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

May 24, 1989

34th Parliament, 2nd Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

HOSPITAL BEDS

FOLK ARTS FESTIVAL

ARMX ’89

TOURISM

COTTONWOOD MANSION

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

FOSTER CARE

RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

FOSTER CARE

HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

WASTE MANAGEMENT

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

ELECTRIC POWER

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

OTTAWA AREA HOSPITALS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

EDUCATION FINANCING

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

HOME CARE

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

HOME CARE

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

NATUROPATHY

WASTE DISPOSAL

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

The House met at 1330.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

EDUCATION FINANCING

Miss Martel: On 10 April 1989, the Sudbury Board of Education released an information package highlighting concerns regarding the provincial funding of education. This action was prompted following the Ministry of Education announcements concerning the 1989 general legislative grant regulations. The increase in mill rates to be used by this and other boards to determine the local share of expenditures effectively transferred 10 per cent of the elementary panel costs and 20 per cent of the secondary panel costs to local taxpayers. The Sudbury board announced it had lost about $3.7 million in grant moneys as a consequence.

While the decline in provincial funding means a school tax increase locally, the board is now having to cut programs as well. On 3 May, the board moved to terminate the family studies and design and technology programs in all elementary public schools. Both programs have been in existence for 35 years. This cost-cutting measure has dismayed the board, the teachers and the parents involved, However, the reality is that the board of education cannot continue to operate as it has in the past in the face of losses in provincial funding.

In the throne speech the government said it was determined to improve the quality of education for our children. We in Sudbury, facing school tax increases and termination of programs, find that hard to believe.

HOSPITAL BEDS

Mr Jackson: I hold in my hands today a Liberal government news release issued three years ago by the then Minister of Health; it was prior to the last provincial election. In it, we read the promises made by the then minister, the member for Bruce (Mr Elston), in which he announced an expansion of approximately 4,400 hospital beds. These beds were to have been financed by an $850-million capital allocation to Ontario’s hospitals -- an allocation billed then as the largest in the history of Ontario.

Yesterday, however, the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy released its report on health care in which it recommends that the government review whether or not it should go ahead with those beds as promised because “the implementation of the plan for hospitals announced in 1986 would have very negative long-term effects on the system.”

We know from past experience that when this government says “review,” it really means “cancel.” Three years ago, it was announced that 3,000 of the 4,400 beds were for chronic care patients. This included 90 chronic care beds for Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington. It is now abundantly clear that the government intended all along to break this important election promise.

Is this the new health care strategy of the Premier (Mr Peterson) for Ontario patients in need of chronic care? The situation is so bad in the region of Halton that the only access to a chronic care bed is when someone dies.

FOLK ARTS FESTIVAL

Mr Dietsch: I would like to take this opportunity to inform this House of a very special event that is presently taking place in my riding of St Catharines-Brock and area: that is, the 21st annual Folk Arts Festival. Every year, the Folk Arts Council of St Catharines, an association of ethnocultural groups, runs this very popular festival, which highlights the 35 nationalities that are represented in the city of St Catharines.

This year, the festival began on 19 May and will conclude on 4 June. Among a number of the major events that have taken place and will take place are the Queens’ Ball, where 22 queens from different nationalities are crowned; various open houses which feature the foods, arts and entertainment of each nationality; a citizenship court and, last but not least, the grand parade with its international food booths.

The president of the Folk Arts Council, Sylvia Matthews, and her many committed volunteers have worked especially hard again this year to ensure that the festival is a tremendous success. It is important to note, however, that Sylvia and the many others operate year-round offering services to new Canadians and recognizing and promoting the uniqueness of each individual nationality.

I hope my colleagues will join with me in congratulating each and every one involved in this festival, as well as taking the opportunity to come down to St Catharines and enjoy hospitality at its best.

ARMX ’89

Mr R. F. Johnston: It is important that the people of Ontario know that their government was a major participant in the ARMX exhibition of armaments in Ottawa that has taken place in the last few days. This government not only spent $20,000 to help exhibitors participate; it also spent $60,000 on a directory of arms producers in Ontario and is planning to renew that.

The Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology (Mr Kwinter) has an advisory group which happens to include a chief executive officer from a major producer of nuclear weapons component parts in this province, in spite of a resolution to which his government agreed: to make Ontario a nuclear-weapons-free zone. The minister is proud that this is the third-largest industry in Ontario; is happy that we have 80 per cent export of its goods; feels in fact that there is an infinite amount of export potential there that we should be involved with.

This government takes a Pontius Pilate approach to its responsibility and to whether or not we should be involved in the assistance of the export of arms, and says it is up to the federal government.

It is time that the people of Ontario and the government understood that there are major questions here as to whether or not we think we should be exporting arms anywhere in the world; whether we really think there is any kind of control that we can have over those arms once they are exported, and whether, in fact, taxpayers’ dollars should be spent on assisting armaments producers who are bringing death and destruction in repressive regimes all over this world.

TOURISM

Mr McLean: The recent budget proves that this government is no friend of the Ontario tourist industry. Ontario’s third-largest industry and major employer will see its competitive position eroded as the consequences of this budget, a budget which makes Ontario a more expensive tourist destination and which will reduce discretionary income available for travel and vacations.

The payroll tax will have a particularly negative effect on this labour-intensive sector. Preliminary estimates indicate that the tax will increase industry costs by 75 per cent relative to what employers currently pay in Ontario health insurance plan benefits.

The commercial concentration levy is simply a thinly disguised room tax imposed on the industry in the greater Toronto area, a room tax which will limit the ability of the industry to attract convention business to the region. The two-cents-a-litre hike in the gasoline tax is another direct blow to the industry.

The budget gives a whole new meaning to the “Ontario -- Incredible!” campaign. The government’s tax policies with regard to the tourist industry are indeed incredible. It could not have done a worse job if it tried. The industry will be hard hit by and was bitterly disappointed with the budget. It has every right to be disappointed, because this government has failed to recognize the contribution which the industry makes to Ontario’s economy.

COTTONWOOD MANSION

Mr Miller: On 13 May 1989, the dedication and grand opening of Selkirk’s Cottonwood Mansion took place in my riding. Actually, it was in the riding of the Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon), Brant-Haldimand, but it is on the town line.

The opening was attended by more than 1,000 people who toured the house and grounds on opening day. An additional 120 guests visited the mansion this past long weekend. This once-grand, 16-room home was built in 1865 by William Holmes on land inherited by his wife, Mary Hoover. Mary Hoover was the granddaughter of Jacob Huber/Hoover, one of the founding settlers in the Selkirk area in the 1790s. Cottonwood Mansion has been designated a heritage house and is undergoing major restoration by the Cottonwood Mansion Society, which has been approved as a registered charity.

Larry Hamilton, a Hoover descendant, is the resident host and owner of Cottonwood Mansion. Once restored, Cottonwood Mansion will be a living museum serving as a repository for regional historical artefacts. In addition, the house and grounds will be available to the community for meetings, weddings and other social events.

I would encourage all members of the Legislature to visit this historic site near Selkirk and to join me in voicing our appreciation to the community for its enthusiastic support of this project.

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr Wildman: The member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr R. F. Nixon) stated in his budget that “the farm property tax rebate program will be targeted to assist those engaged in full-time farming activities.” This raises many questions. These questions must be clarified through consultation with the farm community only, not through unilateral action by the government.

Right now, applications for interim payments for 1989 would normally have been in the hands of farmers. They are not yet. Does this mean that the interim payment has been eliminated without notice? Has the government arrived at a definition of a full-time farmer?

The Ontario government should not introduce arbitrary changes in the farm tax program. The rebate program has provided significant tax relief to farmers. Farmers have a right to know what needs fixing. There must be consultation with farm organizations.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Hon Mrs Caplan: I am pleased to inform the House that my ministry is committing additional funding for the redevelopment of the Hospital for Sick Children.

