure and say, "This is all you've done."

We have participated in the gross revenue insurance plan. We have announced we will participate in the net income stabilization account program. All those things have several millions attached to them. We announced last spring a $50-million interest assistance program. We will continue to provide the kind of assistance that agriculture in this province needs in order to continue to prosper and we will not be sidetracked by issues around Hydro. If I might add a comment on that part of the question, we are attempting to provide and pay for the expenses of previous administrations related to Hydro spending.

Mr Conway: I know how well the Minister of Agriculture and Food is working to address the concerns of farmers, and I appreciate that. I want to return to my main question. Having regard to the good work he has already accomplished in providing this relief package, I ask him on behalf of my farmer, who appreciates the $600 he will get this year: What does the minister plan to do about the fact that his government is imposing on my farmer this year an additional cost of $1,500 for his vital, essential and non-replaceable electric bill? What is the minister going to do to provide relief this year for that government-imposed increase in cost?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Again, this question is specifically related to energy conservation and hydro bills, which is tied up in energy. But I would say to the member that I am aware of what Ontario Hydro and the Ministry of Energy are doing in terms of providing energy-efficient lightbulbs, for example, which will benefit the hog producers of this province in terms of cutting back on their consumption. There are things we can do in the Ministry of Agriculture and Food to promote energy conservation in agricultural activities that I believe will help.

Given the fact that there will be rate increases, we need to address this and work with the Ministry of Energy and its policies to make sure that farmers in this province can take advantage of any opportunity they have to conserve energy.

Mr Conway: My farmer is struggling out there with a very difficult market. This year his bill for electricity, for which he has no alternative, is $12,000. The Premier's hydro plan seeks to increase and will increase that bill by more than $5,000 over the next three years. The Minister of Agriculture and Food well understands that in rural Ontario electricity is absolutely vital and that there is not much alternative for most farmers and for many people living in the rural part of the province.

I simply want to ask again: What specific programs of relief has the Minister of Agriculture and Food got for my farmer and for those farmers in Hastings and everywhere else who are going to be stuck with a nearly 50% increase in this essential, and government, cost?

Hon Mr Buchanan: Unfortunately we cannot go back in time. If we could do something and go back to 1985, we could have cancelled Darlington and saved ourselves about $10 billion or $13 billion. That is where the fees are coming from. The rural people and farmers in this province were opposed, I believe, to Darlington at that time, yet the government of that day, which was elected on the promise to cancel Darlington, went ahead with it anyway. Now the farmers are going to have to help pay for it.

We are working on long-term interest programs. We are working on the long-term survival of agriculture and we will continue to work on that. Unfortunately the farmers are going to have to chip in to pay for those energy policies that were brought in in 1985, despite the promise of the government that was elected that it would cancel it.

ASSISTANCE TO DE HAVILLAND

Mr Harris: Could the Premier tell me if it is his or his government's intention that Ontario would assume an ownership position in de Havilland?

I am sure he will appreciate that in negotiations of this kind, it simply is not possible for us to conduct these negotiations in public. There are a number of factors that have to be taken into account and a number of factors that we are taking into account. We have asked for a very significant assessment of the company. We have been engaged in some ongoing discussions with everyone, but absolutely no decisions have been made with regard to the conclusion of any negotiations and no negotiations of any kind have been concluded.

Mr Harris: I appreciate that and I understand we are dealing with the private sector. We are also dealing, though, with a substantial potential involvement of the public sector and the taxpayers of this province in effect being either subsidizers or potential shareholders. I think with such quotes as "We're not going to walk away from it" and "If it takes an Ontario ownership position to meet the Canadian content rules, Ontario will be there," the Premier would appreciate that the public and the shareholders in this province are correct to assume that we may be willing or unwilling shareholders in an ownership position in this company.

The federal government owned this company and lost money every time an aircraft rolled off the line. Boeing, one of the largest and most efficient aircraft companies, with expertise far in excess, I suggest, of the Premier's cabinet -- I do not say that derogatorily -- far in excess of any ability anybody in this House, including me and my caucus, might have, has not been able to operate this company without every aircraft rolling off losing money.

The Speaker: Would the leader place his supplementary.

Mr Harris: Surely it would not be untoward, if the Premier has some information, some economic studies that demonstrate that somehow or other this company can be operated in a way different from the feds and from Boeing so that when an aircraft rolls off the line it could make a profit, there is no harm in making that information public. We want to get private sector investors.

The Speaker: Would the leader conclude his question.

Mr Harris: Does the Premier have any economic analysis or study that suggests there is a way Boeing has not found and the feds could not find that he can own this company or somebody else can own it --

The Speaker: Would the leader quickly conclude his question.

Mr Harris: -- and it will actually make a profit?

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say to the honourable member there are a number of factors that have to be taken into account. I am not in any way avoiding his question. First of all, whenever the government makes a decision in this regard, it will obviously be a decision that will be announced here in the House. It will be discussed. The information will be made widely available, and there will no doubt be comments both for and against whatever the government decides to do. That level of accountability is one I accept entirely.

The aircraft industry in every part of the world is a heavily subsidized industry. That is true. It is true in Europe. It is true in the United States, only they do not call it subsidization; they call it military contracts. It is true in Quebec. It is true in every part of the world that has an aircraft industry. It has been subsidized by taxpayers in this province to some extent, but not to the extent it has been in other jurisdictions, either by us or by the feds.

The question we have to ask ourselves, and this is really the important question, is how critical is this industry -- not just this company, but this industry -- for the industrial future of Ontario? It is not just a matter of the jobs at de Havilland, which are significant in terms of engineering, research and development and new technologies being applied in manufacturing; it is a question of the thousands of jobs in the supply industry in this province which also depend on de Havilland.

The Speaker: Would the Premier conclude his response, please.

Hon Mr Rae: These are all factors that have to be taken into account when we assess what is the wisest course for the Ontario government to follow with respect to de Havilland.

Mr Harris: I am really after information as much as anything. Obviously, the Premier has not said anything other than what we have heard, discussions that the vault is open. He is basically saying that I will not be part of the discussions and neither will the taxpayers, that, "You'll judge us afterwards," and we will judge him afterwards, which is our role, and I know the Premier understands that.

One thing that does concern me is that we seem to be prepared to take an ownership position in this company. When we have been dealing with Algoma Steel, when we have been dealing with Kapuskasing, when we have been dealing with some other areas -- areas of the economy that are important, significant to their communities -- before we committed any taxpayers' money, I believe we tried to look at, what are the factors why that steel mill has been losing money and is the new arrangement going to allow that mill to make a profit?

Is the new arrangement going to allow Algoma Steel to make a profit and not be a further drain on the taxpayers? I know this is Bob White's baby and the big-paying union job. Everybody else has said, "We'll take a wage cut to allow this mill to come forward" --

The Speaker: Will the leader place his supplementary, please.

Mr Harris: Has the Premier given any consideration, and has the union and has Bob White given any consideration to saying, "Maybe if taxpayers are going to throw in billions of dollars, we will have to participate by saying maybe $45,000 a year is enough, instead of $50,000, or $40,000 instead of $45,000"? Do you have any indication --

The Speaker: The question has been placed. Would the leader take his seat, please.

Hon Mr Rae: Perhaps the leader of the third party would like to consider the questions we have to consider as a government. What is the impact going to be on 15,000, 20,000 or 25,000 jobs in southern Ontario? What is the position going to be with respect to strategic investments in research and development and in high technology? These are all the factors that have to be taken into account by any government that is seeking to lead this province. These are not issues that can go away or be ignored.

I say to him again that he can make all the attacks on trade unions he wants. I am talking about engineers; I am talking about scientists; I am talking about people who are working in all walks of life in the skilled trades in southern Ontario. The question we have to ask ourselves as a province is, after all is said and done, do we want to have an industry that is functioning and working well in this province and providing a degree of industrial leadership that is essential for us as we head into the 21st century?

Mr Harris: The question is, before $20,000-a-year cab drivers hike their taxes, surely we should ask if those directly involved are willing to contribute something. I think that is fair.

MINISTRY CONFERENCES

Mr Harris: My question is to the Attorney General. On January 22 and 23 of this year, the financial and administrative services branch of his ministry travelled to the Old Stone Inn in Niagara Falls; 43 staff were treated to two days of what they bill as the deluxe seminar package, which includes American continental breakfast, two deluxe coffee breaks, lunch and dinner. Will the Attorney General tell us if he authorized this $10,000 spending spree?

Hon Mr Hampton: In the Ministry of the Attorney General, when staff have a retreat or a conference session, ordinarily I would not see that unless it surpasses a certain level of expenditure.

Mr Harris: Is there some secret about this level of expenditure the Attorney General cannot tell us? For two nights, $10,000 seems astronomical, but it gets worse. It seems the ministry staff had the taxpayers buying drinks all around. The Attorney General's staff ran up a bar tab of $2,500. They tossed back Courvoisier, lit up glasses of Sambuca, savoured Grand Marnier; in fact, $360 worth of Grand Marnier. You cannot help wondering how much work actually got done between the bottles of beer and the Baileys. Does the Attorney General have an explanation for $2,500 worth of booze while they were on this extravagant conference in Niagara Falls?

