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

June 26, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SPEED LIMITS

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION -- PETERBOROUGH

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

WASTE MANAGEMENT

UNCLE TOM’S CABIN

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN / ST JEAN BAPTISTE DAY

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

RESPONSES

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

PATRICIA STARR

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND SIGNAGE

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

PATRICIA STARR

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND SIGNAGE

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

PATRICIA STARR

RECYCLING

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

CARDIOVASCULAR CARE

PATRICIA STARR

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LES DROITS DE CESSION IMMOBILIÈRE

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L’ESSENCE

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA LOI DE 1981 DE LA TAXE SUR LES CARBURANTS

DEVELOPMENT CHARGES ACT, 1989

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

FUEL TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT. 1989

LAND TRANSFER TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

SPEED LIMITS

Mr Hampton: The Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) recently announced that at long last his ministry was considering increasing the speed limit on so-called secondary highways in northern Ontario from 80 kilometres to 90 kilometres an hour. The time is long overdue for such a change to be made. Let me point out just a few reasons why.

Highway 71 connecting Fort Frances and Kenora is not a secondary highway in anyone’s mind This is also true of Highway 502 connecting Fort Frances to Dryden, Highway 72 connecting Sioux Lookout to Dryden, Highway 105 connecting Red Lake to the Trans-Canada Highway and Highway 808 connecting Atikokan to Dryden and Ignace.

The highways I have just listed are the main routes of transportation between the main communities of northwestern Ontario. Not only that; they are the main tourism routes which bring tourists from Manitoba. the rest of Ontario and the Midwest of the United States to all of the tourist enterprises that the government advertises and is so proud of.

How these highways were ever designated secondary highways in any sense in terms of the geography of northwestern Ontario is beyond anyone. The fact simply is they are the main routes of transportation and ought to be designated main highways with a 90-kilometre speed limit. If need be that the speed limit be lowered in certain sections, so be it. That is already the case on Highways 11 and 17.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Harris: Over 40 per cent of Ontario’s conservation officers are here today to protest the treatment received from the Liberal government and by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio). Ontario’s conservation officers are responsible for the enforcement of more than 20 provincial and federal statutes, including the Criminal Code of Canada. Conservation officers are frequently drawn into situations that can be as volatile as any of those that a member of the Ontario Provincial Police is drawn into.

They should be receiving the training and remuneration to reflect this fact. There is no doubt that there exists a growing gap of over $10,000 between the wages paid to provincial conservation officers and those paid to other provincial officers, namely the OPP and the Ministry of the Environment officers.

I raised this matter with the minister as far back as 10 February 1986. The minister said then in response to my question, “We will do the right thing by those conservation officers.” The right thing is not stonewalling, the right thing is not hiding behind the Management Board people, the right thing is not hiding behind the Chairman of Management Board (Mr Elston) and the right thing is not continually frustrating the arbitration process.

The reality is the Minister of Natural Resources has both the power and the authority to step in and redress the current inequity, which is both unfair and a potential hindrance to them carrying out their jobs and I call on the Minister of Natural Resources to acknowledge that and to reclassify, both in title and in remuneration, the conservation officers.

CANADIAN AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION -- PETERBOROUGH

Mr Adams: A highlight of the 75th anniversary of the Canadian Automobile Association -- Peterborough were the reflections of Charlie Huffman, retiring after 60 years with the Peterborough Automobile Club.

In the early days of the club, few roads were paved and fewer had signs. How did we find our way around before Charlie Huffman and his father put up road signs? What did the Minister of Transportation do in those days? CAA Peter-borough, or the Ontario Motor League, as we used to know it, also organized the first driver education courses in local high schools. What did the school boards find to do in those days?

In those days too, the association supervised road service contract garages in four counties. In recent years CAA Peterborough has developed a highly respected travel agency. It is an established local business which is recognized for its contributions to community life. The current board and staff are to be commended for nurturing and enhancing a fine tradition.

Our thanks to Charlie Huffman and the pioneers of our automobile associations. The full text of Charlie’s reflections will be placed in the archives in Peterborough.

PROPOSED NEUTRINO OBSERVATORY

Miss Martel: Picking up from where my colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr Laughren) left off last Tuesday, I also want to make some remarks regarding the proposed Sudbury neutrino observatory.

Suffice to say that many members from all sides of this House, in particular the northern members, have been lobbying on the Sudbury neutrino observatory project and understand its scientific significance. Therefore, I cannot understand why the Liberal government is so reluctant to fund this project over a four-year term. The province has been asked to commit some $7.2 million, a drop in the bucket compared to the funding which still exists in the Premier’s Council technology fund.

Surely a pure research project which would attract scientists from the international community to Sudbury is an endeavour this government would be most eager to participate in.

Two weeks ago the National Sciences and Engineering Research Council indicated it was prepared to commit some $15 million to the observatory. This is far beyond what SNO leaders have requested from the Liberal government. It seems to me that a favourable response would go a long way to proving that this government is serious when it says it is committed to technology and development.

I last wrote to the Premier (Mr Peterson) on this important matter on April 19. Unfortunately, I have yet to receive any response regarding the Premier’s intentions or the intentions of staff of the technology fund regarding the project. Given the recent announcement by the research council, it is high time the government agreed to fund its share of this project.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Marland: The Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley) told us the blue box program would be the answer to all our garbage problems. He told us not to worry about markets for the recycled material; he had everything under control.

We now find there is a glut of recycled material in the marketplace. We have reports of newspapers being stored in huge warehouses at taxpayers’ expense and being exported, of glass being thrown into garbage dumps and of cancelled pickup for corrugated cardboard. Because of the glut, market prices are down and the success of the municipal recycling program is being threatened.

It is obvious the Minister of the Environment did not do his homework. He has done nothing to ensure that the markets for recycled material would grow; instead, they have become saturated. The minister should have established programs to encourage industries to increase their use of recycled materials. For example, newspaper publishers must increase their use of recycled paper.

The blue box program is not alone in facing collapse. Today, we heard that Peel region is threatening to pull out of the greater Toronto area solid waste management strategy. We already know the citizens of Durham region are not happy with the plan. The Minister of the Environment seems to have washed his hands of the GTA strategy and is giving no guidance whatsoever.

This government has mismanaged both of these key initiatives. The message is simple: the Liberal government cannot handle the pressure and is stumbling its way through the garbage crisis facing southern Ontario.

UNCLE TOM’S CABIN

Mr McGuigan: On Sunday 18 June, the 200th anniversary of Rev Josiah Henson’s birth was celebrated at Uncle Tom’s Cabin in Dresden, Ontario. Thelma Henson, a great-granddaughter of Josiah Henson, unveiled a portrait of the person whose personal story inspired Harriet Beecher Stowe to write, in 1852, the powerful antislavery novel Uncle Tom’s Cabin, a book that ranks with Charles Dickens’s novels in terms of its effect upon the course of social and political history.

Historians believe that, but for the publication of this book, the kings of Europe would have sided with the Confederates during the American Civil War, possibly changing the outcome and postponing the end of slavery in the United States.

The north star was a guide which many fugitive slaves followed to freedom along the underground railway to termini in Amherstburg in Anderdon township in Essex county and North Buxton, Shrewsbury, Chatham and Dresden in Kent county.

The Henson family settled in the Dresden area about 1841, where Josiah was an active leader in the church and helped to create the British-American Institute. The Henson home, known as Uncle Tom’s Cabin, has been preserved along with other buildings and many artefacts. The site is maintained by the county of Kent, with support from the Ministry of Culture and Communications.

The member for Chatham-Kent (Mr Bossy) and myself invite all those interested in Ontario’s history to visit this historic site.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Wildman: In May 1985, 98 per cent of Ontario’s 235 conservation officers filed a classification grievance. On 26 April 1986, the Crown Employees Grievance Settlement Board ruled unanimously in favour of the conservation officers -- and we still do not have this problem resolved.

The government keeps bouncing this back to the grievance board. If there was a real commitment to ensuring that our conservation officers had a classification standard that truly represented what they do and a salary commensurate with their enforcement role, it would happen.

It appears that the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio), despite his comments, does not really want to resolve this issue and get the conservation officers the kind of recognition they deserve in this province.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: Mr Speaker, could I ask for unanimous consent to read a message referring to la Saint-Jean-Baptiste?

The Speaker: Is there agreement?

Agreed to.

FÊTE DE LA SAINT-JEAN / ST JEAN BAPTISTE DAY

L’hon. M. Grandmaître: Les francophones de l’Ontario se sont regroupés samedi dernier afin de célébrer la Saint-Jean. C’était l’occasion de fêter notre histoire, nos traditions et notre culture.

Les nombreuses activités artistiques, culturelles et communautaires qui se sont déroulées dans toutes les régions de notre province témoignent de la vitalité de la population francophone de l’Ontario.

Ontario francophones got together last Saturday to celebrate St Jean Baptiste Day. It was an opportunity for us to mark our history, traditions and culture. The vitality of Ontario’s francophone population was reflected through the many activities, artistic and cultural, this community organized throughout the province.

As we near 19 November, the day the French Language Services Act, 1986 comes into force, St Jean Baptiste Day activities enable us to demonstrate our confidence in the future and our desire to participate fully in Ontario’s economic, political, social and cultural life.

À l’avenir, j’espère que nous pourrons tous accepter et partager le riche patrimoine culturel et linguistique des francophones de l’Ontario et du reste du Canada. Ce jour-là, la fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste sera un jour de congé en Ontario comme au Québec.

M. Villeneuve : Il me fait aussi plaisir de saluer tous nos amis francophones, en cette fin de semaine où les francophones ontariens, avec leurs voisins du Québec, célébraient avec enthousiasme la fête de la Saint-Jean-Baptiste.

Dans le passé, nos ancêtres ont travaillé d’arrache-pied et se sont imposé de nombreux sacrifices afin de garder notre fierté, notre langue et notre culture.

Le futur des Franco-Ontariens et de la francophonie en Amérique du Nord appartient aux jeunes de notre province et de notre pays, et ce sera à eux -- quand nous, leurs aînés, serons obligés d’abandonner la

partie -- que reviendra la tâche d’épauler nos projets et de lutter continuellement. La seule façon de garder notre langue et notre culture, c’est de lutter. Ce sont les générations à venir qui devront porter le flambeau de cette grande tradition.

Il me fait plaisir de saluer tous nos francophones ontariens.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

Hon Mrs Caplan: Mr Speaker, it is my sad duty to inform the House of an air ambulance crash into the waters of Pelee Island last Saturday night which took the lives of three people. Two people survived the crash, one being the patient for whom the air ambulance had been called, Margaret Fraser.

I would like to extend our sympathies to the families, friends and colleagues of those who did not survive the plane crash: pilot Fred Lewis, ambulance officer Charles Ransome, and the patient’s husband, Ken Fraser. Co-pilot Peter Marshall is to be commended for his

part in the survival of Mrs Fraser.

The plane was a seven-passenger, twin-engine Piper Navajo owned by South West Air of Windsor. It was chartered by the Central Air Ambulance Communications Centre in response to a request received at 9:31 pm on 24 June from the Windsor Central Ambulance Communications Centre.