As members know, Sick Children’s is one of the most valued health care facilities in the province. Indeed, Sick Kids is recognized around the world for the expertise and innovation it brings to the care of children and adolescents.

Expansion of the hospital is underway to create much needed space. in addition to the Elizabeth McMaster Building, which houses research and administration, a new patient care centre is being built. The nine-storey patient tower, which will face Elizabeth Street between Elm and Gerrard streets, will include enhanced operating and emergency facilities, a bone marrow transplant unit and a burn unit. Construction will begin this summer, with completion scheduled for 1992.

To help finance the project, the Hospital for Sick Children Foundation agreed to provide $55 million, with the remainder of the hospital’s share to be raised by the community. This was an ambitious undertaking. It meant launching a concerted effort by the community, by the hospital and the hundreds of volunteers working with hospital staff, corporations and private foundations to raise the needed funds.

The level of support for this project was impressive. Nearly $50 million has been raised in what has become Canada’s largest-ever hospital fund-raiser.

It therefore gives me great pleasure to announce that my ministry is increasing its share of funding for this capital project by $32.4 million, to a total of $104.9 million. In addition to the increased capital grant, the hospital will receive an increase in annual operating funds, of $9.2 million, beginning in 1991. This will be used to support enhanced services in paediatric intensive care, bone marrow transplants, trauma, the burn unit and plant maintenance and operations.

With the addition of the new patient care centre, the Hospital for Sick Children will continue to provide invaluable service to our community. I am sure members will join me in offering congratulations to all of those who contributed to this important project.

FOSTER CARE

Hon Mr Sweeney: My announcement today has to deal with the foster care initiatives. When children cannot be cared for in their own homes, very often the best option is to place them in a home-like setting; that is, a foster home. The care given in Ontario foster homes is a critical resource for more than 5,000 children across this province.

Over the past few months, my ministry, through the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, has been consulting with foster parents and agencies throughout the province. Our discussions have confirmed that Ontario’s foster care system is facing serious difficulties. The number of foster homes is declining and efforts to recruit new foster parents are falling short of their targets. Foster parents have told us that they need an increase in rates, more support and opportunities for training and that they would like a stronger voice in planning for their foster children.

This afternoon, I am announcing a new foster care initiative developed by my ministry and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies. My ministry has allocated an additional $6.7 million this year to strengthen foster care services. Municipal contributions of approximately $1.4 million will commence on 1 January 1990, resulting in a total of more than $8 million dedicated to assisting foster parents.

This funding process will allow time for municipalities to build the increase into their next fiscal budget. In all children’s aid societies across the province, including the three native child welfare agencies, the minimum rate paid to any foster parent will be increased to $14 per day per child, an amount that addresses the cost of room and board. This will benefit foster parents in 44 of 54 societies across Ontario for whom the minimum rate is now as low as $7.45 per day. The cost of ensuring this increase to the new $14 minimum is approximately $2.5 million.

Expenses, such as clothing and spending allowances, which are reimbursed by children’s aid societies, and subsidies provided to meet the special needs of some children are in addition to this minimum rate.

After providing funds to ensure the minimum rate, the regions will then allocate additional money to increase rates further and to improve support for foster parents. These allocations will address local needs and issues and will be based on the recommendations of regional committees, which will include senior staff of my ministry and of the children’s aid societies’ staffs.

In light of the projections made by my ministry and the Ontario Association of Children’s Aid Societies, it is anticipated that $2.5 million will be allocated regionally to enhance rates beyond the new $14 minimum. All rate enhancements will be retroactive to 1 April 1989.

Our consultations have determined that, important as it is to increase the rates provided to foster parents, it is equally important to strengthen the support provided to foster parents. Foster parents are being asked to take into their homes youngsters with multiple problems. Foster parents often care for children who have suffered physical or sexual abuse. Helping such youngsters requires special training, regular relief and the availability of foster care workers when difficulties do arise. As part of this initiative, $2.5 million will be used to improve these supports for foster parents.