Hon Mr Hampton: If the allegations raised by the leader of the third party are indeed true, I am very interested to learn that and I will check into it.

Mr Harris: I raise this virtually every week. They are under a restraint program. They are cutting back in many areas we do not think they should be cutting back in, but this is obviously carrying on. Surely, with all the questions that have been asked, he would have been taking a look at this. Last year he spent over $500,000 on conferences and seminars. I would simply ask the Attorney General this: Can he tell us -- since I think he would have been interested; we keep bringing them up -- how much of that was on a bar tab?

Hon Mr Hampton: I do not know why the leader of the third party would be particularly interested in a bar tab, but let me point this out to him: When we became the government, there were certain policies of the former government that it is fair to say the civil service felt it would be appropriate for it to continue to follow. About halfway through the year we became aware of those and we have put an end to them.

In fact, since last spring, we have curtailed the number of conferences staff within the Ministry of the Attorney General are allowed to attend. We have requested that when those conferences are held, they be held as often as possible in government-owned buildings, and we have, by and large, constrained to a very great degree the expenditure that was going on at conferences under the former Liberal government. I am happy to tell the leader of the third party that if he asks this question again next year, he will receive quite a different answer.

ONTARIO HYDRO RECEPTION

Mr McGuinty: My question is for the Minister of Energy and it is perhaps somewhat along the same line as the question of the leader of the third party.

I have in my hand a copy of an invoice issued by the Compri Hotel in Windsor. The invoice is for a reception held by Ontario Hydro on October 2 and 3. The invoice shows that on October 2, during a three-hour period, 870 drinks were served at a cost of $4,713.14. In addition, the cost of the food was $2,621. Hydro was even so thoughtful as to provide a sound system, at a cost of $274.25. The entire cost of the affair was $7,919.85.

The minister knows that Hydro's ratepayers are presently staring in the face of a 44% rate hike over the next three years. In addition, the Premier has decided to saddle ratepayers with a new chair of Hydro, a friend of the Premier's, who is insisting on a salary of $400,000-plus. How can the minister justify to Hydro's ratepayers spending $8,000 for music, food and booze?

Hon Mr Ferguson: I am not aware of the event that took place. I certainly will attempt to obtain further details on the matter and advise the member.

Mr McGuinty: The minister suggests that since he is not aware of it, he is somehow not responsible and therefore, by implication, not accountable. It does not matter whether we are talking about Marc Eliesen's salary or this particular booze-up. At the end of the day, Hydro is his baby. When a baby's diaper needs changing, you do not talk to the baby; you talk to the parents. The minister is claiming he has no control over Hydro's expenses. Can he have already forgotten that in the last four months he has ordered Hydro to spend $500 million at Elliot Lake and Kapuskasing? That is $500 million Hydro did not want to spend. If that is not control, I do not know what is.

Again, how can he justify adding the $8,000 cost of a three-hour booze-up to Hydro ratepayers' bills?

Hon Mr Ferguson: Maybe I was speaking too quickly when I replied to the question before. I advised the member that I did not have firsthand knowledge of the meeting or the event that took place. I certainly will try to obtain for the member the details of the meeting and the purpose of the event. When I have had an opportunity to do that, I will certainly relay the information to the member.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr Harnick: My question is of the Attorney General. While his ministry has been out quaffing cocktails and running up bar tabs, I notice that he has been running around the province talking about access to justice. Back in December 1990, the class actions legislation was delivered to this Legislature for first reading. We also had the Arbitration Act delivered here for first reading about a year ago. The Attorney General has already told me he cannot do anything to help the plight of Small Claims Court judges or the small claims courts. He has had the report about paralegals sitting on his desk now for about a year; I think it was published in September 1990.

When can we expect to see him doing something instead of just bringing this stuff here, leaving it after first reading and forgetting about it?

Hon Mr Hampton: I am actually quite pleased that the member has asked this question. There were a number of pieces of legislation we wanted to get through the House last spring, but as I remember it, I had to come here and listen to the leader of the third party list off the names of all the lakes in Ontario. Then when we were finished with the lakes, we had to listen to the names of the rivers. I remember having I think $1 million a week of taxpayers' money wasted while the leader of the third party wasted our legislative time and read off the names of the lakes and rivers of Ontario.

I would be quite pleased to bring forward legislation. The problem is that, this far in the fall already, we have been able to pass only two pieces of legislation. When the members of the third party decide that they want to come here and do some serious work, we will be more than happy to engage them with legislation that will keep them busy from sunup to sundown.

Mr Harnick: Let me just tell the Attorney General a couple of things: One, all the initiatives he started were brought here by the Liberal Party, none by him; two, the House leader of the New Democratic Party has never suggested that any of this legislation come back to this House for second reading. He should not try to fool us.

We have a problem in our civil courts. We know that 40,000 cases have already been tossed out of our criminal courts. We now have a problem with our civil courts. I understand that before the court merger we used to be able to have a motion brought before a master within two or three days. I understand that we now have to wait three months until a master is available to listen to a motion. Nevertheless, the Attorney General persists in trying to phase out masters. Will he hire more masters and let them do their job or hire judges and let them do the job of the masters? Please, will he do something? He should not sit there any longer.

Hon Mr Hampton: Once again, I am pleased to hear from the member opposite because it appears his memory of events of the last year may be somewhat different from everyone else's in the province. When we became the government, we became aware that there was a backlog in the courts.

Mr Scott: What do you mean "became aware" of a backlog? Give me a break.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Mr Speaker, it appears I have offended the former Attorney General. I will sit down.

The Speaker: Has the Attorney General completed his response? New question. The member for Peterborough.

Interjection.

The Speaker: To the Attorney General, I did ask if you had a further response and you seemed immobilized.

Hon Mr Hampton: The member for St George-St David erupted again.

The Speaker: Does the Attorney General have a brief response?

Hon Mr Hampton: Let's be very clear on something. When we became the government we discovered that there was a backlog in the court system which the Supreme Court of Canada acknowledged stretched back to when the third party was the government of the province. That is how serious the problem was. It took considerable resources for us, considerable dedication and hard work by judges, crown attorneys and everyone involved in the criminal justice system to deal with that problem in a way that we minimized the effect upon the people of the province. Following that, we brought forward what I think is the most progressive family support legislation in North America.

Mr Harnick: What are you going to do about the masters? Have you ever been in a master's court?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Hampton: Maybe the critic for the third party does not think these issues are important. I happen to believe the people of Ontario think they are very important.

NUCLEAR POWER FACILITIES

Ms Carter: My question is for the Minister of Energy. The minister and the chairman of Ontario Hydro have said that the large increase in electricity rates next year, as well as paying for Darlington, is needed to restore Hydro's generation and transmission facilities to proper working order. Could the minister tell us more about the performance of Ontario's nuclear plants and how far this falls short of target?

Hon Mr Ferguson: It is generally well known and widely accepted that nuclear generating facilities ought to be operating at around 80% efficiency. That clearly is not the case. In 1990, for example, the nuclear industry operated at an average efficiency rate of 62%. I have asked Ontario Hydro to pay particular attention to the question of operational efficiency and reliability of the system. I think members of the House are well aware that if the system is not operating in a reliable fashion, the additional power obviously has to be purchased. That cost is of course passed on to the consumer.

Unfortunately, it appears that the question of the reliability of the nuclear generating stations was not adequately addressed prior to the construction of the facilities.

Ms Carter: Could the minister say what the cost has been to Hydro of the poor nuclear performance, how much is being spent now and how much expenditure has been planned for the future on repairs to nuclear plants?

Hon Mr Ferguson: The cost is projected at approximately $100 million to $125 million. There are also current major repairs taking place. The retubing of Pickering is going to cost an additional $485 million. The upgrades at Pickering A will cost about $170 million and the rehabilitation of Bruce A will cost around $854 million, so I think it is in the interests of everybody in this province that our number one goal has to be getting the plants up and operating efficiently.

The second point I would like to make is that in the past we have had one individual attempting to do three jobs. In fact, one individual cannot do three jobs. One cannot do the day-to-day operation in keeping the lights on at Hydro as well as looking at long-range planning and forecasting for Ontario Hydro. We now have two individuals in place who we believe will be able to fulfil the mandate and the responsibilities the position so richly deserves.

INVESTIGATION INTO RELEASE OF DOCUMENTS

Mr Bradley: I have a question of the Premier. On at least two different occasions his government has sent the Ontario Provincial Police to interrogate members of the opposition who have come into possession of information which, in a democratic system, is of great interest to the public we all serve. The government has sent the OPP to investigate the Leader of the Opposition and the Liberal member for Halton Centre because they have used information received from government sources to expose weaknesses in this administration.

Does the Premier intend to continue to use the OPP as a political police force to intimidate members of the opposition and public servants who are providing important information that he obviously wishes to hide from the public?

Hon Mr Rae: I will answer that question as directly as I can. The allegation the member has made, that we are somehow using the OPP in a political way, is without substance or foundation. It is a false allegation that he has made in the House.