After arriving on Pelee Island to pick up the patient and her husband, the plane took off at about 11 pm for the 15-minute flight to Windsor. It crashed into the water shortly after becoming airborne.

South West Air is a general aviation contractor operating in the southwestern Ontario area which has been working for the ministry for approximately seven years. South West Air has provided at least 2,600 air transfers during that time. Our air ambulance service transfers about 15,000 patients a year. Our air ambulance operations, of course, must meet all Department of Transport requirements and the standards set by this province.

In the interest of maintaining public confidence, I am initiating a comprehensive review of our air ambulance standards and procedures. This special review will be done with the assistance of Transport Canada, and I expect to be able to announce the name of the individual who will lead the review very shortly. The terms of reference of the review will include a comparison of Ontario’s air ambulance standards and procedures with other North American jurisdictions. I have asked that the review report within six weeks.

The Ontario Provincial Police and the Canadian Aviation Safety Board are conducting separate investigations into the accident. Their findings will be made public.

RESPONSES

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

Mr D. S. Cooke: On behalf of my party, I would like to join with the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan) and offer our sympathies to the individuals, Fred Lewis, Charles Ransome and Ken Fraser, who died this past weekend in the tragic air crash near Pelee Island.

I commend the minister that she has initiated a review and will set up terms of reference. I am only saddened that when a tragedy similar to this occurred in northern Ontario not too long ago, there were suggestions that this type of review of our air ambulance system in Ontario take place and the minister said that it was adequate to have Transport Canada look into the matter and not for the provincial government to participate directly.

I think that if this type of review had taken place before, perhaps this tragedy could have been averted and perhaps we would have had a better understanding of some of the problems in our air ambulance system in Ontario.

I also suggest to the minister that the emergency services provided in this province, and in particular ambulance services, whether it be air ambulance or ground transportation, have some serious problems in them that the ministry has not been addressing for a long time. We have volunteer systems, municipal systems, direct provincial systems and a for-profit ambulance system as well.

I think if the minister is to be serious about addressing the inequities of service and the difficulties we have in providing adequate levels of service, the entire ambulance service across this province must be reviewed. We must have something that is safer and more consistent right across the province.

Again, on behalf of the New Democratic Party, I offer my sympathies to the people affected this past weekend. I hope the minister will take some of our concerns to heart.

Mr Eves: As the Health critic for our party, I am rising to respond to the Minister of Health’s statement in the House this afternoon. I think that all members should be aware that this is the third accident by Ontario air ambulances in the last seven months. I share the comments made by my colleague to my right with respect to the previous tragedies.

The Ministry of Health has had three opportunities now to respond to these problems. It had the opportunity when the Shapiro report came out and was made public on 15 November 1988. It had the opportunity on 30 November 1988 with the Chapleau air disaster. It had the opportunity in January 1989 when a helicopter blew upon the pad at the Buttonville Airport. After two other tragedies we have a third one, and now the minister is finally going to do what Shapiro suggested on 1 June 1988 that the minister do. It is too little too late, unfortunately, for the people whose lives have been lost.

It really disturbs me that when opposition spokesmen stand up in this House and when an independent report suggested to the minister that she could launch her own investigation and inquiry into air ambulance services in the province, she does not take any of this seriously until we find ourselves in the third tragedy.

There are a lot of things in the ambulance system in general that need to be improved in the province. I do not think there is any doubt about that. We need a full provincial inquiry into ambulance services, the first step, I think, to improving emergency care in Ontario. We need more money for equipment, vehicles and staff. We need some standardization of ambulance services, air and otherwise, in Ontario. Until her ministry treats this very seriously, I am afraid that we are going to have more statements like the one read here in the House today.

I express on behalf of our party the sincere condolences and sympathy to the family and friends of those whose lives were lost. I just hope we do not have to stand a fourth time and say it again.

Mr Pope: Pilots, co-pilots, attendants and paramedics who are involved in providing a much-needed emergency air ambulance service across this province deserve our wholehearted support. It is forthcoming from the members of this Legislature. We join with the minister and opposition spokesmen in offering our sympathies to those who lost their lives and their families. It is a terrible tragedy to take place, for those who are trying to help out their fellow man. We respect their commitment to doing that through our air ambulance service.

The minister will know that when the Chapleau air ambulance crash occurred last year, I rose in the Legislature and asked that the minister review the procedures that were in place in northern Ontario for the transfer of the air ambulance service from one carrier to the other. I also asked the minister for more information. She indicated at the time that she thought I was being disrespectful to those who lost their lives in that terrible tragedy.

The point we were trying to make then was that we wanted the minister and her officials to spend some time on this issue, to review the procedures and to make sure that these kinds of accidents could not happen again. The minister did not answer our questions in the Legislature. When I applied under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act to get the basic details from the Ministry of Health, I got stonewalling for two months and a bill to pay, and when I did get the documents, over one third of them had deletions on them, so we could not find out what the basic decision-making process in the Ministry of Health was.

We now have the third air ambulance crash, and I think the position of the Ministry of Health -- not the minister, but the ministry -- on this matter is regrettable and has frustrated any attempt by this Legislature and this minister to review, as should have been done six months ago, the whole operation of air ambulances in this province. Now we are going to get a review after the third incident. I think the Ministry of Health deserves to be condemned for its actions to date.

ORAL QUESTIONS

PATRICIA STARR

Mr B. Rae: I have a question to the Premier. On Friday at his press conference, at which he announced the government’s general plans with respect to a judicial inquiry, one of the things he said was with respect to Mr DelZotto, the president of the Ontario

section of the federal Liberal Party.

I am quoting from what he said: “I have absolutely no influence over that particular situation. I can say that if he was the president of the Ontario Liberal Party, I would ask him to step down.”

I was intrigued by that comment for several reasons, but perhaps I could start by simply asking the Premier this question: Can he tell us why he thinks Mr DelZotto should step down?

Hon Mr Peterson: The allegations have been made, and until the matter is thoroughly dealt with and cleared up or the resolution is obtained, I think it would be in his interest to do so.

Mr B. Rae: I am intrigued by that response, because when I have asked the Premier on several occasions about members of his own cabinet about whom allegations have been made. which have been admitted to -- in the case of the Minister of Culture and Communications (Ms Oddie Munro), she has admitted to the $5,000 sweetheart contract between Ms Starr’s slush fund and her own mother -- the Premier’s response to me has been, and he has said it in very argumentative terms, as well as telling everybody what he thinks of me, that as far as he is concerned, he is going to wait, he is not going to prejudge anything and he is going to take his time.

I find it fascinating that in the one individual about whom he says he is absolutely powerless, Mr DelZotto, the simple mention of an allegation is sufficient for him to say, “He should definitely go,” but when it comes to members of his own cabinet, over whom he has responsibility and he has authority, his response has been consistently to stonewall and to say he will take no such steps.

The Speaker: The question?

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask him, why does the same rule not apply to the Minister of Culture and Communications as applies to Mr DelZotto?

Hon Mr Peterson: My friend continues to make the same point day after day, and I respect his right to do so, but I say to him my answer is the same day after day.

Mr B. Rae: I do not know how the Premier’s answer can be the same when he has already said he has a different standard for people over whom he has no control. Why is his standard for people over whom he claims he has no control and no influence so totally different from the standard that applies to members of his own executive council?

Hon Mr Peterson: As the member knows, the nature of the allegations is very different. I have told my friend what we are doing with respect to the Conflict of Interest Commissioner and others and I have indicated that there will be a cabinet shuffle in the not-too-distant future and I will deal with it all then.

Mr B. Rae: Whether or not the Premier has heard from the conflicts commissioner? He is saying one thing on the one hand and another on the other.

The Speaker: Question?

Mr B. Rae: It is my understanding. and we have just had it confirmed by Mr Maywood, who is the acting deputy chief and who informed us, that the criminal investigations service group of the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force did prepare a confidential memo with respect to information contained in the Waisberg report about the DelZotto family. I wonder if the Premier can tell us if in fact that is the case.

Hon Mr Peterson: The acting Solicitor General (Mr Scott) has investigated this matter.

Hon Mr Scott: I am happy to tell the honourable member that the Deputy Solicitor General routinely makes oral inquiries of police sources and other sources before appointments to either local police commissions or the Ontario Police Commission are made. I have no doubt that was done in all these cases over the last four years.

Our investigation, however, does not reveal that any written report had been asked for, promised or indeed received by the time appointments were last made to the Ontario Police Commission.

Mr B. Rae: Perhaps while I have the acting Solicitor General on his feet, although he was not the Solicitor General at the time that presumably any of these alleged appointments were to have been made or not made, since under the rules I can no longer ask the Premier a question, I would be delighted to ask the acting Solicitor General this question.

He will know that he has responded to me on a number of occasions about the question of judicial inquiry as opposed to other means of investigation. He has told me specifically, as did the previous Solicitor General when we have asked for judicial inquiries, that with respect to a particularly narrowly focused inquiry, it is completely improper to proceed by way of judicial inquiry at the same time as a police investigation is ongoing.

I would like to ask the acting Solicitor General what he is going to do when people who are appearing before the judicial inquiry to answer particular questions about particular allegations claim their charter rights and simply say with respect to a potentially criminal charge, “We cannot respond in this way to this kind of a proceeding at the same time as a criminal investigation is ongoing.”

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable member is quite right about the response I traditionally make and, I think, properly make to these questions, and I make the same one now.

I believe the government responded appropriately by indicating that a judicial inquiry would be appointed. I anticipate that as long as a police investigation is under way, no judge in Ontario would commence the taking of evidence at that inquiry, because to do so would run a real risk that any criminal charges that were pursued would have to be dismissed against the accused by virtue of the breach of his charter rights. But that will be a determination that will be made by the judge conducting the inquiry. He will have sole determination to proceed or not to proceed.

Mr B. Rae: What the acting Solicitor General is telling us is that the inquiry announced by the Premier cannot in fact proceed and that the inquiry that was announced by the Premier appears to be a simple public relations exercise on the part of the Liberal Party of Ontario to get away from the executive responsibilities of the Premier for his own office.

I would like to ask the acting Solicitor General, since he has now told us that no judge can proceed to investigate particular matters --

Hon Mr Scott: I am not saying that.

Mr B. Rae: What I heard him say was that he cannot proceed to take evidence with regard to questions that are currently before the police and that may result in criminal charges.

Why would the acting Solicitor General not endorse the proposal we have made? Rather than have a narrowly focused inquiry which deals specifically with allegations which the acting Solicitor General knows perfectly well are in fact the subject of a police investigation, why does he not join with our approach, which is to have a far more broadly based inquiry into the relationship between the development industry and the governments of this province, and indeed of this country, so that we can finally understand why this whole scheme was established in the first place?

Hon Mr Scott: You get asked a question, you give your answer, then the Leader of the Opposition gets up and says what the acting Solicitor General has told us and puts back something that could not have been further from my mind, as if that was the end of the matter.

Mr D. S. Cooke: You said he wouldn’t be able to take evidence.

Mr Wildman: Who do you think you are?