Finally, OACAS, in partnership with my ministry, will provide training programs for foster parents and foster care workers. We will also allocate funds to projects which demonstrate innovative methods of increasing foster care placements in a child’s home community or improving the quality of foster care services. A joint ministry/OACAS committee will review these proposals. Funding of more than $500,000 has been earmarked for these training programs and demonstration projects.

It is our hope that the increased rates, improved supports, better training and creative approaches to foster care will attract new foster parents as well as help retain those already caring for our children.

At the same time as this initiative is going forward, my ministry is working with OACAS and foster parents on the residential family resources project to develop a long-range plan for the improvement of foster care services.

This project is identifying ways in which foster parents might be involved in providing a spectrum of services from prevention to long-term care. I am confident that by bringing together the collective resources of my ministry, children’s aid societies and foster parents, we will build a stronger family care system seeking to provide the best possible care to children.

The Speaker: Responses? The member for Riverdale.

Mr Reville: Of course I want to respond to the statement made today by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), but I wonder if the Speaker would forgive me if I delayed that response so that I could acknowledge the heroism of the minister on the weekend in Huntsville. Now, back on the attack.

Mr B. Rae: Now if you could only do in a hospital what you did on the weekend.

Mr Reville: That is right, saving the people of Ontario two at a time.

RESPONSES

HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr Reville: This is the fifth announcement in as many weeks by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan), and should this session go on for a long time, as l suspect it might, there is no telling what the health care system might look like at the end of the session.

Michael Bennett of the Toronto Sun is now calling the minister the “windup” minister. I am not sure why he would say such a thing, but yesterday the minister was wound up and said all the capital projects would be on hold and today she has said, “But there is this one down the street, at the Hospital for Sick Children, that is going to go ahead.” That is probably fairly confusing to the people of Ontario, but perhaps they are getting used to being confused by this government.

Clearly there are congratulations in order. Dr Reva Gerstein went out and raised, I think, $55 million, and when Dr Gerstein sets her mind to a task, the task is done and double quick too. The building is obviously going to be splendid. Eb Zeidler does good buildings, and we will see, obviously, one of the cynosures to all eyes of children’s hospitals built here.

There are a lot of other problems in the health care system that the minister is not winding up and announcing, and I look forward to the weeks and months ahead to see if she can give us some announcements that will give us a little more hope.

FOSTER CARE

Mr R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the statement on foster care. It is important to put this in a historical perspective. We have known for many years now that there is a problem in foster care. The problem often comes down to people wanting more money to provide the care, but the real issue is why and how we deal with foster parents as replacements for group professional care.

The changing role of foster parents is still not dealt with adequately in this announcement today. Although they are dealing with such issues as training, the fundamental questions have still not been addressed in terms of the future role of foster parenting.

The other thing that really needs to be done is to put this in a context of government policy. Latterly, we received an announcement about Transitions and government action to assist the poor, but we have to put this in contrast to what we have here today.

What is being said here today is that once a child becomes a ward of the state, the people who are looking after that child will receive a minimum of $420 a month to look after that child. The average, in point of fact, in a place like Metropolitan Toronto, is closer to $600 a month. This can go to the foster parent to look after that child, who might have been taken from a family benefits mother -- for all sorts of reasons, the family broke down -- who is given less than $200 a month to raise that same child.

Even with the new initiatives announced by the government that will be coming in much later on around assistance of children who are poor, that family is still going to receive much less than a person who is dealing with that child as he becomes a ward of the state will get to look after the same child.

There is something just fundamentally wrong with that, if we do not recognize the incredible role that poverty plays in terms of children ending up as wards of the state and if we do not understand that if we gave the same kind of money to those family benefits mothers and mothers on welfare to raise their children, we might not have to pay for those children who now get the basic rate under foster parenting to even be considered to be wards of the state at all.