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: I hope the honourable member will at least give us some credit. The problem that the Treasury, not the Treasurer, had with the leaks of information is --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Rae: I want to say this to the member if he will simply allow me to answer: What would the honourable member say or do in the event that there was a leak surrounding the budget? He would be the first to stand up in this House and insist on the head of the Treasurer on a platter. He would be the first to insist on that. The Liberal Party and the Conservative Party would be the first to ask for it. This government has not asked the OPP to interview anyone.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order, the member for Halton Centre.

Hon Mr Rae: It has not authorized or ordered the OPP to discuss an issue with any individual in this Legislature whatsoever. The allegation that we are asking the OPP to interview members of the opposition is utterly and totally false. It has no foundation whatsoever.

Mr Bradley: The Premier's spin doctors do a job attempting to portray him as a civil libertarian, as a person who believes in open and democratic government. The performance of the Premier, when he was in opposition, as a civil libertarian and as one concerned about the government leads me to ask this question. If the Premier is to practise what he preached in opposition and what he portrayed to the people of this province when attempting to get elected to the position he is in now, will he guarantee that this harassment and intimidation of the opposition and public servants by his police force will cease?

Hon Mr Rae: Let me be very clear: If the member opposite is alleging that the Ontario Provincial Police is harassing or intimidating anyone, that is a very serious allegation. Let him stand up in the House and make that allegation with respect to the conduct of the provincial police. If he is making that allegation, let him make it, but to state that somehow we in this government are authorizing any harassment or any intimidation is unbecoming of a member with the experience of the member for St Catharines.

He knows perfectly well that the problem this government has had to deal with is of a totally different dimension, and in no way have we ever authorized or asked for or suggested that anyone intimidate or harass anyone else, ever.

Mrs Sullivan: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I want to speak directly to the response from the Premier. I was interviewed not on a question of tax matters, as the Premier indicated was the issue relating to the member for Bruce, but on a question relating to a document I had received through the Ministry of the Environment. That has absolutely nothing to do with tax matters. Indeed, in that case I had to ask for my own solicitor, because I was told by police that there may well be charges laid against me for participating in the receipt of this information.

My privileges were violated, and no one can tell me this Premier does not have standards that will allow my privileges to be violated.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: I would simply ask, as I did last week, that you take a look again today at the transcript of the questions that have been asked by the House leader for the official opposition. I think you will see in it that he not only alleges harassment by the OPP of a member of his caucus, but he also alleges that the government --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I know the member for Lanark-Renfrew is waiting to place his question. I ask members to come to order so I can hear the point raised by the government House leader.

Hon Mr Cooke: Not only did the House leader for the official opposition accuse the OPP of harassing them, but he accused the government, and specifically members of this government --

Interjection.

The Speaker: I ask the member for Oriole to please come to order.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: I am only able to hear one point of order or privilege at a time.

Hon Mr Cooke: The House leader for the official opposition accused a member of the House, a member of this government, of directing the OPP to harass members of the opposition. Mr Speaker, that is clearly out of order and you have got to rule that they cannot continue this in this place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: I ask the House again to come to order. To the government House leader and indeed to all members of the House, you may recall this matter was raised earlier. I reported to you at that time that I was taking it under advisement. I will be reporting back to the House as soon as possible.

Mr Scott: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: By the by, when the honourable House leader says, "You have got to rule," if you sense any intimidation in that, I would not be surprised or ashamed.

The point of order is this: In answering the honourable member for St Catharines' question, the Premier said he did not believe there was any evidence that any member had been harassed in his or her interrogation by the OPP. That was the point of order that was raised by the honourable member who spoke last.

The Premier has an obligation to this House and to the province, not simply to the members, to deal with what is going on. We beseech him to give some indication of what the government policy is when we are confronted by a police force that comes around to the chambers of members and interviews them about the extent to which they are getting government documents which disclose misconduct on the part of the government. Who is working for whom? We want to hear the Premier's response to this issue.

The Speaker: First, to the member for Halton Centre who raised a point of privilege with me, I will examine Hansard. I will be reporting back to the House both on your point of privilege and to the points of order raised by the government House leader and various other members.

Interjections.

The Speaker: When the member for St George-St David has come to order, then the patient member for Lanark-Renfrew can place his question.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: When the government House leader stood to make his point of order -- I am not talking about the point of privilege, which I think the member was quite proper in making -- there were about 14 minutes and 30 seconds left on the clock. He talked about a point of order that he had previously raised. I would ask you to consider putting that time back on the clock.

The Speaker: A variety of members rose, starting with the member for Halton Centre. The standing orders are quite clear that points of order and privilege may be raised during question period and the clock continues to run. That is why I have repeatedly asked members, if at all possible, to raise their points of order and privilege outside of oral question period.

ENERGY CONSERVATION

Mr Jordan: It was stated recently in this Legislature by a member of the government that Ontario Hydro is a monster out of control. My question is for the Minister of Energy. Conservation programs have become a major part of this monster. Could he tell the House today what conservation programs are available to the residential sector, the cost of those programs for 1990-91 and the kilowatt-hours saved?

Hon Mr Ferguson: I am a person and an individual, not a computer. I would be more than happy to supply all the information to the honourable member and I will get that to him as quickly as I possibly can. The ministry, as well as Hydro, operates a number of different and varied programs. I certainly would not be able to do all the programs justice by standing here today and giving a brief mention, but I will provide the information to the member as quickly as I possibly can.

Mr Jordan: A recent Toronto Star

article reports on a family conducting a $12,000 project on their home, with Ontario Hydro paying about two thirds of the cost. The community of 6,000 in which this family lives is a project where ratepayers of this province are being asked to pay 100% of the insulation, 74% of the siding costs for the house and 50% of the new windows. They are also providing free energy audits at a cost of $125 to $150 each. One of the residents commented, "You'd have to be brain-dead not to accept this offer."

While the farmers and small businesses in Lanark-Renfrew are in desperate economic straits, why is the Minister of Energy forcing them to pay with a hidden tax for others to renovate their homes?

Hon Mr Ferguson: The member is referring to the community of Espanola. Ontario Hydro today is undertaking a comprehensive energy-efficient town program in Espanola, and we are trying out a number of different methods in this pilot project to determine what incentives will and will not work, not only in this community but in application across Ontario. Surely to goodness the member is not suggesting that we ought not to get involved in pilot projects in order to save energy across Ontario.

HEALTH CLUBS

Mr Hansen: My question is to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Consumers in this province continue to have problems with health club memberships. Can the minister advise on what additional consumer protection measures are being considered with respect to the fitness industry?

Hon Ms Churley: I am glad the question was asked. Although the opposition is not really listening, I think they should, because I am sure a lot of their constituents are having these kinds of problems.

The Prepaid Services Act was specifically intended to try to minimize those kinds of consumer losses due to closures and to regulate the industry. I am in the process of enhancing that consumer protection in the new fair marketplace code. One of the things we will be looking at is extending the cancellation period from, I think it is five days now, to at least one week. We are also looking into ways to tighten the pre-sale agreements and the use of alternative facilities.

Mr Hansen: What advice and suggestions can the minister offer to consumers who are about to enter into agreements with fitness or health clubs?

Hon Ms Churley: There are a number of things consumers should consider, and this is very important. I will just name a few of them. They should read their contracts carefully, because sometimes that does not happen before signing. As I have mentioned before, a lot of contracts are not written in plain language and people get confused. They sign contracts and get themselves into a lot of trouble.

Interjection.

The Speaker: The member for St George-St David, please come to order.

Hon Ms Churley: People should not be pressured into signing those contracts unless they are sure that is what they really want to do. Also, they should try to pay on a monthly basis. There is often a lot of pressure to pay for up to one year. If they pay on a monthly basis --

Interjections.

The Speaker: Interesting activity. It appears the members would rather sit and watch the clock tick by, and that is fine.

Interjections.

The Speaker: If members insist on making noise and drowning out a response which the Speaker is obliged to hear, this clock will continue to run.

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I am really shocked. I cannot tell you how shocked I am to see members of the opposition, and especially the former Attorney General, laughing at the fact that people are being given advice.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the minister conclude her response.

Hon Ms Churley: As I mentioned before, contracts are not written in plain language. Often people cannot understand them.

The Speaker: New question, the member for Mississauga West.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Would the member take his seat for a moment. I asked the minister if she had a further response and then she sat down. Do you have a further response?

Interjections.

The Speaker: If there isn't something in the water, maybe there should be.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Member for Mississauga West, you will get your question.

Mr Mahoney: And my supplementary?

The Speaker: No, but you will get a question. Will you wait?

I ask the members for some co-operation. Has the minister concluded her response?

Hon Ms Churley: Mr Speaker, I sat down because I thought you were indicating to me that I should sit down because of the noise.

The Speaker: Would you conclude?

Hon Ms Churley: Yes, I will.

One of the problems that happens, as I was saying, is that often people do not understand and are not really clear on what they are reading in the contract and therefore sign things that end up getting them into trouble. So people should make sure they have the right to rescind the agreement within five days of signing the contract. That has to be done by registered mail. It is important that they do that so that if the club has to close down, for whatever reasons, they can be reimbursed.