Hon Mr Scott: Now that gets them all excited and it is going to happen again. Is everybody finished? Okay.

As the honourable Leader of the Opposition, who practised law for a while, knows perfectly well, the answer to the question does not depend on the breadth or the narrowness of the commission of inquiry. If any of the persons who are named in the current reports are charged -- and that will be a matter for the police to decide after their investigation -- their charter rights would be seriously infringed, as the honourable member perfectly well knows, if any questions, whether raised in a broad or narrow inquiry, which ask anything about them or anything about which they might be concerned were advanced.

I have said those questions will be for the judicial inquiry judge to decide. He can start the day after his appointment or he can give effect to charter rights if he thinks that is the appropriate thing to do.

What I am sure the honourable Leader of the Opposition wants is not a political game; what he wants is that justice should be done in either the criminal court or the inquiry process. It is my job to do everything we can, without inflaming my friend’s political instincts, to guarantee that that happens in Ontario as long as I am in this job.

Mr Brandt: My question as well is to the Premier. I want to indicate to the Premier that I listened very carefully to what he had to say in connection with his announcement on Friday and I have listened very carefully to what the Attorney General (Mr Scott) has had to say in his comments in response to the Leader of the Opposition today.

I find there are certain changes or alterations with respect to the two positions. The shell game that the Attorney General is now talking about is totally unacceptable. In no way did the proposal that the Premier of this province made contain any of the alterations and the changes and the modifications that the Attorney General is now proposing to this House.

I ask the Premier, which is it. his position on Friday or the Attorney General’s position today?

Hon Mr Peterson: The positions are the same, and the Attorney General will tell the member what the position is.

The Speaker: Supplementary?

Hon Mr Scott: The difficulty with this question --

Mr Wildman: The Premier answered the question.

The Speaker: Order. Was that referred or not?

Mr Brandt: Well, since the Premier answered the question, I --

The Speaker: Order. I asked if it was referred. It is referred.

Hon Mr Scott: On Friday, the government announced the immediate appointment of a judicial inquiry into these matters. I can tell the honourable members that when an order in council is executed and the Chief justice of Ontario has made the requisite appointment, that inquiry will be in place and can begin meeting immediately.

The question that arises is: In the event that a criminal charge is laid, will it be proper for the inquiry to take evidence that will bear on that charge? The reality is that that will be a question for the judge conducting the inquiry. As the honourable member knows, there are lots of examples where that occurs. The position of a coroner’s inquest is precisely the same under the statute as the position we are advancing today.

We have made an immediate appointment. The judge will be in place as soon as that can be arranged. He will decide the order of business and the timing of business. There is no question that persons who may be accused may ask him to protect their rights under the Chatter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr B. Rae: No kidding.

Hon Mr Scott: I do not think that is such a shocking thing. The leader of the third party has not submitted to this, but the Leader of the Opposition, when he has the political bit in his teeth, will just ride over any rights that the law provides.

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

lnterjections.

Mr B. Rae: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker: I wonder if the Attorney General would consider what he has just said.

Mr Brandt: As in withdraw.

Mr B. Rae: Yes. He cannot say that kind of crap.

Hon Mr Scott: I suppose if I said “hypocrisy,” the honourable Leader of the Opposition would not object to that.

Mr B. Rae: I did not set up the inquiry. He did. Okay?

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Scott: I do not want to offend the honourable Leader of the Opposition. I have too much respect for his ability and integrity --

The Speaker: You will withdraw?

Hon Mr Scott: -- and I do not hesitate to withdraw.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Mr Brandt: In the spirit of civility that is now on the floor on the part of the Attorney General, I would like to address my supplementary to the Attorney General in connection with the difficulties that I well appreciate surround this entire issue.

Is the Attorney General -- through him to the Premier, to whom I cannot address this question -- prepared at least to negotiate with the leaders of the opposition and their parties in connection with the appointment of the head of this judicial inquiry, and also to very carefully -- I say to him in the interests of co-operation -- and very sensitively develop the terms of reference for the inquiry, so that we can bring some order to the way in which we proceed through this House and through the inquiry, which obviously will be independent of this House?

Hon Mr Scott: I should say, without hesitation, that I look forward, either in this place or by letter or more informally, to any suggestions the Leader of the Opposition or the leader of the third party wants to make on that subject. I want to assure them they will get my best possible consideration. I share their instinct.

Mr Brandt: I would ask the Attorney General not to wait for a proactive move on the part of the members of the opposition. What we are in fact asking for is for the Attorney General and the government to sit down and discuss, at least in somewhat of an amicable fashion, the method by which we can proceed in order to get on with other business in this House, as well as just this affair that is before us at the moment.

My appeal to him, as a gentleman and as an honourable member of this House, is, is he prepared to sit down with us and negotiate adequate, reasonable terms of reference with respect to this entire matter so that it will not become, on a daily basis, an issue for us to raise by way of questions to him about the inadequacy of the inquiry, the inadequacy of the terms of reference and the parameters upon which he drafts this entire inquiry? Is he prepared to set that issue aside by sitting down before the fact and working out some of those details with us?

Hon Mr Scott: The honourable leader of the third party asks me not to await any proactive stance on the part of his party. Many years before I came here I waited vainly for any proactive stance on the part of his party and got none. But let me say this: I am prepared to receive, as is the government, whatever suggestions he may have. If he cares to meet with me at the end of question period so I can hear his suggestions, I am willing and will make myself available precisely for that purpose.

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Premier. Today’s Globe and Mail carries a story in connection with the possible appointment of one of the DelZotto brothers to the Ontario Police Commission. I wonder if the Premier could confirm if that possible appointment was in fact discussed between him and the Attorney General in connection with the appropriateness of the appointment?

Hon Mr Peterson: A great number of names come forward for potential appointments, including ones that the leader of the third party brings to my attention, as do other members of this House. The answer is that it was raised, and it was discussed and rejected.

Mr Brandt: My understanding is that it was a little more complicated than that. My understanding is that the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Keyes), did in fact recommend one of the DelZottos for an appointment to the Ontario Police Commission, but that there was an intervention on the part of the Attorney General (Mr Scott) with respect to that possibility. Could the Premier confirm that was the sequence of events?

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not think I can confirm the first part of that. Definitely, the second part, I can confirm. The Attorney General and I agreed it was not the appropriate appointment in the circumstances.

Mr Brandt: Could the Premier also confirm that a former member of the Ontario Police Commission. Archie Ferguson, I believe, had discussions with him in regard to the appropriateness of that appointment and that this intervention, as well, took place in connection with the possible appointment of one of the DelZottos to the Ontario Police Commission?

Hon Mr Peterson: He was not a member of the police commission; Archie Ferguson was the commissioner, Ontario Provincial Police. Frankly’ I do not recall whether that was specifically discussed with him. Generally, police commission appointments are not discussed with the commissioner, at least not by me. At the same time, there is wide discussion about these kinds of things. For example, if a potential police commission one comes along in some community, I am told and the acting Solicitor General (Mr Scott) will confirm this, generally there is discussion with the local people as to the appropriateness and all of that kind of thing.

Let me just finish up and, I guess, answer the question I think my friend wants to ask. It was never the Attorney General’s intent, or mine, to appoint the named individual. So I am not sure -- and this could apply to many, many other potential appointments. I guess what I am telling my friend is that there is a lot of excitement about something that did not take place.

Mr B. Rae: There certainly is. I think the Premier is quite right about that. We know a report was in fact prepared with respect to one of the DelZotto brothers. I would like to ask the Premier this specific question: Which one of the members of the DelZotto family was proposed for a position on the Ontario Police Commission? When did this take place and precisely why was Mr DelZotto’s name rejected?

Hon Mr Peterson: I will refer it to the Attorney General.

Hon Mr Scott: Our understanding, having made an investigation, is that routinely the Deputy Solicitor General makes inquiries in the community and for the Ontario Police Commission in the broader community about persons who may be considered for the appointment. Those inquiries are orally made and orally responded to.

At the time of the appointments to the Ontario Police Commission last made, I am also advised there was not on hand any written police report about any of the DelZottos as far as we can ascertain. That is the circumstance and that is an important fact to know in light of the newspaper’s report this morning.

Which of the DelZottos was being considered for the police commission. I am not frankly able to say at the moment, except that I simply observe this: None of them was appointed. It was the determination of the government of the day to appoint other people to those jobs, and we did.

Mr B. Rae: Perhaps the acting Solicitor General, who has again been referred this question by the Premier -- I would much prefer my supplementary to go to the Premier. The criminal investigation service did apparently prepare a memorandum of some kind with respect to one of the DelZotto brothers, and I do not know which one because the Premier has not told us. The Premier in his previous answer said a name was raised. It was discussed and it was rejected. All we are asking to know is this: Who raised whose name? Who proposed whose name? Who discussed whose name? Who then decided to reject it and why? I think we are entitled to an answer to each of those questions.

Hon Mr Scott: There are parts of that question I do not think anybody can answer, but what l can tell the honourable member is that routine inquiries from communities and police are made not only with respect to OPC appointments; they are made with respect to all police board appointments and with respect to other appointments of a quasi-judicial character such as the appointment of judges and the appointment of members of the Criminal Injuries Compensation Board.

I can tell the honourable member that no written report, as far as can be ascertained, was received about any of the DelZotto family being appointed to a police commission. As the Premier has already said, there were a number of people who were opposed to any such appointment even being considered, and none was made. That is the reality of the matter.

Mr D. S. Cooke: Why?

Hon Mr Scott: I will tell my friend why none was made. None was made because it was thought either that the appointment was inappropriate, or alternatively, that a better candidate was available, the same basis on which we reject thousands of people, including applicants from the New Democratic Party, for a wide variety of government jobs.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Harris: A question to the Premier: We are all indeed concerned with the integrity of the system and with the perception of politicians in general, from all parties.

This past weekend the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître) was on a CBC radio talk show. He spoke about a $1,250 donation his riding association received. He said: “It” -- meaning the cheque -- “was endorsed over to the Ontario Liberal Party. They cashed the cheque, provided me with the money, $1,250, and that is perfectly legal. That is according to the law, and we have to close those loopholes.”

When asked further, the Minister of Revenue said, “I did receive the money, but indirectly through the Ontario Liberal Party.” When asked by the interviewer if he had a problem with that, the minister said: “Exactly. We have to close the loophole. We are going to change the law.”

I would ask the Premier if he can tell us what sort of credibility he expects to have as Premier when one of his cabinet ministers is saying how terrible it is to have these loopholes and the law has to be changed seconds after he admits, “Yes, I exploited those loopholes for my own purposes.”

Hon Mr Peterson: The Commission Of Election Finances is looking into this matter. I am not sure if my honourable friend is alleging anything illegal or getting around the law in the circumstances. He may well be, and if there was a mistake made, obviously the election expenses commission will look into this and report back to this House.

I cannot stand here and attest to the fact that no mistakes have been made in reporting. Obviously, some have. They may have been for the member’s party or other parties as well.