The Speaker: The member for Mississauga West.

Mr Mahoney: I do have a question, Mr Speaker. I point out to you, sir, that while there was a lot of heckling, there were three separate occasions when this minister was allowed to rise to re-answer a question.

The Speaker: Would the member please place his question.

Mr Mahoney: Subsequent to that, I am able to get a question in --

Interjections.

The Speaker: You will get the question; just wait a moment. I do not know which is worse, the levity or yelling at each other, but I would ask that members come to order. The member for Mississauga West is being allowed to place his question, to which there will be, I take it, a response. Could you please identify to whom you wish to address your question.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS TO MUNICIPALITIES

Mr Mahoney: My question is to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, and I would just again ask you to consider, sir, the length of time and the number of times ministers are allowed to re-answer, and then wind up not giving an answer. In any event, since you are not going to allow me a supplementary, I would ask for your indulgence so that I can at least get all the points out.

Mr Abel: Just ask the question.

Mr Mahoney: Well, I will.

The former government instituted a report which was referred to as the Ballinger-Hopcroft report, named after the former parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, Bill Ballinger, and Grant Hopcroft, the president of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario. Those two gentlemen were commissioned to do a study on what has commonly been referred to as disentanglement. Disentanglement deals with the money that is spent on municipal issues that are indeed supported by provincial transfer payments, etc.

That report outlined a number of recommendations, and to the credit of this government, it adopted that report. They deleted Mr Ballinger's name from the title for some reason but, in any event, they adopted the report. The total cost of that report was $170,000 over three years.

My question has to deal with the latest commission instituted by this government, which is the John Sewell commission investigating planning in this province. This particular commission, complete with its fancy reports --

The Speaker: Briefly.

Mr Mahoney: I am getting there, but you will not allow me the supplementary.

The Speaker: Would the member place his question.

Mr Mahoney: Considering the fact that our government spent $170,000 to study $10 billion --

Interjection.

The Speaker: Order. Just a moment. Would the government benches come to order. The member for Mississauga West, I am sure, will very quickly place his question.

Mr Mahoney: I do not know why they get excited. They have not even heard the question.

Since the former government was able to study $10 billion in interrelated transfer payments, etc, between the municipalities and the province for $170,000 over three years with the AMO president and the then parliamentary assistant, why does this minister need $3 million to create a six-figure job for a party hack so that he can be chairman of a commission and spend $3 million of the taxpayers' money to go around and study what we already know is a problem? Why does he not use AMO?

Why does he not use the municipalities and listen to some of the recommendations they would make to him about how to improve the planning process, instead of squandering $3 million to give John Sewell a $100,000-a-year job?

Hon Mr Cooke: I am not quite sure whether the question deals with disentanglement or the Planning Act. I found it interesting that the member who wanted to lecture the government benches about how long it took us to answer questions took about two and a half minutes to ask one. He wants to be leader of the official opposition. Give me a break.

I also wonder why the critic does not even understand that the Hopcroft report was not completed by his government; it was not completed at all. It was not completed until about six months after we were in government.

Mr Mahoney: That is what I said. The minister can read Hansard.

Hon Mr Cooke: We had to wait for that report. In other words, the previous government --

Mr Mahoney: Why does the minister not listen to the question?

Hon Mr Cooke: Why does the member not listen to the answer? Mr Speaker, he does not want an answer.

The Speaker: No. It would appear so.

MEMBERS' COMMENTS

Mr Mills: On a point of personal privilege, Mr Speaker: Like you, I am very fond of Ontario and our traditions, as is everybody here. I took exception during question period to a member who is not here -- I will not identify him -- who referred to the province of Ontario as a banana republic. I ask that you attend to that, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: To the point of order: I did not hear the remark.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. Will members come to order. Indeed if the member was present in the chamber at the time when you raised it, I would of course ask the member to reconsider the remark and to withdraw, but you stated that the member in question is not in the chamber at this time. I will be pleased to take a look at Hansard as well.

Mr Huget: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I too have very great difficulty in accepting remarks made by a member of the third party, who is not in this House, who referred to the Ontario Provincial Police as brownshirts. That, to me, suggested that the police of this province should be compared with something out of Nazi Germany. I take great offence to those remarks, and I want that member to apologize to this House, to the people in this province and to the OPP.

Mr Eves: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: That is not what the member said or interjected. At least the members opposite, if they had been here for a while, more than a few months, would have the class to know that if they are going to talk about another member -- speaking of parliamentary tradition over there -- common practice is to do it when the member is present. If the members opposite do not want to be described that way, they should not act that way.

An hon member: He is here now.

Mr Eves: He is here now; he was not here --

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, I was not in the chamber when the member stood up and made those comments. I never referred to the provincial police; I said this government was treating this police force as its own brownshirts and that it was a banana republic and it was a Third World way to handle a situation. If that is the way they want to do business, those are the kinds of accusations they are going to get and I am not withdrawing my statement.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a minute, relax, before we turn the heat up another notch.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. I would ask the House to come to order.

Before we can conduct any more public business, we need the House to come to order.

To the honourable House leader of the third party, indeed on the point of order, it is practice that if any member of the House has a concern with respect to anything that has been said by another member to raise it immediately, if possible, and of course when the other member is in the chamber.

I realize members are torn between not raising a point during question period because the clock is ticking. If at the end of question period the member in question has left the chamber, then the other member is left at a disadvantage, and I fully realize that.

At the same time, I also realize that these contentious issues sometimes provide an atmosphere in which members say intemperate things, remarks which later they regret. It certainly does not elevate the public discussion in this chamber if members make references to places and times which are not part of the culture and history of our fine country. I would certainly ask all members to please temper their language.

Hon Mr Cooke: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: As soon as the member says something -- and the member for Etobicoke West is now indicating again on the record that the government, and pointing to one of our members, sent the OPP into MPP's offices; he cannot do that.

Mr Stockwell: On a point of order, Mr Speaker --

Interjections.

The Speaker: No. The member for Etobicoke West, if you would take your seat and just relax.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Just a moment, please. There are often accusations made from both sides of the chamber and there is often a difference of opinion as to what is fact and what is not fact. It is not up to the Speaker to determine what is fact, but it is indeed up to the Speaker to determine if order can be maintained in the chamber.

I have also indicated to the government House leader as well as to others that I am examining the Hansard based on the concerns raised earlier, and I am most pleased to do so. I always enjoy reading Hansard in any event.

Mr Scott: Mr Speaker, on the point of order raised by the member for Sarnia: I did not hear the words either, but they may indeed have been said. I do not know. I think it should be brought to the attention of the House that the first person who ever used language like this in this House was E. B. Jolliffe, the leader of the NDP, the CCF at that time, who referred specifically to the Ontario Provincial Police as a Gestapo. If the government is getting a little of its own from the third party, it cannot really be surprised.

Mr Kwinter: Mr Speaker, on the same point point of order and on the comments of the government House leader: It is a matter of fact that the police did call on opposition members. It is also a matter of fact that the police just do not call on members unless someone asks them to, so it was obviously asked by either a ministry or a minister. In either case it is the responsibility of the government. That is the point.

Mr Stockwell: Mr Speaker, the point was raised that this government is suggesting we are accusing it of sending the police into our offices. I will be clear. That is the accusation that I am making. The government should make no mistake about it. If that is not the case, I would ask this government to come forward and prove it. Since to this point it has not done so, I can only assume its silence is an offer of guilt. That is why I make the charge.

Mr Huget: Mr Speaker, I still find references to Gestapo and brownshirts, whether made in this House today or in the past, offensive. I would ask those members respectfully to withdraw those remarks. I believe they do not serve any useful purpose whatsoever.

The Speaker: To the member for Sarnia, I say that indeed I agree those references are not suitable in our chamber. If there is a member in the House currently who made such a reference, I would ask the member to voluntarily withdraw the comment.

Mr Harnick: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Those comments may have been made to characterize the way the government uses the police, not to describe the police. It is a characterization of the way this government uses the police force in this province and nothing more.

Interjections.

Mr Harnick: I'm not ashamed of myself. It's you who used the police. How did they get there? Who sent them if it wasn't you? Who was it?

The Speaker: Order. Will the members come to order. The member for Willowdale and the member for Guelph, both of you just relax a bit.

Mr Fletcher: It was justified.

Mr Harnick: Tell that to the Leader of the Opposition, that it was justified.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale, please come to order. I have already ruled on this. I have informed the House several times now that I am looking at Hansard and I will report back.

Mr Harnick: Hansard isn't going to help you to find out who sent the police in.

The Speaker: The member for Willowdale is being asked quite firmly to come to order. I do believe it is time to move on with the public business, if members are ready to do so.

MOTIONS

COMMITTEE SITTING

Mr Cooke moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet for not more than two hours on the morning of Thursday, October 24, 1991, to consider its draft report to the House relating to the closure of land registry offices.

Motion agreed to.

PETITIONS

CHURCH OF SCIENTOLOGY

Mr Poirier: To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas the province of Ontario is a leader in human rights and expresses, under the Human Rights Code of Ontario, that all persons, regardless of race, ancestry, place of origin, colour, ethnic origin, citizenship, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, family status or handicap, have equal treatment; and

"Whereas I am a member of the Church of Scientology, a religious body which is accepted and recognized around the world, with churches in 90 countries; and

"Whereas the ministers of our church have applied for many years without result to the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations to be licensed to solemnize marriages; and

"Whereas our ministers are licensed in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia and Yukon, and our ministers' applications have been supported by many faiths in Ontario, such as the Baptist Conference of Ontario and Quebec, the Presbyterian Church of Canada, the Anglican Church of Canada and the Seventh Day Adventist Church of Canada; and

"Whereas I have protested our discrimination by being married in front of the Legislative Assembly this afternoon and having my marriage solemnized by a minister of another faith,

"I, Tereasa Leann Buttnor, as a resident of Ontario, petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario as follows:

"1. To intervene and direct the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations to license our ministers to solemnize marriages, so that no one else in our faith suffers the indignity of being denied legal marriage within our church.

"2. To investigate the office of the Deputy Registrar General for unwarranted discrimination based on religion or other criteria so other faiths will not be hampered by prejudice."

I have signed the document.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mr J. Wilson: I have a petition to the Legislature of Ontario. It reads as follows:

"Whereas the Queen of Canada has long been a symbol of national unity for Canadians from all walks of life and from all ethnic backgrounds;

"Whereas the people of Canada are currently facing a constitutional crisis which could potentially result in the breakup of the federation and are in need of unifying symbols;

"We the undersigned respectfully petition the Legislative Assembly of Ontario to restore the oath to the Queen for Ontario's police officers."

It is signed by a number of good people from the Simcoe West provincial riding association. Once again, the Ontario PC Party goes to bat for Ontario police officers.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Harris: I have a petition signed by 723 people.

"To the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

"Whereas grain and oilseed farmers in the province of Ontario are experiencing the most severe shortage of cash flow in the history of the industry;

"Whereas the government of Ontario has failed to provide sufficient cash flow assistance to farmers during the transition from old ad hoc programs to new safety net programs in order that they may meet their financial obligations;

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

"That the government of Ontario provide an immediate 1% contribution to NISA (net income stabilization account) for Ontario producers and waive the one-third producer premium deduction with the Ontario grain stabilization program and take other necessary measures to ensure the survival of the family farm in Ontario."

I too have affixed my signature to this petition.

WAYNE LAROSE

Mr Dadamo: I have a petition from my riding today with 2,185 names. It is addressed the Legislature of Ontario:

"We, the undersigned, do respectfully petition the chief coroner, Dr Young, the Solicitor General and any other parties concerned with this matter to provide answers by way of an inquest, which has been denied, into the death of Mr Wayne Larose, June 5, 1990.

"With due respect to the medical profession we, the undersigned, feel that due to a shortage in physicians, Mr Larose remained in hospital an unnecessary nine days before an attempt was made to correct his broken hip. This delay resulted in his death.

"We also feel that an official inquest should be requested of necessity, to relieve the family of all their questions surrounding the death of a very healthy husband, father and valuable citizen of the city of Windsor."

I would like to affix my name.

OATH OF ALLEGIANCE

Mrs Marland: This is a petition. It reads:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the government of Ontario:

"Whereas the government of Bob Rae has placed our heritage in danger; and

"Whereas we live in a constitutional monarchy; and

"Whereas a symbol of our national unity and identity has been removed;

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

"To immediately restore the name of Her Majesty the Queen to the oath of allegiance sworn by police officers."

There are several hundred names here and I am happy to add my name to them.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

ONTARIO WATER RESOURCES AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES RESSOURCES EN EAU DE L'ONTARIO

Mr Hansen moved first reading of Bill 141,

An Act to amend the Ontario Water Resources Act.

M.Hansen propose la première lecture du projet de loi 141, Loi modifiant la

Loi sur les ressources en eau de l'Ontario.

Motion agreed to.

La motion est adoptée.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L'IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Deferred vote on the motion for second reading of Bill 83,

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Vote différé sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 83, Loi portant modification de la Loi de l'impôt sur le revenu.

The House divided on Ms Wark-Martyn's motion for second reading of Bill 83, which was agreed to on the following vote:

La motion de Mme Wark-Martyn pour la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 83, mise aux voix, est adoptée:

Ayes/Pour -- 63

Abel, Bisson, Buchanan, Carter, Charlton, Christopherson, Churley, Cooke, Cooper, Coppen, Dadamo, Drainville, Duignan, Farnan, Ferguson, Fletcher, Gigantes, Grier, Haeck, Hampton, Hansen, Harrington, Haslam, Hayes, Hope, Huget, Jamison, Johnson, Klopp, Kormos, Lankin, Laughren, Lessard, Mackenzie, MacKinnon, Malkowski, Mammoliti, Marchese, Martel, Martin, Mathyssen, Mills, Morrow, Murdock, S., O'Connor, Owens, Perruzza, Philip, E., Pilkey, Pouliot, Silipo, Sutherland, Ward, B., Ward, M., Wark-Martyn, Waters, Wessenger, White, Wilson, G., Winninger, Wiseman, Wood, Ziemba.

Nays/Contre -- 37

Arnott, Bradley, Brown, Caplan, Carr, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cousens, Curling, Daigeler, Eves, Fawcett, Grandmaître, Harnick, Jackson, Jordan, Kwinter, Mahoney, Mancini, Marland, McClelland, McGuinty, Miclash, Murdoch, B., O'Neill, Y., Phillips, Poirier, Poole, Ramsay, Sorbara, Sterling, Stockwell, Sullivan, Tilson, Villeneuve, Wilson, J.

Bill ordered for committee of the whole House.

Le projet de loi est déféré au comité plénier de la Chambre.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1991 / LOI DE 1991 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 84,

An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Reprise du débat ajourné sur la motion visant la deuxième lecture du projet de loi 84, Loi portant modification de la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac.

Mr Tilson: I would like to make a few concluding remarks to the points I was putting forward yesterday with respect to Bill 84, which of course is the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, 1991.

As I indicated yesterday, from the 1985-86 period to now the tobacco tax has been increased four times, and yesterday I referred to a number of other provinces, other jurisdictions that have been doing similar increases with respect to their respective provincial tobacco taxes.

The 1991 budget increases for this province are expected to raise $220 million for the government in this fiscal year and $250 million in a full year. The reason I put these statistics forward is simply to ask what the government intends to do with this revenue. Is this strictly being put forward as a tax grab to pay for the massive expenditures being undertaken by this province, or is it being put forward to address other problems, such as cross-border shopping or the farming problems in the southwestern part of this province, specifically the tobacco tax and agricultural sector?

Is it with respect to health? Is it with respect to the smuggling issue that has been on the increase in the last number of years and that has certainly increased since the increases that were announced with the 1991 budget? Those are the specific areas in which I will be looking forward to asking the minister specifically what she intends to do, or what the government intends to do, with this tremendous increase in revenue that it is obtaining.

Is it going to be like the $5 tire tax, which was put forward initially to deal with an environmental issue -- "What are we going to do with all the tires that are being produced and discarded? Are we going to recycle them?" -- the severe problem that was raised then. Of course, it has become common knowledge that the revenue from the tire tax has not gone to the environment at all; it has gone into the general revenue of this province. Is that the intent of this government, to put the revenue from the tobacco tax into the general revenue?

I mentioned yesterday the problems occurring in the agricultural industry, specifically in the Delhi-Tillsonburg area, where the whole agricultural industry has had considerable problems in the last number of years. I would like to relate to the members of this House, many of whom I am sure are aware of them -- in case they are not aware, they should be -- the problems the Ontario tobacco industry has.

There are currently 1,200 growers in the Delhi-Tillsonburg area of Ontario; this number is down from 2,500 in the early 1980s. I do not think one can say this has been caused specifically by this tax, because this has been a gradual decline in the tobacco industry.

There are two main programs for assisting tobacco farmers. There is the alternative enterprise initiative, also known as the AEI, and the tobacco transition adjustment initiative. The AEI, as many members know, is a federal initiative which contains funds to be distributed to tobacco producers. The money is intended to increase the production of alternative crops in tobacco areas. The second program, the tobacco transition adjustment initiative, is renamed Redux. This is a joint federal-provincial program to help farmers move out of tobacco and into other areas of employment.

The subject I raised yesterday was whether the government has studied the effect of this specific amendment, this specific tax on tobacco, and the effect it is going to have in this area. Has it studied that? I would hope the minister would put forward the results of that study if indeed she has done that. I doubt very much that she has. My assumption, and I stand to be corrected, is that she is simply grabbing money to pay for other programs that have nothing to do with the tobacco industry and nothing to do with the other problems this amendment is creating.

As I indicated, Redux is a joint federal-provincial program to help farmers move out of the tobacco industry and into other areas of agriculture or employment. Redux, as I understand it, has to date put $54 million into the pockets of tobacco farmers who have taken land out of production. There is $14 million in federal funds in Redux. However, this money is currently frozen because the province has stopped funding the program.