But let me say at the same time to my honourable friend that if he believes or if other members of the House believe there should be changes in the Election Finances Act, which the commissioner, Donald MacDonald, former member of this House and former leader of the New Democratic Party, argued was the most open in North America -- I think those were his words -- if the member for Nipissing thinks the law can be changed and improved upon, let us look at this matter. Let us sit down together and change the laws, if he thinks that is appropriate. We have no objection to looking at them.

Mr Harris: During the same interview, Matt Maychak of the Toronto Star was interviewed. When asked about the situation, Mr Maychak said he had discussed the matter with the chairman of the election finances commission, who stated clearly that what the Minister of Revenue had done was not take advantage of a loophole but break the law; simple as that.

In view of the fact there was no problem with the law -- the Premier keeps coming back to this law and he wants to have more and more laws to replace what I suggest are integrity, common sense, doing the right thing. I myself do not know whether the law was broken; I do not know in this situation. But I am telling the Premier that when he has ministers talking about using all the loopholes and saying we have to close the loopholes -- apparently it was not a loophole; it was breaking the law -- when he has ministers in this sensitive time, on air, talking this way, it does not do justice to the Premier, his party or indeed any member of this chamber.

I would ask the Premier if he has looked into this situation and if he is satisfied that indeed that is the way his ministers are supposed to be carrying out their activities, looking for these loopholes to see if indeed they can find ways to get around the laws.

Hon Mr Peterson: Frankly, I am not aware of this particular interview or the facts surrounding this particular donation, but my honourable friend stands in the House and says on the one hand. “We do not want any more laws.” On the other hand, he says he does not know whether he has broken the law or not, but then he stands there and makes a lot of allegations.

Is that not why we have an election expenses commission and an independent commissioner, to make these determinations? He is doing that. He may well come to the conclusion the law has been broken, in which event penalties will be levied in the circumstances. Surely, that is why the whole situation is there.

My honourable friend cannot, on the one hand, say he does not know whether the law has been broken, but he does not want any more laws, and on the other hand, make allegations that laws have been broken. I think my honourable friend would want to be somewhat fairminded about this. I attend, as he does, the report of the chairman of the Commission on Election Finances. If the member has any suggestion of anything being done that is incorrect or against the law, I think he should refer it to the election expenses commissioner, who is an independent officer of this House.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND SIGNAGE

Mr Adams: My question is for the Minister of Transportation. There were two serious accidents on Highway 115 yesterday and I am very concerned that it is at a dangerous construction stage. Part of the highway is already four-laned and

part is not. People have great difficulty adjusting speed to the two situations. Can the minister give me some assurance that the four-laning of Highway 115 is on track.

Hon Mr Fulton: I appreciate the member’s ongoing interest with respect to transportation in and out and within the city of Peterborough. I can assure him that as we move the project forward, as we announced two or three years ago, the four-laning of Highway 115-35 is on schedule, almost to within the week, and will be completed in 1992.

Mr Adams: I thank the minister for that reply. On a related matter to do with Highway 115, prior to the completion of construction it seems to me important, from the point of view of safety and from the point of view of the profile of our communities, that signage on it be really well designed. Is the ministry willing to consider suggestions about signage for Highway 115, and in particular, the suggestion that the highway might well have a name?

Hon Mr Fulton: Certainly, we would be willing to meet with any people who have thoughts on how the highway should be signed. Specifically, if the member is talking about designating it with the name of a person or tourist attraction or some such, I think we have a mechanism between the Ministry of Tourism and Recreation and the Ministry of Transportation with a committee comprised of residents and perhaps the member and others with an interest in the project. We would be more than happy to set that in motion for him.

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Mr B. Rae: I want to go to the Premier on an earlier answer he gave. He talked about a name being raised, about a name being discussed and about a name being rejected. Can the Premier tell us whose name was raised, discussed and rejected?

Hon Mr Peterson: Elvio DelZotto.

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask the Premier precisely, when did this discussion take place in the life of this government?

Hon Mr Peterson: I cannot tell the member precisely the date. It would be -- oh, I do not know -- two or three years ago. I just cannot tell the member precisely. I can find that out. I can check the records in order to do that. But I want to tell my honourable friend, it is like many other names which are discussed at various committees by various people, like any other name that comes along from him or anybody else. It came up and was rejected.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Brandt: My question is to the Minister of Culture and Communications. I would like to ask the minister, in light of the events of the weekend, information that has come out further confirming the contact she had with Mrs Starr in regard to the appointment her mother received, has she reconsidered her position with respect to resigning from cabinet?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I think my position is the same as it always has been. I have listened to every member of the House, to the community and to the press on my reaction. I feel that I was not in any conflict of interest. I have asked for a ruling from Mr Justice Evans. I cannot say anything other than that. I really am confident that the investigation, which I intend to participate in fully, will end up answering all the questions the member has. If he would like to advance to me any further reasons for answering the question, I will try to answer it to him.

Mr Brandt: My difficulty with this whole matter, and it is a difficult matter, is the fact that the minister intervened by way of recommending a member of her family, namely, her mother, ultimately ending up in a $5,000 transaction with a party who is now under a great deal of study and concern on the part of this Legislature, namely, Ms Starr, and a party with whom her ministry has a great deal of contact, as well as to whom grants are provided.

If the minister is not prepared to do what some consider to be the honourable thing under very, very difficult circumstances, and I appreciate that, does she not see, irrespective of the Conflict of Interest Commissioner’s position, a difficulty in recommending her mother for this kind of contract through a party like Ms Starr, with whom the minister has other arrangements and other dealings on behalf of her ministry? Does the minister not see that problem?

Hon Ms Oddie Munro: I have indicated that I realized there would be a perception among some members of the House and the community that my role would be inappropriate. I do not believe I made any intervention. I think that in my casual conversation with Mrs Starr she did not represent herself as asking questions on behalf of the National Council of Jewish Women.

I believe my only recourse is to ask the Conflict of Interest Commissioner for a ruling. That is exactly where I stand. My position has not changed. I want the member to know I have listened and I continue to listen to all the opinions of this House, the media and the community.

The Speaker: New question. That completes the questions? The Leader of the Opposition.

Mr B. Rae: I was expecting a Liberal to get up. I guess they do not have any questions today.

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Mr B. Rae: I want to ask the Premier again about this process of the potential appointment or the recommendation of Elvio DelZotto to the Ontario Police Commission. I want to be clear with the Premier on how this recommendation came to him. Presumably if it came to him it was in its final stages of discussion.

Can the Premier tell us, did a recommendation come to him from members of his staff, did it come to him from the general appointments process, did it come to him from the Solicitor General at that time? Whence came the name Elvio DelZotto?

Hon Mr Peterson: I should explain the general appointments procedure to my honourable friend. As he knows, we have opened up very substantially the appointments procedure in this province. There is a book available to everyone in this province about all order-in-council appointments and when the dates come up and who is there. This had never been the case, as my honourable friend knows, before we changed the system and opened it up.

So people come in regularly and look at the book and say, “Gee, I would like to be on X commission,” or whatever. People recommend --

Mr D. S. Cooke: That’s what happened to DelZotto.

Hon Mr Peterson: Well, my honourable friend the member for Windsor-Riverside sits there very smugly and sanctimoniously and tells me about -- he does not figure that he and his friends take advantage of the process. We have appointed a lot of his friends and will continue to do so because we think, contrary to popular belief, some of those people have some talent. I am prepared to do that and we have done it in the past.

So these names come forward. Many members opposite have written me letters, “Would you recommend such-and-such a person for the board of such-and-such hospital. the board of this, that or the other thing?” That is the way they all come forward, in a big list. There is a committee that puts in the things that are appropriate, where their recommendations come from, and they come to a committee that looks at all of these things. Prior to appointment, we tend to discuss these things with the appropriate person.

If the member phoned me and recommended, say, somebody for the Social Assistance Review Board, we would send him to the chairman of the Social Assistance Review Board for an interview. If that person came back and said, “Gee, we do not think that person is appropriate or we would recommend him,” it goes in the mill. That is how appointments are made with police commissions and a wide variety of other things. They do not come to me with a final recommendation necessarily.

A variety of names will come forward with various recommendations from various people. judgements are made and finally I have to recommend them to the cabinet. Frequently we will go to the cabinet, it will come up and somebody at cabinet will say, “I disagree with” –

The Speaker: Thank you. It seems like a fairly reasonable answer.

Mr B. Rae: I did not hear an answer anywhere there to my question. I asked a question with respect to Elvio DelZotto. I do not need a political science lecture from the Premier, though I always appreciate knowing it.

I want to know who initiated Mr DelZotto’s name. I want to know who interviewed Mr DelZotto, I want to know whether Mr DelZotto’s name was presented to the Premier and I want to know whether the Premier presented Mr DelZotto’s name to the cabinet. Those are legitimate questions with respect to the appointment of Elvio DelZotto to the Ontario Police Commission, and that is the subject of my question.

Hon Mr Peterson: I know this is a supercharged situation. I realize there is an inquiry going on. I know a lot of allegations are being made, and we are going to track them all down. But this is the first time I have seen such a fuss about something that did not happen. I just wanted to make that point.

Number two, let me say it was never presented to cabinet, to answer the honourable member’s question. The Attorney General (Mr Scott), obviously, was not in favour of the situation and neither was I. The committee had been on a list at one point or other and it did not go forward.

POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS

Mr Sterling: I have a question of the Premier as well. About three months ago, the Ontario Liberal Party held a fund-raiser in the Ottawa-Carleton area. At that fund-raiser there were, I believe, a dozen trustees from the Ottawa Roman Catholic Separate School Board. Those particular trustees each paid, I think, $200 to $250 to attend the dinner. They went back to their school board, and I think nine of them were reimbursed by their school board for attending a Liberal fund-raiser.

Does the Premier believe the Liberal Party should be accepting funds indirectly from a school board which is financed at least 30 to 35 per cent, I believe, by the Ontario government?

Hon Mr Peterson: My colleague tells me that the Commission on Election Finances has ruled on that matter and said it is appropriate. That being said, we may want to sit down collectively in this House and come to the conclusion that we should change the law.

The honourable member could ask the question of, say, a hospital board, charities or any other kind of quasi-judicial body. Frankly, if he wants my own opinion, it is not appropriate and I do not think we should allow that.

I had heard about that situation. It appears to me that it was perhaps -- I hate to use the word -- a loophole or an ambiguity in the law. The commissioner ruled it was appropriate, but I think that as we look at the act, we should collectively in this House come to the conclusion that those kinds of contributions from transfer agencies are not appropriate.

Mr Sterling: I appreciate the Premier’s comments. I believe the Premier and political parties should look above and beyond the strict forms of the law. In that regard, has the Ontario Liberal Party then returned those funds to the Ottawa separate school board, in conjunction with his feeling?

Hon Mr Peterson: Very frankly, I cannot answer that particular question, whether we did or did not or what the resolution was. I remember reading about it in the paper at the time, because there was quite a fuss, as I recall, at the school board and there was a public discussion of the appropriateness of that situation. I frankly do not remember the resolution of that, but perhaps we as legislators have to change the law to remove all the ambiguities.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION AND SIGNAGE

Mr Neumann: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. Last week there was some concern expressed in our community about a decision of the regional office of the Ministry of Transportation to remove the name of Brantford from the overhead sign at the entrance to Highway 403 off the Queen Elizabeth Way. Considering the importance of economic revitalization in the community, there is quite a bit of concern within Brantford. I referred this matter informally to the minister and I would like to know if he has a response.

Mr Wildman: Don’t you write letters about this?

Mrs Marland: To use the time of the House for an answer like this is absurd.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Fulton: I appreciate the member’s question and his persistence in representing the people of Brantford. I am able to tell the member that as a result of a meeting that followed the request from him, the signage to indicate the great city of Brantford will remain as is.

Mr Neumann: I have heard comments from the opposition that it is absurd to raise a question like this. I will stand up in this House and defend the economic revitalization of our community.

The Speaker: Do you have a supplementary?

Mr Neumann: In light of this economic revitalization of the community, which is so important to Brantford, I would like the minister to report as well on the linkage of Highway 403 between Ancaster and Brantford to enhance that revitalization.

Hon Mr Fulton: I would certainly echo the member’s comments with respect to the value of highway signage to a community, for economic development and economic betterment and certainly the generation of tourism, which is a growing area of economic development in the city of Brantford.

Highway 403, which members on both sides of this House have been actively participating to complete, is well under way and is on target.

PROPOSED POLICE COMMISSION APPOINTMENT

Mr B. Rae: I want to get to the bottom of this question of Mr DelZotto’s nonappointment to the Ontario Police Commission. Given the statements that were made about evidence provided to the Royal Commission on Certain Sectors of the Building Industry in the 1970s, I can tell the House and the Premier that I find it absolutely astonishing that Elvio DelZotto’s name would even be discussed seriously by members of the Ontario Liberal cabinet. It is absolutely astonishing.

I would like to ask the Premier: If he is saying that the name was rejected by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) and by himself, can he provide any explanation as to how it is that Mr DelZotto’s name got so far in the appointment process?

Hon Mr Peterson: It was not far up the process, so my honourable friend is digging, digging, digging, but he is not going to find anything.

Mr B. Rae: Is the Premier asking us to believe that when he has to veto a name, then that name has not gone far in the process? Is he asking us to take that seriously in terms of how the government operates?

Hon Mr Peterson: It is a very open system. Lots of names are brought forward --

Interjection.

Hon Mr Peterson: He may run a different kind of a system. but he is absolutely wrong and as a judge of candour in this House he is not particularly objective.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order. It would be helpful if members would pay attention, and I will recognize the member for Nipissing.

PATRICIA STARR

Mr Harris: The question is for the Minister of Skills Development. He seems to be aware of published reports this past weekend that Mrs Patricia Starr arranged a fund-raising dinner for him when he was Minister of Housing. I know the minister will have checked his records, so he can supply us with the details of the fund-raising dinner. I wonder if the minister could tell us: How much did it raise, were developers invited, what role did Mrs Starr play, and was Tridel involved in any way in this event?

Hon Mr Curling: I presume that everyone can contribute, if he wants, to the fund-raising and I am quite sure that developers have contributed to my fund-raising. Mrs Starr and my riding organization were the ones that organized the fund-raising, so they were involved, of course.

In regard to how much was raised, if the member wants that, I know it is public knowledge that members can get the details on my fund-raising at any time.

Mr Harris: I guess the minister just missed “Was Tridel involved?” I leave that to him; perhaps he could respond with a supplementary.

The minister will recall that it was on his recommendation that Mrs Patti Starr was appointed to the board of the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. The date of that appointment was 19 February 1986. The minister will also be aware that, to paraphrase the words of the Premier (Mr Peterson), this coincidence certainly looks bad.

Can the minister tell us on whose recommendation he appointed Mrs Starr, and did he receive any advice from the Premier’s office for that appointment?

Hon Mr Curling: I have been saying that I had no advice from the Premier in that regard. As in any appointment, when I was then the Minister of Housing, there were a number of names that came forward to be appointed to the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority. I have many, many other boards.

In regard to recommendations, I made recommendations to the cabinet that her name be put forward. The cabinet made that decision to approve her for the Metropolitan Toronto Housing Authority.

In regard to whether Tridel was involved in my fund-raising, if I heard the member correctly, I presume that it must have contributed to the fund-raising, of course, just like any other developer. It is quite possible.

The Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt; I was just listening carefully to the question and the response. It is up to the Speaker to recognize whether the subject matter pertains to the responsibility of the minister. I had a little difficulty with that; however, the minister agreed to answer.

RECYCLING

Mr Owen: I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. It seems that every month and every week the public becomes more and more concerned about waste management and what it is doing or not doing to our areas, and more and more interest is being shown in the recycling initiatives which this government has been introducing. In particular, the blue box program has been introduced. I learned recently that, every week, a new municipality in this province is starting a similar program.

I would ask the minister if could he update us. Exactly where is the program? Are any problems being experienced with the introduction of programs? Where we are going?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member is quite correct in assuming that a number of municipalities are coming on stream virtually every week and that they are coming from all parts of Ontario. We estimate at the present time that there are 1.5 million households on the blue box program. We are hopeful, and I think we can reasonably expect, that by 1995 we will have some three million households on the blue box program.

I think what is significant about it in the member’s area and other areas is that it need not simply be the basic components of the blue box program that dominate, but rather there are new and different materials which may be included as time goes on which will help to reduce the amount of waste that would normally go to either an incinerator or a landfill site.

I want to assure the member that we will expand, for instance, to multifamily dwellings in municipalities. We encourage them to do so. Indeed, we will look at even the more remote municipalities and some of the difficulties they have experienced, as we have in northern Ontario, to provide some special counsel and assistance in that regard. We certainly believe that is going to be beneficial to all the municipalities that take part.

Mr Owen: I appreciate that the answer to that question could be termed good news, but I want to go a little further, to an area which is probably more complex, more complicated and more difficult; that is, what we can or cannot do with regard to industry reducing the amount of waste entering our landfill sites. It appears that it is not quite as simple and as easily managed.

My question to the minister is: What is being proposed with regard to the same problem with industry as opposed to the households of this province?

Hon Mr Bradley: The member is quite correct in assuming that the amount of industrial and commercial garbage is a very significant contributor to the waste stream. That is particularly so in larger urban centres. One thinks of the Metropolitan Toronto area, for instance, where there are a lot of commercial businesses and industries. That is certainly the case.

We in Ontario have benefited, for instance, from the $20-million investment on the part of the soft drink industry and its support for recycling in this province. In addition to this, we expect there is going to be an expanded Ontario Multi-Material Recycling Inc type of circumstance in Ontario, where we have others who are involved in the process. The newspaper publishers, for instance, have had discussions with ministry officials, as have the plastics industry, those who are involved in food processing, those who are involved in food retailing. All recognize that they have a contribution to make.

We are also encouraging the development of programs within businesses where fine paper can be recycled. We have a 4R grants program which assists those who have some new and innovative ideas designed in the industrial and business sector to reduce the amount of wastes that we have going naturally into landfills or to incinerators.

I could recount some of those in detail but I know that many members of the House are aware of those. so I will not.

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr Wildman: I have a question for the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet.

In view of the statement made by the then Deputy Minister of Natural Resources, Mary Mogford, on 26 January 1987, that “I am committed to finding a solution for the current classification issue which will preserve this positive image” -- that is, of conservation officers -- and the subsequent statement made by the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr Kerrio) on 5 February 1987 in this House, can the chairman of Management Board explain why this grievance of 98 per cent of Ontario’s conservation officers is still not resolved?

Hon Mr Elston: I guess one of the reasons it is not resolved is that it has been referred back to the regular grievance procedures. There are certain things that have to be done. Hearings have been held. As I understand it, a recent decision by the board has just been delivered with respect to the jurisdiction that it has to set up an entirely new classification. I understand that matter is being reviewed now for the purposes of appeal and that is why it is not resolved.

Mr Wildman: Perhaps the Chairman of Management Board can explain why the union has been forced to go to the grievance board and now to an appeal. Why is there not a commitment on the part of the government to resolve this issue and to properly recognize the conservation officers’ enforcement role in the development of the class standard for the new resource technician for the conservation officer category? Why is the government not committed and willing and determined to resolve this issue now?

Hon Mr Elston: The parties to this, the employer and the employees, are in a process that has been established over the course of many years as being a legitimate process to be used. There is, I think, a willingness to talk to the issues, but once you are in the process, you must take the issues through the routes that are prescribed. Certain things have been done. The hearings have been held and decisions rendered, and now decisions will have to be made with respect to appeals of the decisions provided to us, the latest just on 14 June --

Mr Wildman: They are only appealing decisions because you guys argue against their petitions.

Hon Mr Elston: The member for Algoma wishes to participate in a debate. That is not the purpose of my answer. My purpose is to answer his question, which is that we are in the process of resolving a grievance in accordance with what is a procedure --

Mr Wildman: Four years now. It has gone on four years before the board.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Elston: I can tell the honourable gentleman that we are in fact busy following those procedures. There is commitment, as expressed by the current member for Niagara Falls, the Minister of Natural Resources, and the previous deputy. That does not mean discussions can all of a sudden become unilateral. They are bipartisan and have to be resolved in accordance with agreement, but once you are in the process. you are in the process, and that is what we are doing, going through the process as required by legislation.

The Speaker: New question, the member for --

Hon Mr Kerrio: You didn’t want to hire them.

Mr Wildman: Four years. You are so ridiculous. That is why I didn’t ask you the question.

Hon Mr Kerrio: That’s right.

Mr Wildman: You couldn’t answer me.

The Speaker: Are the member for Algoma and the minister finished?

Hon Mr Kerrio: Thank you, Mr Speaker.

The Speaker: Are you? Fine. Thank you. I will recognize the member for Mississauga South.

CARDIOVASCULAR CARE

Mrs Marland: My question is to the Minister of Health. I rise today to tell her about the death of one of my constituents, a man by the name of A. 1. Kemp, who lived on Atwater Avenue in Mississauga South. Mr Kemp was another patient who, in his case, was waiting three months for an angiogram, simply a diagnostic tool, as the minister is well aware, to find out whether or not he could be a candidate for a procedure to deal with his cardiovascular problem.

The minister has been making a number of announcements. She has told us that the problems with cardiovascular surgery, and obviously the diagnostic equipment and appointments needed to make those decisions on a medical basis, were history. I wonder whether she can tell us today how she feels when she knows that another patient has died because the health care service in this province is not what it needs to be in 1989.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that I am always saddened to hear of premature death by anyone in this province, of course, and certainly I would say to her that she does a disservice to the thousands and thousands of health care professionals, the over 200.000 health care professionals working in this province to provide what is considered exceptional care to the people of this province.

I would say to her that we have identified cardiovascular services as a provincial priority and that we have moved to develop a network within our system to encourage the nine hospitals in six centres, and the many physicians, nurses and others who work in those centres, to ensure that people who need the services have them provided in a timely manner and as close to home as possible. It is the physicians in this province who use their very best medical judgement to make those determinations, and I say she does a disservice to them to suggest we do not have in place a very fine system.