Acknowledging that -- and I assume the government is going to acknowledge that -- the question is: Is any portion of the $220 million that is being raised by Bill 84, that specific money this year, going to be put into Redux? The federal government is doing its part. What is the province of Ontario going to do to assist the farmers in southwestern Ontario? Is it going to do anything? Is it just going to move on and spend the $220 million in its other programs that perhaps could be questionable in light of the devastating effect it is going to have in southwestern Ontario?

In response to the government's initiative to increase tobacco taxes in Ontario, it has been submitted, certainly by our side, that provincial money should be redirected to the Redux fund. Again, I challenge the minister to indicate today whether she intends to do that.

A further fact that I think should be considered before we further debate this bill is that, as the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board has pointed out, of the $31 billion in money collected through Ontario taxes, only $70 million has gone back into the industry. So they raised $31 billion -- not million -- and $70 million has gone back into the industry. What has happened to the rest of it? It is perhaps like other provinces, but why cannot this province be different?

Mr Chiarelli: On a point of order, Mr Speaker: Is there a quorum in the House?

The Acting Speaker (Mr Villeneuve) ordered the bells rung.

The Acting Speaker: I have been advised by the Clerk that a quorum is now present.

Mr Tilson: The fact I was putting forward again emphasizes that I do not expect that very much of this money, this tremendous amount of revenue, the $250 million, is going to be put towards any of the other problem areas this bill has created.

I have indicated that the Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board has put forward statistics that of the $31 billion in tax money that has been collected for tobacco taxes, only $70 million has gone back into the industry. That has been the attitude of this government and, I would submit, the previous government as well, as to how to address the problem in the southwestern portion of Ontario. It has nothing to do with the health issue, which I propose to get into, or the cross-border shopping issue, which I propose to get into further. It has nothing to do with that.

What are they doing to help the farmers in southwestern Ontario? The Ontario Flue-Cured Tobacco Growers' Marketing Board has indicated that the future of the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food's crop transition team, established to help farmers out of tobacco into other crops, is simply now in a state of limbo since the NDP has taken office.

I think it is time, if they are going to pass this bill, to give some indication as to how they are going to help the farmers in southwestern Ontario. They should not just take the money and put it into perhaps some of their other programs that are costing the taxpayers of this province a tremendous amount of grief.

The tobacco industry now employs some 20,000 people the province. That is currently. The support sector for tobacco farmers are the equipment manufacturers and the processors here in Ontario. These are not elsewhere; these are industries here in Ontario. We have had information, as I understand it, that a number of these companies have gone out of business in the past number of years, taking jobs out of an already depressed region. I think this government has to look not only at the agricultural

section of this industry but at the equipment manufacturers, the processors, the whole process of curing in Ontario. All these people are being affected by this bill. I assume that when the minister sat down with the Treasurer and decided what to do as to how to raise money, in making the decision to put forward this bill she looked at that and how she will be addressing that problem.

Further, with respect to the farm income crisis, our party has had several emergency debates in this House, and all of it is relevant. Certainly this government has not put the emphasis on agriculture it should. There was an announcement made on October 1 that $35 million in provincial funds would be directed towards the farm crisis. The Minister of Agriculture and Food announced that. He announced an additional $11 million to the $50-million farm interest assistance program. He announced a $15 million payment to grains and oilseeds producers.

He announced $5 million to producers of edible horticultural product crops, $3.5 million to farmers experiencing financial stress due to the drought conditions of 1991 and $1 million to apple, onion, honey and fur producers. But there has been nothing in the announcements that I have seen that has anything to do with alleviating the problems that are being caused by Bill 84. We have been very critical as to the small amount of assistance in other areas, but there has been nothing with respect to assisting the tobacco industry.

I will not spend any further time with respect to agriculture. I am sure other members in this House will. I will be interested in hearing from some of the members from southwestern Ontario. Particularly from the Tillsonburg-New Delhi area, correspondence has come to many of us expressing the fears of and the effect on these many families who are being affected by Bill 84.

The issue with respect to smuggling has been raised. Statistics have come forward that cigarette smuggling across this country has become a $500-million-a-year business. The Imperial Tobacco report estimates that smuggling represents $370 million lost annually. These are statistics, of course, from across the country. To be fair to this government, it cannot accept the full blame, because this type of philosophy of simply taxing the tobacco industry is widespread across the country. The question is, what are they going to do about it?

What are they going to do about the problems with respect to smuggling, knowing that smuggling is going on, knowing that all one has to do is go into many plants where there is transportation back and forth across from the United States in buses and automobiles? What are they going to do about that?

There was some initiative put forward, as I understand it, with respect to new tear strips which indicate duty paid that were introduced in the fall of 1990, making it easier to detect smuggled tobacco, but that has nothing to do with the tobacco that is being sold like alcohol in the good old days of Prohibition. It is going on. The question is, what are we going to do about it? Again, I assume that if they are levying this type of tax, they have addressed this problem, they have studied it, they knew it was going on before they introduced Bill 84. I assume they have looked at that, and I will be looking forward to hearing how they intend to deal with the smuggling issue.

Just before I leave the issue of smuggling, there have been a number of comments made in Canadian newspapers across the country talking about the whole attitude with respect to taxing tobacco. One is from the Ottawa Citizen in June of 1990: "Raising cigarette taxes is a popular way for a government to get more money without losing votes, but eventually they will kill the cow that gives the milk, and then what will they tax?"

If the fiscal policy of this government is to rely on taxing this industry, knowing full well that the industry is going to be killed by Bill 84, eventually the government will tax the industry to such a degree that it will simply disappear or it will become very negligible.

The question is, studying the government's fiscal policy, then what will it tax? If the purpose of this bill is to kill the tobacco industry, the government should come out and tell us, "We're taxing it because we're concerned about the effect of smoking, the whole issue of whether smoking causes cancer." Of course there are statistics after statistics that say it does. If that is the case, let's hear some policy decisions from this government on the health subject. That problem is not going to go away simply because the government is going to tax the industry to death.

What will happen is that we will have a whole slew of more illegal smuggling going on, contraband cigarettes being brought into this country. How is the government going to address that? So there is the issue of health.

Finally, the issue of cross-border shopping: Obviously these people will stand up and say it is because of GST and free trade, but there are other things I will be interested in hearing members speak on. I am sure they will spend most of their time saying that cross-border shopping is solely the result of those things, but there are other things that need to be addressed: the other bills that are being put forward, the effect of the gasoline tax. What is the common reason that goes through your head as to why people go down to the United States to shop? One is that they can buy cheaper fuel there.

Another is, they can buy cheaper alcohol there. They can buy almost everything cheaper because of the tax structure that is being put forward by the governments of this country, and that includes this government.

This government must not go pointing fingers at other governments; it should point fingers at itself. Look at the series of bills the government is putting forward now. I ask members to look at Bill 84 and ask themselves whether Bill 84 in any way whatsoever has any connection with respect to the cross-border shopping issue. Do people go down to the United States to buy cigarettes? If members say no, they have problems, because I suggest to them that is one of the many reasons why people go down. Certainly they go down to buy alcohol. They go down to buy clothing. They go down to buy equipment.

It may be as a result of taxes from other jurisdictions, but they certainly go down to buy cigarettes.

People from other countries, not just the United States, who come to visit us are simply shocked at the cost of tobacco in this country. Again, I do not think we should ignore the health issue. We cannot ignore the health issue because that should be addressed by the government, but the fact is that people buy cigarettes. People are hooked on cigarettes. Young people are hooked on cigarettes. What is the government going to do about that? I suppose one theory is that the government will make it so expensive that they will not buy it. It is not working.

Members should just talk to any of their children who are going to the schools around this province and ask whether smoking has been reduced in the schools. I think they will find that many of the children of members are still continuing to smoke even though it may be a health hazard. The idea of raising the cost of cigarettes is not working.

Getting back to the issue of cross-border shopping, of this tremendous amount of revenue that is being generated, the $220 million this fiscal year and $250 million for a full year, if the government acknowledges that Bill 84 is part of the problem of cross-border shopping -- I do not see how it can help but acknowledge that -- what percentage of the funds is being used to assist the communities in our border communities that are suffering, the retailers who sell tobacco? Rightly or wrongly, they sell tobacco.

That is another debate, which presumably will come forward in some health initiative put forward by this government, but currently we are debating Bill 84 and what the moneys are going to be used for.

I will bet that the minister will simply be silent on the subject and will not say that it is being addressed specifically to deal with health, to deal with cross-border shopping, to deal with smuggling, to deal with solving or assisting the agricultural problem in southwestern Ontario. My guess is that she will not say that at all. She may say it will be indirectly, but of the $250 million for the next full year or the $220 million for this fiscal year, what portion of that will it be and how is she dividing it up? Is she dividing it up to solve these problems, most of which are pre-existing?

I am not saying that these specific problems were caused by Bill 84, but Bill 84 has added on to these pre-existing situations. They are making them worse. They are making the farmer worry where his next mortgage payment is going to come from. They are making the employee who is working in the manufacturing of equipment in the tobacco industry worry about whether he is going to be laid off, and whether there are going to be more firms closing up and moving to the United States where the tobacco industry seems to be flourishing.

I hope we do not hear announcements in the coming months of segments of the tobacco industry closing up, worrying what we are going to do with those people who are losing their properties or their jobs. It is a great concern that the government puts forward these types of bills, these series of bills, and has not studied the overall impact.

I do not wish to debate at this time any further areas of the subject. I will only again summarize that I am concerned with the subject of health and the government's lack of policy with respect to the effect of smoking on health, whether it be firsthand smoking or secondhand smoking, that whole area. I am sure there are many in this House and medical people in this House who could debate for hours the effect of smoking as a cause of cancer. I am sure there are many in this House -- perhaps you yourself, Mr Speaker -- who could spend many hours debating the effect on the downward turn of the tobacco industry and the farmer in southwestern Ontario.

I leave it for people of more authority than I to deal with those areas. I encourage more people to debate and discuss their views on the effect of Bill 84 on the whole issue of cross-border shopping and the smuggling that has resulted from that issue.

The Acting Speaker: Questions and/or comments, the honourable member for -- Victoria-Haliburton.

Mr Drainville: Mr Speaker, I am surprised, after looking across the House at you for so long, that you have forgotten my constituency of origin.

I would like to respond very quickly with just a couple of comments. It is certain, as usual, that the member for Dufferin-Peel has raised a number of issues that are worth mentioning in such a debate on this particular matter. I would like, though, to challenge him on one little part of his presentation. He quite rightly alludes in his comments to the fact that other provinces are also using a tax on tobacco as a means of raising revenue and this is something about which he says -- I am paraphrasing him when I say this -- that just because they do it does not mean Ontario has to do it.

I guess all I want to do is put it into some perspective here, because this is not something that began with the New Democratic Party. For 43 years, the Progressive Conservative Party here in Ontario taxed tobacco. It may not have been for 43 years, but for a substantial period of that 43 years they certainly taxed tobacco.

I remember very well those halcyon days in the past when, as a citizen, I was reading Hansard and was engaged in the affairs of this province, reading of these incredible increases in the amount of taxation the Progressive Conservative Party was raising for the people of Ontario through this form of taxation. Nowhere in the member's statement did he give any indication that this had been a historical reality on the part of his own party, the party he is a member of and the party he represents.

I must say that is an omission that really needs to be corrected. Of course, if he is saying that in the past his government or his party was wrong in doing that, then he should admit that, and we, being open-minded individuals, are willing to hear that at any time.

Hon Ms Wark-Martyn: I would like to make a few comments to the member for Dufferin-Peel on his presentation this afternoon. The revenue that is collected for the tobacco tax goes into the consolidated revenue fund, which pays for our health, social and education programs here in the province.

He also mentioned the tire tax and what we have done with that. I would like to inform the member that the Minister of the Environment announced a few short weeks ago a $7.9-million infusion into the National Rubber Co to pay for recycling tires. I can say that on that end we are doing something with the tire tax and we are letting the people of Ontario know that their tax is going towards what it is supposed to go towards.

As far as meeting with the tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry is concerned, I have done that. The Treasurer has also done that and I have asked the Minister of Health to meet with them and talk about tobacco and how it affects our health and our health care costs in Ontario.

It might also be pointed out that the federal government increased its tax by three cents a cigarette in the 1991 budget, so perhaps the greater part of assistance to tobacco farmers should come from that level of government, and I would encourage the member for Dufferin-Peel to speak to his counterparts in Ottawa about that.

I would also like to inform the House that the ministry began a retail inspection program as of March 1991. We have inspected over 4,000 retailers at this point that I have statistics on. Of those retailers, we have found 25 where we have issued penalty assessments three times the tax value in these cases.

I would like to conclude my remarks this afternoon by also informing the member that cross-border shopping, if he noticed in the press today, has decreased since our summit meeting this summer on the cross-border shopping issue.

Mr Jordan: Actually Bill 84 will increase the cost of a pack of cigarettes by 30 cents per pack. These taxes are hurting our economy and are actually encouraging criminal activity. Many feel they are infringing on the civil rights of thousands of people. Tax on a package of 25 cigarettes in Windsor is $4.38. The same package in Detroit has 74 cents in tax. Cigarettes and alcohol are cited as the major reasons driving Ontario shoppers across the border into the United States. As my colleague has previously stated, this, along with the gasoline and the general taxing policies of this government, is really encouraging people to go across the border for these items.

It is also a major cause of cigarette smuggling and it is becoming one of the major areas of criminal activity in this province. The information I have states that it is up more than 40% in the last two years. As stated by one of the speakers yesterday, you can buy illegally imported cigarettes within blocks of Queen's Park. You can have a carton of smuggled cigarettes delivered to your home in this city for $20. Buying a carton legally could cost you as much as $50. This taxation is further encouraging this type of activity.

Mr Cousens: I would like to go on the record, because when the member for Dufferin-Peel has an opportunity to share some of the comments he had in this presentation, it gives us an understanding that quite frankly is lacking on the other side of the House and from the Liberals. When the Liberals were in power, all they could do was raise taxes. Part of the problem the New Democrats have today is that they have to live up to all the promises and failures of the Grits while they were in power with their spending spree.

Now these people, though they do not know how to cut back on their spending, have to find ways of increasing taxes. They are wrong to do so, but the fact of the matter is that when my friend the member for Dufferin-Peel is able to come forward in this House and articulate the situation, the problem, as well as he has, it reflects very well on the people from his riding.

It also says something about all the other ridings that did not elect a Tory. I think it is high time they began to think about it, because every time they go and pay more taxes, what this gentleman has done is remind them of the fact that there are other choices out there, and the other choices are ones that are not going to cost them as much money. That is the kind of thing the member for Dufferin-Peel has been raising in his presentation. I think we are looking at a House that needs more people like the member for Dufferin-Peel, who has the kind of experience and background that he brings to all the issues in the House, and I want to thank him for his excellent remarks this afternoon.

Mr Tilson: Just very briefly on two issues raised by the member for Victoria-Haliburton and the minister, with respect to the minister's comment that referred to the tire tax, the whole purpose of my address to this House was to simply ask the question, specifically what are they doing with the $250 million? What are they going to do with that? Is it going into other areas?

I am sure they could stand up and say, "Yes, there are some moneys going to cross-border shopping and some moneys going to the schools to educate our young people with respect to the hazards of smoking," and they could even refer to some examples where moneys have gone to southwestern Ontario to assist some of the farmers there, although the statistics I have read to this House indicate that there does not appear to be any, or very little, going to southwestern Ontario.

The whole purpose of my address comparing it to the tire tax was that when you look at the tire tax, we have yet to see statistics showing specifically what they are doing with the vast amounts of money that have been raised from the tire tax. Is that going to the environment, or is it going into the general coffers that allow them to spend on the various expensive programs that they have been initiating? That was the purpose of that question, simply to ask, where is the $250 million going?

With respect to the comments made with respect to our party and other provinces raising revenue from tobacco taxes, of course that was my whole point in reading that into the record. That party has maintained that it is going to be different, that it is not going to continue the mistakes of the past or the mistakes of other provinces, "This party is going to be different." They are no different from the rest of the provinces of this country in raising money and destroying the tobacco industry in this country.

Mr Winninger: I suggest the members have to be mindful of the veritable challenge this government faced last April in the face of declining revenues and soaring costs, $6.2 billion over the last fiscal year. The government has two choices, as everyone knows: It can borrow the money -- members of the opposition have already chastised this government for borrowing too much -- or the government can raise taxes.

This particular tax being raised under Bill 84 serves numerous purposes. First, it is part of a budget designed to ease us out of a recession, return people to work and get the economy moving again. We do not fight the deficit on the backs of the poor and unemployed. We design a budget that is reasonable and compassionate, a budget for difficult times.

I remind the members of what John Kenneth Galbraith had to say in an

article entitled How to Tame the Recession. He said:

"With the notable exception of the province of Ontario, governments everywhere are tightening their belts, curtailing services, reducing payrolls, furloughing workers or promising to do so. Individuals immediately affected, needless to say, have their spending promptly reduced. Many, under threat of unemployment, are impelled to retrench. So are those receiving welfare and other payments not being curtailed or threatened with curtailment.

"It is in this regard that the Ontario government is leading the way. It has decided to cut taxes for people with low incomes" -- as we have seen with Bill 83, just passed -- "to provide more income for social assistance, affordable housing and capital projects, to offer loans for businesses hurt by the recession and to look seriously, moreover, at creating its own pool of investment capital to help reinvigorate the provincial economy."

Our challenge as a government was threefold: How were we to deal with the $3.5-billion reduction in federal transfer payments? How were we going to maintain existing programs, without speaking about improving and extending them, which would cost us $3.2 billion? Finally, how were we going to deal with the wildly escalating costs of social assistance?

This budget, as I noted, was designed to put people first in building a productive and more humane community. It was a budget committed to economic renewal, a fresh, new economic vision of sustainable prosperity to move us out of the worst recession in 50 years with an environmentally and socially sustainable, renewable economy.