Mrs Marland: I do not think the minister heard what I was saying. I am not doing a disservice to the people who render health care service in this province. In fact, nobody has fought more than I have for the doctors and the health care professionals of this province. The fact of the matter is the disservice is to them because it is their patients who die because they do not have the diagnostic tools and appointments to save them.

My question to the minister is, since she is the one who is responsible for whether or not these appointments are available before three months, and since it is her ministry that gives the tools to these health care professionals, be they doctors or nurses, with whom we did have a world-class health care system in this province --

The Speaker: Can you get to the question?

Mrs Marland: -- and since it is her ministry

that allocates the funding, when those patients die waiting for those appointments. I want to --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Hon Mrs Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that I think, by the very question she asks, she does not understand how this system works or how resources are allocated. I would say to her that if she is expecting political intervention in specific cases of medical judgement, then she is wrong. We do not tell the doctors of this province how to practise medicine, and I can say to her that they do their very best to ensure that people who are in need receive the care and treatment they need in order of priority.

I can tell her that the physicians, the nurses and the hospitals are working co-operatively with the ministry to make sure we have in place the kind of common

definitions, standards and outcome data to make sure that what we provide to the people of this province is available in all communities and as close to home as possible.

She would know, however, that heart disease is the number one killer in this province and that there is much people can do to prevent heart disease. Much of our program is provided at prevention strategies. We have done much in the way of the healthy heart campaign. We have also done much in the area of treatment services and in the area of research.

The Speaker: That completes oral questions and responses.

PATRICIA STARR

Hon R. F. Nixon: Mr Speaker, during question period the honourable member for Nipissing (Mr Harris) put a question and a supplementary to the Minister of Skills Development (Mr Curling) asking for details of a fund-raiser when the Minister of Skills Development was Minister of Housing, three years ago. The minister gave an answer all of us heard, and at the end of that you said you had listened carefully and could not hear anything that pertained to the responsibilities of the Minister of Skills Development, but that he had not objected.

I agree with you in that connection. I think you would understand, however, that the minister would not want to object. He did answer and he did not want to appear unwilling to answer, but I agree with you that it was not in order. I would just suggest to you that you have a certain responsibility to rule in those matters, not to wait for an objection.

Mr Pope: Mr Speaker. I think the Deputy Premier indicated that you had ruled the questions were not in order. I do not think that was your ruling at all. I think you raised the question --

Hon Mr Nixon: Did not say that.

Mr Pope: Yes, he did. I am sorry, but he did say that.

Hon Mr Sorbara: Certainly, Alan has nothing to say. He is doing a guest appearance in the Legislature.

Mr Pope: I think the Minister of Labour (Mr Sorbara), speaking from some other. seat, is making some comments. I would say to the Minister of Labour, if he was spending more time on his job with respect to Bill 162 --

The Speaker: Thank you. Order.

Mr Pope: -- maybe all of us would not have to be here as much.

The Speaker: Order. Order. I have listened very carefully to the two members who have spoken. I drew it to the attention of the House and I will certainly consider it more thoroughly for any future questions.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Faubert: I have a petition I wish to read into the record on behalf of the member for Scarborough East (Mr Fulton) from the members of the Scarborough-East York Superannuated Teachers of Ontario:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act.”

The

preamble is similar to all these petitions that have been presented. As per the standing orders, I have affixed my name thereto and I hereby present it for consideration.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr McGuinty: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario that calls upon the government to support the recommendations of the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, Transitions.

This petition has been signed by 816 constituents along the way from Ottawa to Toronto, gathered by Mr Ayoub. who notwithstanding the fact that he has two artificial knees cycled from Ottawa to Toronto.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr Jackson: I have a petition:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the government of Ontario in its discussions with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation on amendments to the Teachers’ Superannuation Act has continually refused to permit an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, an equitable treatment of future surpluses and a binding arbitration process,

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario enter into negotiations with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation which will lead to a settlement equitable to teachers.”

That is from 500 teachers from southwestern Ontario, and it has my signature and support.

Mr Miclash: I have a petition that reads:

“To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“We, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

“To amend the Teachers’ Superannuation Act, 1983, in order that all teachers who retired prior to 31 May 1982 have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

“The proposed amendment would make the five-year criteria applicable to all retired teachers and would eliminate the present inequitable treatment.”

This is signed by 59 Dryden teachers, and I have attached my signature to it as well.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

POWER CORPORATION AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 19,

An Act to amend the Power Corporation Act.

The Speaker: I believe the member for Durham East (Mr Cureatz) adjourned the debate. However, I guess he completed his remarks.

Mr Eves: I have spoken to the member for Durham East and he has completed his remarks.

The Speaker: Do any other members wish to participate in the debate? If not, the minister may wish to make some final comments.

Hon Mr Wong: Having listened to the considerable comments on the part of the critics representing the opposition party and the third party. I thank them again for their very constructive input. I seriously gave consideration to their comments and I would just like to summarize by making a few observations and points.

I would like to remind all members that the debt guarantee fee we are talking about is a measure that the Ontario Energy Board has supported. In the last few years, the board examined the question of a fee very closely. In its reports on Ontario Hydro’s proposals on electricity rates for both 1988 and 1989, the board recommended that Hydro be required to pay this fee.

The principal reason for introducing the fee is to charge Hydro for the benefit -- I underline the word benefit -- of a debt guarantee from the province. Quite clearly, Hydro would face a higher cost of borrowing if it had to do so on its own account.

I would also like to clarify that the fee is not a tax; it is a fee for service. In essence, it is a charge for services provided by Ontario to Ontario Hydro. The fee will be applied to Hydro’s total provincially guaranteed outstanding debt, as well as all other outstanding sums advanced to Hydro as of the previous 31 December. We estimate that the fee for 1990 will be about $138 million.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for third reading.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT, 1989 / LOI DE 1989 MODIFIANT LA

LOI SUR LA TAXE DE VENTE AU DÉTAIL

Hon Mr Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 22,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: As announced by the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) in his budget speech of 17 May of this year, this bill includes proposed tax measures to support the government’s commitment to finance environmental programs, as well as other administrative changes to clarify the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Effective 1 June of this year. a tax of $5 will be charged on the purchase of each new pneumatic tire consumed or used in Ontario. New tires acquired with the purchase of a vehicle, including spare tires, will be subject to the $5 tax. The tire tax will not apply on several classes of tires, such as tires for production machinery, farm equipment, firefighting vehicles, commercial aircraft, wheelchairs, bicycles or toys.

À compter du 1 er juin 1989, une taxe de 5 $ sera imposée à l’achat de tout pneu neuf consommé ou utilisé en Ontario. Les pneus neufs acquis à l’achat d’un véhicule, y compris les pneus de rechange, seront soumis à cette taxe de 5 $.

La taxe sur les pneus ne touchera pas certaines catégories de pneus, tels que les pneus des machines servant à la production, des machines agricoles, des véhicules de lutte contre l’incendie, des avions commerciaux, des fauteuils roulants, des bicyclettes et des jouets.

Also, effective 1 July 1989, a graduated gas-guzzler tax will be payable on the purchase of new passenger cars which consume 9.5 or more litres of fuel per 100 kilometres of highway driving. The tax payable will range from $600 to $3,500 depending on the vehicle’s highway fuel consumption rating as published by the federal Department of Transport.

The purchaser of a new car may qualify for a refund of the guzzler tax and the eight per cent sales tax if the vehicle is converted to a single-use alternative fuel such as natural gas or propane.

Effective 1 June 1989, the general tax exemption for consumers of fertilizers, insecticides, weed and rodent killers will be available only to farmers.

This bill also includes an extension of the time periods to contract to and to convert a vehicle to operate on alternatively powered fuels.

Finally, this bill introduces a cap on the amount of sales tax that may be refunded on vehicles used to transport people with physical disabilities, in the amount of $1,600 for cars and $2,400 for vans.

It is my intention to propose two amendments to this bill. The first amendment pertains to the tire tax and will provide for a definition of the types of tires that will not be subject to the tire tax. The second amendment pertains to the gas-guzzler tax and will delete the reference to the vehicle manufacturer’s fuel-consumption rating as an acceptable rating for the purposes of this tax.

Le Vice-Président : Questions et commentaires au sujet de la déclaration du ministre ?

If not, do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Ms Bryden: With the provincial Treasurer moving second reading of Bill 22.

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, we are starting consideration of the four tax bills arising out of the Treasurer’s second big tax-grab budget since his no-tax-increase budget just prior to the 1987 provincial election.

Before I discuss the details of the first of these four bills, I want to speak briefly about the overall effect of the tax increases, which totalled $1.3 billion in 1988 and a further $1.5 billion this year; I will then not have to repeat some of these general comments in the debate on each of the four bills before us in succession today.

We are concerned that all of the four tax bills before us provide for increases in regressive taxes. This means they impact more heavily on lower-income taxpayers. It means we are not taxing corporations more. There is no bill before us for a minimum corporation tax, yet millions of dollars of corporate profits are tax-free. We are not taxing wealth in this province, especially inherited wealth. We are not taxing the huge profits of land speculators and land developers.

Because we are not taxing these sources of wealth, most of the $1.5-billion tax increases fall on the low- and middle-income groups in this province. Moreover, the provincial Treasurer has hit residents of the greater Toronto area even harder. He is almost doubling their car registration fees from $54 to $90. He is adding to their licence fees. He is putting a new tax on residents of the greater Toronto area called the commercial concentration tax, which will be imposed on all commercial property and parking lots connected with them.

These taxes on the residents of the greater Toronto area are a new departure in taxation. They are taxation by geography. They could be considered discriminatory under the Charter of Rights, because they are based on the assumption that people who live in the greater Toronto area have more wealth than people who live elsewhere and that they can afford to pay much higher taxes.

In some cases, a great many of the people who live in the greater Toronto area are below the poverty line. A great many of them cannot afford to pay even the tax increases that are being applied across the province to all taxpayers in this budget, but it is assumed they benefit from living in the greater Toronto area.

This is something I think the provincial Treasurer should justify if he can, that there is a reason why people in that area should pay more taxes than people in the rest of the province. I think he will find it very hard to justify.

We must remember that the tax increases we are considering today are on top of a huge tax grab by the federal Minister of Finance in May, just a few weeks before the provincial Treasurer brought down his budget. The federal budget is a tax grab which also hits middle- and low-income groups the hardest. They are getting a double whammy this year. It is not surprising that there are signs of a tax revolt.

The new federal goods and services tax, which was also forecast in the federal budget, to start in 1991 at nine per cent, will also hit the lower-and middle-income groups, because it will be another regressive tax on top of all the regressive taxes we are looking at today. It is estimated that the federal budget will cost the average family $700 this year and a further $1 ,000 next year when the new goods and services tax comes in.

What are the taxpayers getting for this huge increase in taxes? Are low-and middle-income families and their children better off? Has poverty been eliminated? Is affordable housing a reality? Do we have a real plan to ease traffic congestion in Metropolitan Toronto or other parts of the province? The answer to each of these questions is no.

Instead, the provincial Treasurer is using almost a third of his new money to reduce the deficit. He is doing this at a time when many needs in this province are going unmet. People are crying out for action in the social and housing fields. They are crying out for more day care spaces. They are crying out for more progress in relieving transportation congestion. They are being starved of further implementation of the Thomson report, which was to have reformed and rationalized our welfare system so that people on welfare would have some prospect of getting off welfare and becoming contributing and independent members in society.

I ask, is it right that 10 years ago in Metro there was not a single food bank while, today, 84.000 people a month rely on food banks to survive?

Is it fair that first-time home buyers have been effectively denied the chance of owning their own home because of spiralling house prices? The increased land transfer tax will also hit all home buyers, and there will be no rebates for most home buyers in the Metro area because the ceilings are much too low. This will also apply in other major cities.

Is it right that a family of four with an income of $14,000 -- $10.000 below the poverty line -- will continue to pay Ontario income tax while thousands of Ontarians earning over $50,000 annually pay no income tax at all, thanks to tax loopholes?

The Treasurer does have options to these regressive, geographically selective taxes that he is imposing. The Treasurer can begin to redress the unfairness of the tax system if he so chooses. Here are some of our proposals.

He should, first of all, increase the Ontario property and retail tax credits. The Ontario system of property and sales tax credits is meant to provide tax relief to low- and moderate-income families and to senior citizens. Since the introduction of these credits, their purchasing power has fallen by over $300 million and should be restored to their original real values in order to keep pace with the cost of living. These tax credits have decreased in value by 40 per cent since they were first introduced.

Second, the Treasurer could be looking at a land speculation tax instead of the taxes he has before us. This would reduce the number of houses being flipped for a quick profit and would go a long way to making the housing market affordable again for working people.

Third, the Treasurer should be considering a minimum corporate income tax. In the past 30 years, what used to be a 50-50 split in the proportion of taxes paid by corporations and individuals has become a 75-25 split, with individuals paying the larger ratio. In fact, over 25.000 corporations with profits of over $7 billion continue to pay no tax.

Fourth, the Treasurer should be looking at a form of wealth and inheritance tax. The majority of Western democracies have these taxes; even the United States has an inheritance tax. The family home and farm would, of course, be exempt.

The Treasurer might even consider a tax on real estate developers who do not pay for the cost of increases in provincial and municipal infrastructure resulting from the urban sprawl they are creating. Servicing for million-dollar homes or condominiums is not something that should go untaxed. While such a tax may well be passed on to the home or condominium purchaser, at least it would not be paid by low-income groups.

Contrary to what the Liberals might think, there is nothing mysterious about establishing a fair tax system. Certainly no one can say that a tax system based on the things on which people spend their money, such as retail sales taxes, sin taxes, user fees and taxes on drivers, is equitable. With such taxes, rich and poor are taxed the same. A fair tax system is one based on what people earn or acquire through income, wealth, inheritance and speculation.

The budget was not a promising one from either a long-term or short-term perspective. It offered no creative or innovative solutions to effect a real change in our tax system. Why did the provincial Treasurer not put more of the new revenue into increasing child care spaces, reducing hospital bed waiting lists and helping workers who have been displaced by free trade and plant shutdowns to get retraining? This is clearly a government without the courage to set its own direction in taxation.

Instead, we have tax bills before us today which simply increase the regressivity of the overall tax system. This is not what we expected from the new Liberal government. If the word “liberal” has any meaning to them, they should be reforming our tax system to increase its fairness.

As I am also the critic for senior citizens’ affairs, I would like to point out that the four revenue bills before us today also adversely affect senior citizens in many ways. Many of them will be badly hurt by the new tax on tires, gasoline, vehicle registrations, licence fees and the pass-on of the payroll tax and the commercial concentration tax. The increased diesel fuel tax and the new payroll tax to replace Ontario health insurance plan premiums will also be passed on to them. The tax on parking lots will be passed on as well.

These added tax burdens seriously strain the resources of seniors, especially those on relatively fixed incomes, and do not forget that they come on top of a 7.6 per cent increase in auto insurance rates which is now allowed for this year. This is on top of increases of up to 20 to 40 per cent in the past three or four years.

The government’s concern for helping senior citizens to be independent and to stay in their own homes is much jeopardized in the light of these new tax burdens which are being loaded on to seniors. The tax credits in the budget are completely inadequate to compensate seniors and they are only 40 per cent of what they were when they were established, as I have mentioned. I think seniors would have particularly liked to have seen more consideration for the impact of these regressive taxes on them.

I now want to turn to Bill 22 and discuss what are its main changes. This is the act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. The bill implements three major changes in the retail sales tax but adds a whole lot of extra charges on services and goods that have not been taxed before. It is basically a reversal of any trend towards a nonregressive tax system.

Let’s look at the main changes. Effective 1 June 1989. a new tax of $5 on each new pneumatic tire will be imposed. This will exclude bicycles, tricycles, commercial aeroplanes, farm equipment, wheelchairs, production machinery and firefighting vehicles, but it will produce a full-year’s revenue of $40 million.

Not all of these exemptions that I have mentioned were included in the original announcement by the Treasurer, but because they noticed that certain items like wheelbarrows were not covered, they are bringing in an amendment to give the minister full power to determine what kind of pneumatic-tired vehicles should be exempted.

But it is basically a regressive tax that will hit everybody who drives a car. It will hit everybody who needs to use his car for going to work. It will hit seniors who need their cars in order to get around, especially when they cannot always use public transit. It will hit people who get goods delivered by any kind of vehicle with a pneumatic tire on it, and this could be a great number of our deliveries.

It is by no means a neutral tax or a progressive tax; it is an attempt by the Treasurer to hit a new subject under the Retail Sales Tax Act and I think it is a very retrograde step. It will affect the cost of everything from bus services to school buses to all delivery and goods transport services. Of course, this is something that will certainly affect low-income groups particularly, but middle-income groups and seniors as well.

The second major tax that is imposed under this bill is a new tax on fuel-inefficient cars, ranging from $600 to $3,500 and effective 1 July 1989. This is estimated to bring in a full year’s revenue of $8 million. So members can see that it is not going to hit very many fuel-inefficient cars. It could hardly be called an addition to the progressivity of our tax system.

The amount of this tax is based on highway fuel consumption ratings. Because of concern that the rating provided by the manufacturer may be grossly inaccurate, the minister is proposing an amendment that will restrict the rating to that determined by the Department of Transport. if publicly available.

This will affect only a few gas guzzlers, but what we really need is an incentive for manufacturers of cars to concentrate on production of fuel-efficient cars and use of nonpolluting fuels. This kind of gesture is really just a token move by the provincial Treasurer to show that he has some concern about the environment, but he is really not very serious in cutting down the polluting effects of cars. We are still behind the United States in our control of the level of emissions from cars, and he has not really added much incentive to produce the kind of cars that will produce more efficient use of fuels.

Third, the Treasurer is extending the sales tax to certain items which have been exempt in the past. On 1 June 1989, fertilizers, herbicides, fungicides, insecticides and rodenticides will become subject to the eight per cent retail sales tax. Purchases by farmers will remain exempt.

There is considerable doubt growing about the use of these kinds of products by farmers, home owners, home gardeners and people who are using them in public parks or in school yards and things of that sort. There have been recent studies which have shown that these products are really highly polluting and there have been records or evidence of farmers being injured or having cancer problems from them. Let me quote about pesticide use in Ontario.

The Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food surveys pesticide use every five years. It started in 1973. The amount of pesticides used in 1978 was 6.6 million kilograms. In 1983, five years later, it had gone up to 8.7 million kilograms. This total shows a 33 per cent increase in the amount of pesticides used from 1978 to 1983 in Ontario. Herbicides also account for about 70 per cent of pesticide sales. They are used both by farmers and by gardeners.

These figures are really quite worrying, and the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food pesticide reduction program, which is called Food Systems 2002, is completely inadequate and too young to show results yet in terms of volume of reduction of pesticides. The aim is to reduce pesticide use in agriculture by 50 per cent by the year 2002.

The program spelled out in the 1988 budget is really only one year old. It is almost at the research stage now. There is very little new money in the new budget for increasing this kind of research and analysis of how much pesticide is being used.

So our farmers are exempt, but they are also greatly at risk. While the people who use some of these products in their gardens pay eight per cent sales tax on them, they are still being exposed to the products. Most of them are still licensed in the province.

If we really believe in fighting pollution, the Treasurer should not have been trying the tax route to discourage use of all those products. He should have been trying the route of providing more money for more programs by the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, the Ministry of the Environment and the Ministry of Natural Resources, in order to reduce and find alternatives to the use of these products.

Regarding the tires, there was some suggestion that this was a way of encouraging the recycling of old tires and that the money could be used for producing recycling methods. I am told that tires are being accumulated throughout our rural areas in great piles in fields. There are very few tire recycling projects in the province. As a matter of fact, the ministry has committed a total of only $1.1 million to three tire recycling projects in its entire budget for research into all forms of recycling of tires. For all forms of industrial recycling, it will be spending only $6.5 million in 1989-90.

This leads to the question: Where is the remaining $23.5 million from the tire tax going? Perhaps the government will hire people to pick up old tires which the Treasurer says are littering farmers’ fields. It seems to me that we need more than to pick them up and get them out of sight. We not only need to have a recycling program but to see that great piles are not being accumulated on prime agricultural land and that they are not being accumulated in piles that could be a fire hazard, because once they start to burn they are a very serious toxic pollutant.

I could comment on many of the other changes in the tax. There will be some additional tax on tax, where provincial tax is extended to federal communication taxes. Telephone taxes and cable charges will be taxed, as they have been to some extent in the past. Tax on tax does really seem unfair, and this is one of the reasons we think the whole question of the application of the retail sales tax should be reviewed very thoroughly and alternative forms of revenue found as much as possible.

I therefore urge the Treasurer to reconsider his extension of these taxes. Our party intends to vote against all four of these new tax bills because they are all regressive taxes and we had hoped that this government would be moving away from a regressive tax system to a progressive one. This is our way of telling them that there are other ways they could have taxed the people of this province, but they seem to be impervious to ideas that would suggest that we should be working towards a fairer tax system. So I am going to oppose this particular bill, as well as the other three bills.

Mr Cousens: I was wondering if the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms Bryden) would give me her feeling on how the tax is going to be levied for the tire tax.

What happens now if a person is renting a vehicle, and maybe this is something the minister can comment on as well, is that the tax on the tires is not effective immediately, when he rents the car. In fact, it goes into effect after he has had the vehicle for a certain number of days, probably seven days, before the tax is then claimable by the province.

I am wondering whether the member is concerned about the administration that is going into all car rental agencies that are in some way going to be impacted by this new tax. From whom do they collect the tax on the tires, the person who rents the car for just the first day or the person who has rented it for the seventh day, or how many days in between?

That is a problem, and I wish the minister would be helpful. Maybe this is one of the concerns the member has. I know she hates taxes, but maybe this is just another reason for her to hate them with more vengeance. I would be interested in her comments on that, and maybe those of the Minister of Revenue (Mr Grandmaître) as well. He is a specialist in loopholes, but maybe he would be able to help those who really want to be honest in paying their taxes as to just how they are going to handle this one.