That is what the $250 million raised under the Tobacco Tax Act is designed to create. It is a tax designed to ensure that necessary revenues flow through to meet this government's growing expenditures and contain the deficit at $9.7 billion. This legislation put before the House represents, I submit, a concerted effort both to contain tax increases for the middle class and to reduce taxes for our low-income earners.

Bill 84 is certain to reduce our health care costs. It is a positive step, as noted by our Treasurer, towards reducing the 13,000 premature deaths in Ontario every year.

Let's not forget that it was the Liberal government, during much more prosperous times than we are currently suffering through, which raised the tax rate on cigarettes in 1988 by 35.3%, and again in 1990 by 26.1%. Our rate of increase is 34.6%, certainly less than the Liberal increase in 1988.

Dealing specifically with the programs this money is being spent on, money is being used to create jobs in a climate of burgeoning unemployment. The anti-recession fund created 70,000 jobs.

The anti-recession fund has translated into $4.3 billion spent on capital projects this year, including hospitals, schools, water and sewer systems and transit networks; funding for research; funding for development so that we may better compete internationally, as the members for the third party constantly urge; to improve the funding that is flowing through Innovation Ontario to invest in the growth of high-technology firms, and research and innovation to change our products and to change our production processes.

Recently $35.5 million has been announced to aid our farmers who are hard hit by drought and diminishing incomes. Money raised through this revenue tax is flowing through to the farm community.

At a time when 250,000 jobs have been lost in Ontario and social assistance is up 40%, to $1.4 billion, should there be any question as to why a modest increase in the tobacco tax should take place to ensure that those who are in greatest need receive the assistance they so vitally need in this troubled time?

Money is also being used to create affordable housing, 35,000 units of co-operative and non-profit housing to support the homeless.

What about the prevention of violence against women? Money that was never spent before is being spent to expand the shelters, to improve counselling and prevention programs, to provide immediate social assistance to battered women, to expand pay equity, to improve day care and to introduce employment equity into the workplace.

What we need is appropriate and reasonable spending so that we can work towards social and economic renewal as a basis of recovery and so that we can create jobs, retrain workers and encourage new forms of productive investment. We need to secure well-paid jobs at high levels of employment. We need to provide that the benefits of growth are shared equally. We need to ensure that our economic renewal is environmentally and socially sustainable.

This government is promoting the recovery of the manufacturing base. It is ensuring that industry is productive and competitive as we move into the second millennium. We need to enhance workers' skills. We need to make them more adaptable. We need to adopt new technologies and managerial practices. We need knowledge-based economic restructuring and innovative investment capital for emerging businesses.

We -- labour, business and government -- can be true partners in economic renewal, but only if all members of the House realize that revenues have to be maintained at a modest scale to ensure that the kinds of social spending programs that are indeed progressive and in keeping with the times can move ahead.

Mr Cousens: I cannot believe this group of people elected by the people of Ontario. The people of Ontario, who are usually very intelligent, have ended up putting in place people who do not know the balance between what industry is all about and the social needs of our province.

The member expounds eloquently about the social agenda this government has. He expounds about what it is doing to help certain municipalities, but his speech does not bring with it any kind of significant commitment to the business community to help get the economy going. If people had more confidence in the minister and his government, we would see more investment and an expansion of jobs in this province. Instead, we are seeing unemployment levels increasing and the general economy on the decline. It takes leadership at the highest level.

I can only suggest that the honourable member, whom I know personally as a friend, should be looking at more than he is. I happen to like the member. He happens to fight for some good things in his community. We have talked about those things. I want to see this member and other members of the New Democratic caucus bring a little more strength. The pendulum keeps swinging farther and farther to the left and what we need to do is bring it back a little. That would mean a balance that respects the needs of the business community. This government never brings that up. They do not know how to talk about it.

They do not know what a payroll is all about and they do not seem to understand the drastic problems that exist out there in our economy right now.

I challenge the members of the New Democratic caucus to alert themselves to the real needs of our society. It is not to increase taxes to the level they are. It is becoming something we need to control. We need to control spending and we need to control the expectations of the public, to bring these things under control. The fact of the matter is that this government is not beginning to do that. The member's speech tells us that.

M. Bisson : Merci beaucoup. C'est avec un grand intérêt que j'ai écouté mon collègue le député de London-Sud, qui a parlé un peu de la situation des taxes. Toute cette question autour des taxes est vraiment une question qui tracasse n'importe quel gouvernement dans n'importe quelle province ou juridiction où on se trouve.

D'un côté de l'équation la population vient nous voir, nous en tant que députés, en nous disant: «On demande des services. C'est important qu'on donne les services nécessaires à ma communauté.» Il faut assurer qu'on ait en place un système d'éducation, des systèmes médicaux, toutes les affaires que veut le monde pour avoir une société avec un peu d'équité. De l'autre côté, comme n'importe qui de n'importe quel gouvernement dans n'importe quelle juridiction, on a le problème d'un monde qui nous dit, «On ne veut pas payer ça.»

C'est vraiment une des grosses questions qui tracassent n'importe quel gouvernement. On se retrouve, en 1990, au seul d'une économie globale. Comment être capable, comme gouvernement, de mettre en place les revenus nécessaires qui donneront les services nécessaires pour appuyer notre société, et, comme l'a dit le député de Markham, mettre en place les programmes nécessaires pour appuyer le secteur des affaires de la province? Je pense que c'est exactement ça qu'a dit mon collègue le député de London-Sud. D'une manière ou d'une autre, un gouvernement a besoin de payer le prix pour mettre ces services-là en place.

Il n'est pas facile pour n'importe quel gouvernement de trouver les ressources nécessaires et d'avoir de l'argent en place pour payer les programmes. Je pense que la plupart des députés ici, comme la majorité de la population de l'Ontario ou de n'importe quelle autre province, vont dire, «Des taxes c'est correct, mais parle pas des taxes à mon porte-feuille.»

C'est vraiment là le problème dans lequel on se trouve, comme n'importe quel politicien dans n'importe quelle juridiction du Canada, d'ailleurs: de quelle manière peut-on aller rechercher les ressources naturelles dont on a besoin pour être capable de payer nos services?

Le président suppléant (M. Villeneuve) : Merci infiniment au député de Cochrane-Sud pour sa participation. Further questions and/or comments?

Mr Bradley: One of the items that was not noted, as it should have been, with the same emphasis it has been noted by members in the opposition, is the effect of this tax on cross-border shopping. Many people who reside in areas which are close to the border, or who know of people in those areas, know that there are loss leaders that send people across the border. There are things which attract people almost on a weekly basis to do their shopping in the United States. One of those is the cost of tobacco products. Another is the cost of alcohol, and meals as a result of the cost of alcohol.

Third, and probably the most important, is the cost of gasoline. There are many people now who make a habit of going over to the other side of the border to do their shopping. That is what leads them in that direction.

Few people would quarrel over the years with what we call sin taxes. Ordinarily an easy tax to put on is the one on alcoholic beverages. Second is the one on tobacco. Both of them have a detrimental health effect. One would make an argument for an environmental tax in terms of a tax on gasoline, or an energy conservation tax. All these, in a certain context, probably were tolerable to the public. What has happened, however, is that because of cross-border shopping, because of the not millions but billions of dollars that are going to the United States to purchase products, many people now understand that we have reached the maximum in terms of taxes on these products.

That is why those of us in the opposition have advocated that these taxes be withdrawn. Of course, there will also be a diminishing return on them, but that is another issue. My main plea to the government is to look at the fact that it is sending people to the United States to shop by increasing taxes on what I call the loss leaders.

Mr Stockwell: It has become painfully obvious that the issue the member forgot to address is exactly what his government is doing for the farmers who were growing tobacco. Maybe he will offer up some particular pearl of wisdom in his response. I would like to hear it. I think the farmers in southwestern Ontario are waiting with bated breath. They are very concerned.

Although the member addresses a lot of issues with respect to pay equity and so on, he does not deal with the real issue involved here. If he is prepared to raise taxes, he has to give people the opportunity to convert their farms to something other than what he is really driving them out of the country to buy. I do not think anyone is going to give anyone any argument about the fact that people are leaving this province to buy tobacco because it is cheaper. It is dramatically cheaper. If that is a decision the government is prepared to make -- and I guess it is, it increased the taxes -- then he has to offer an alternative to the farmers in southwestern Ontario.

My friend across the floor has offered nothing to the farm family, nothing to the growers, nothing to the people attached to the industry about what they are supposed to do in this economic uncertainty, with a declining base of consumers and a government that is very clearly opposed to the consumption of this product.

I think the other point that must be made to the member for London South is that, I agree with him, resources are very hard to come by. He suggested it is very difficult to find places where he can raise taxes. I am not saying that is not true too, but with all due respect, it is neither fish nor fowl.

If the government is prepared to put forward some serious recommendations and raise the taxes of the people in this province, it should have been prepared to tax the people for it. I firmly believe the people should be taxed for the government they get. If the government was truly fair and suggested that all its initiatives, which cost a tremendous amount of money, should be funded, they should be funde