If the member for Beaches-Woodbine has any thoughts on it, I would be most grateful. I know she is opposed to it, but maybe this is just going to fuel her fires even more.

Ms Bryden: I appreciate the question from the member for Markham (Mr Cousens). I think it is a very serious one as to how this tax will be administered. My first recommendation, of course, was just to drop it. Then we would have no administrative problem.

My second comment would be that it really is a very bad tax because it will encourage people to take risks and keep their tires longer. They will not want to pay that $5 per tire. It is a tax that will hit rich and poor alike.

Mr J. M. Johnson: It’s $5.40.

Ms Bryden: That is right. Many people who need their cars will be travelling in unsafe vehicles if they cannot find the money for that new set of tires, so that is another reason for getting rid of it. I hope the minister can clarify some of the problems that the member for Markham has raised, but I think they are not worth clarifying. I think he should just withdraw such a very unfair and dangerous tax.

M. Pope : Il me fait plaisir de participer à ce débat sur le projet de loi 22, qui traite des mesures fiscales prises par le ministre du Revenu (L’hon. M. Grandmaître).

Nous, du Parti progressiste-conservateur, sommes opposés à ces mesures fiscales, ainsi qu’au projet de loi 22 ; et non seulement à ce projet de loi, mais à tous les projets de loi qui prennent de telles mesures, parce que nous sommes opposés au budget que le trésorier de l’Ontario (L’hon. M. R. F. Nixon) a déposé il y a quelques semaines.

Le fait que le gouvernement a décidé d’augmenter encore cette année les impôts d’un montant de 1,3 milliards de dollars nous attriste. Ce sont nous, les travailleurs de l’Ontario, qui devons payer tous ces impôts que le gouvernement libéral a décidé d’introduire. Ce n’est pas nécessaire ; ce n’est pas juste ; et cela crée beaucoup de problèmes économiques pour les contribuables de la province.

As Revenue critic and Treasury critic, I am pleased with the support of my friend the member for Markham, who has raised a very important issue that we want the minister to answer in his reply. The members of my caucus have some comments to make as well. The member for Wellington (Mr J. M. Johnson) will have some comments to make on this bill, to indicate our opposition to this Bill 22, these changes to the Retail Sales Tax Act.

That opposition is not based on any disrespect for the Minister of Revenue, who is the unhappy messenger of the Treasurer, as is his annual lot in life, but as a token of our opposition to this budget that has been foisted upon the Legislature and the people of Ontario, for which we and our constituents must pay.

Mr Cousens: And pay and pay and pay.

Mr Pope: And pay and pay and pay, as the member for Markham quite rightly added.

These are interesting days in the Legislature of Ontario, with allegations of misconduct, of misuse of charitable funds, of favours bought and paid for, of involvement of special interests in the various ministries of government, and we see the response of the Premier (Mr Peterson), who I think has to be responsible for all of this. There is nothing short of a judicial shell game going on with investigations by the Ontario Provincial Police, investigations by the Conflict of Interest Commissioner, investigations by the Commission on Election Finances, and now an inquiry of sorts announced at the end of last week.

These are interesting days in which the Premier has abdicated his leadership role and responsibility for managing the ethical standards of the members of his cabinet. The fact that the Premier has exercised no leadership and no judgement in these matters has brought disrespect upon this government and upon this Legislature. It goes back to 1986, when the Premier indicated that he saw no role for himself in applying the Davis guidelines for ethical conduct by his ministers or judging the conflict-of-interest, apparent and real, standards of his ministers.

While this has taken the attention of this Legislature and prompted a reaction from the public of Ontario, very important economic and financial matters that affect the daily lives of Ontarians are proceeding apace. We have had a budget from this government that I think smacks of financial and economic irresponsibility.

For the second year in a row, we have tax increases whose full-year impact will be $1.3 billion. For the second year in a row, we have substantial increases in the rate of government expenditures. For the second year in a row, we have examples -- not the Minister of Revenue -- of waste, of unbelievable and staggering increases in administrative costs, with no evidence of discipline, no evidence of regret, no evidence of reform in these out-of-control administrative costs and no answer to any member of this Legislature when these issues are raised.

It is the taxpayers who are expected to pay for this Liberal largess with the revenue measures that have been introduced by this Minister of Revenue to implement what someone else has announced on behalf of the government. Not only do tax increases affect people in their daily lives, not only do they affect the ability of working men and women and families and communities in this province to plan for their future, but they impact on the entire economy of the province.

First, it is now clear in recent documentation issued by the Fraser Institute that this province has a dismal record in terms of taxation of the average family. It has a dismal record in terms of what we call tax freedom day.

The Fraser Institute in British Columbia issued a recent document, a press release dated 19 June 1989, which indicated that in Ontario, tax freedom day in 1989 falls on 7 July. That means working men and women will work this year until the end of next week to pay for the taxes that governments are imposing upon them.

Until the end of next week, every single dollar and every single penny that a miner or bush worker or factory worker or farmer makes is going to go to the governments of this province. It is only after the end of next week, from 7 July on, that people will start to earn, in 1989, for themselves and their families, to meet their own needs.

This tax freedom day in Ontario, I say to the Minister of Revenue, is the latest of any province of Canada. In fact, according to the Fraser Institute, I say to the parliamentary assistant --

Mr Faubert: I heard this debate.

Mr Pope: Good, because you are going to hear it again and again until this government takes seriously the tax plight of the working men and women of this province, because the average Ontario family is going to pay a total of $25,913 in taxes to all levels of government in 1989.

Ce n’est pas seulement 25 pour cent, 30 pour cent ou 40 pour cent dont il s’agit ; mais, en réalité, chaque famille en Ontario doit payer 51 pour cent de son revenu total à tous les paliers de gouvernement.

Imagine, we are now going to pay 51.3 per cent of our total family income in taxes this year in Ontario. That is why 7 July is tax freedom day. According to the Fraser Institute, which analyses provincial and federal budgets and their impact on average families, the average Ontario family’s total tax bill is greater than that paid by a family in any other province of this country.

The Treasurer’s counterargument is that if you remove the payments that are now being made and will no longer be made if this budget is implemented with respect to health care, Ontario is not the highest. It becomes the third highest, I think the argument is.

Hon Mr Grandmaître: Fourth.

Mr Pope: I think third, but we will argue that later, minister.

The fact of the matter is that Ontarians are going to pay one way or the other for that decision by the government of Ontario. They are going to pay it in terms of benefits, which will mean forgone wage increases, or they are going to pay it in the price of goods and services provided by the companies which are on the payroll tax. That is why the small business community has indicated that the payroll tax for health care purposes is a tax against employment.

The people of this province are either going to pay it in the cost of goods and services, or they are going to pay it in forgone fringe benefits of another nature or wage increases, or they are going to pay it in the loss of jobs and employment opportunities. That is the history of the payroll tax measure, I say to the Minister of Revenue, where it has been tried in other jurisdictions. That is why other jurisdictions have been looking at ways to abandon it.

I do not think anyone can indicate to me the fairness of a mining company paying a payroll tax with respect to health care for every single one of its workers, while at the same time a professional who is self-employed and not on a payroll will pay nothing for those same health care benefits. I do not see the fairness in that, I do not see the equality in that and I do not think the government can explain the reasons those decisions have been made.

I was talking about tax freedom day, the Fraser Institute, and the fact that the Fraser Institute feels the average Ontario family is paying a higher tax than any other family in any other province. I say to the Minister of Revenue, who may disagree with the Fraser Institute, as he was taking notes, that the comparative tax position of Ontario to other jurisdictions has been the subject of comment in the Quebec budget and the Saskatchewan budget this year. Both documents are proud to parade the fact that their tax position comparative to Ontario’s is improving while Ontario’s is getting worse.

They point to that as an indicator of economic opportunity in those jurisdictions and as a lack of economic opportunity in Ontario.

That is the message these other competing jurisdictions are putting out there. That is what they are saying to prospective investors, to companies that may want to choose which jurisdiction they are going to locate a new plant or an expansion in. They are making the argument that this tax jurisdiction in Ontario is a disincentive for economic growth; a disincentive for capital investment; a disincentive for employment of new workers. The tax regime this Liberal government has brought in is being used as the excuse to lure other jobs and other industries to their provinces.

In 1985, tax freedom day was June 21. In 1984, it was June 18. We have seen that for every single year this Liberal government has been in office, tax freedom day has moved farther and farther into the summer months.

In Quebec. in fact, tax freedom day is coming earlier this year. In 1984, it was on July 6. In 1987, it moved to June 28. This year it is June 27.

The table produced by the Fraser Institute is a stinging indictment of this Liberal government’s attitude towards its taxpayers. While we have over 5,000 additional civil servants hired since this government came to power, while we have seen administrative expenses skyrocketing right here in Queen’s Park and in Toronto, at the same time we have seen a diminution of basic services offered to the people of Ontario.

The tax grab of this government continues to rise. While we see reductions in Ontario Provincial Police services, greater numbers of students in portables than ever before in our history, greater lineups for essential health care services in our hospitals than ever before, less reforestation than at any time in the last six years, while we have seen all of these deterioriations in the basic services our government of Ontario is responsible for, the only thing that has increased is not the level of service but the tax bill.

It is not fair to our working people. It is a disincentive to work. It is a disincentive to capital investment. It is a disincentive to economic activity, and it is not a proposition that we are prepared to support as an opposition party.

For that reason, of course, we are going to oppose Bill 22. I want to deal with Bill 22. I want to deal with Bill 22 and its implications for the tire industry and for our sinful habit of driving in this province. I say “sinful” because the Liberals have obviously decided it is a sinful habit, even if one needs to drive to get to work, even if one has to drive great distances in northern or eastern Ontario to go from community to community. We see a whole plethora of tax initiatives designed to discourage drivers in Ontario.

First, I want to remind the viewers and the people of Ontario exactly what these tax measures are: effective 1 June, a new tax of $5 on every new tire, whether or not included in the purchase of a vehicle; the imposition, effective 1 July 1989. of a gas-guzzler tax to range between $600 for cars that consume 9.5 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres to $3,500 for cars that consume more than 18 litres of fuel per 100 kilometres.

In this case and in the case of the tire tax, the new level is added to the selling price for the purpose of calculating the sales tax liability. In other words, not content to rip us off with additional tax revenues, this government is going to make sure we pay tax on the tax. It is a rather innovative Liberal psychology. If you got used to paying taxes, how do you like paying taxes on taxes?

The Minister of the Environment (Mr Bradley), in his friendly way, in discussing these measures over the last few weeks in the Legislature, indicated that if you did not support tax increases in this province, you were against the environment. I want to say to the Minister of the Environment, as he is here, that we are going to be moving an amendment to this bill and we expect him to support it.

It says, “All taxes collected pursuant to subsection I shall be paid into a special recycling fund to be established in the Ministry of the Environment for use in supporting and financing recycling programs.” I say we are going to introduce this amendment, because I want to put the government to the test.

In the budget, they indicated quite clearly that the only reason for these increased tax measures was a concern for the environment. We all know it was a revenue grab. but they like to say otherwise. We all know they are greedy and want