People who need the care are all those exceptional children who need all the other kinds of assistance that the minister is talking about when he talks about training these people more. Kids who, just because they happen to be poor and their families cannot look after them, are still a large number of the foster kids in this province could be better looked after by their own natural parents, if we were just as generous with them as we are with the parents who look after them after the pieces of the family have fallen apart.

Mrs Cunningham: I would like to respond to the foster care initiative. I think this gives us an opportunity to again compliment the government on recognizing a wide range of services that are very much needed: the improved rates, the support that we have been asking for -- I think we are a very effective opposition -- and the training we have asked for, for such a very long period of time, for families in their homes. Families today raising their own children need many supports in the community and it is only fitting that we recognize the real needs of foster families.

We recognize that the government has built into its plan an opportunity for the foster parents and the agencies to work with the ministry around consultation and planning for the future. It gives us an opportunity today -- and I am sure the minister would agree -- to say hats off to foster parents across this province, while recognizing that $400 a month at a minimum, and hopefully a whole lot more when we take a look at the real implications of this announcement today, is not a lot of money for the work they do. Really, it is the heart that is put into these children and the family that one can never put a price on. We talked about this last month.

I would also like to take the opportunity to thank the children’s aid societies across this province who have made it their priority to recruit foster parents, not always successfully, but certainly, in London, very successfully. I think they went within their own resources to do that. I am sure the members would agree that we should be very proud of their efforts and very proud of the response of foster families across this province.

If anyone is bothering to watch us today, there is a real need for even more. I think this support service in our community is one, if possible, that we should be tapping into to the very greatest of our abilities, because there is no place like home, especially a foster home for disabled children and disabled adults. We should be looking at this resource.

I look at this as just a beginning. I look at the rates as still being extremely minimal, but certainly a step in the right direction. I hope that the minister has built in, as in the previous announcements, an opportunity and a vehicle for evaluation of this new program.

HOSPITAL FOR SICK CHILDREN

Mr Harris: I want to comment briefly on the statement by the Minister of Health (Mrs Caplan). First of all, to add our voice to the minister’s when she said, at the end of her statement, “I am sure you will join me in offering congratulations to all those who contributed to this important project.” Indeed, on behalf of my party, we would like to add our congratulations. The Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto is a hospital that extends far beyond Toronto or Metropolitan Toronto. All of us in Ontario are very proud of the facility and, as members will know, it has Canadian, North American and indeed world significance as a leader in the health care field.

However, I do want to say that I am surprised that the Minister of Health, who stood in her place yesterday and indicated a freeze on $850 million of capital funding that had been announced in 1986, had been blown about in campaign after campaign and talked about in community after community. Yesterday she rose and told us it was all on hold. Now she is starting to carry on with individual announcements, and of course it does confuse those who have projects that are on hold; communities like Nipissing, which has been waiting since 1984 for the government to follow through on commitments that were made.

I would also offer congratulations to the minister, though, for obviously not making this funding conditional on capitation or on doing things her way or one does not get the money. This is of course what she has told others in this province, including people in Nipissing, “Unless you play ball my way and unless everybody does things the way we want to do it, you can’t have a new hospital.”

I would also indicate to the minister that there is nothing in the announcement, and we have raised this on numerous occasions, on the waiting list for children’s cardiac surgery. I would hope, although the minister is not paying attention to me now, that this serious and chronic problem is addressed through this project as well as the critical shortage of nurses, regardless of capital facilities and program dollars, that is affecting program delivery in Sick Kids and other hospitals.

ORAL QUESTIONS

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr Reville: My questions are for the Solicitor General. This is the sixth day of our confusion about the actions of the minister in visiting a police station and then calling later. The minister has said that she does not feel that she made an error in judgement; she said to the press, “In retrospect, I don’t think I would do anything differently.”

That seems to indicate on more mature reflection that the minister still does not see the error in judgement. I guess we need to know from the minister, should the phone ring this Sunday morning, next Sunday morning or some Sunday morning in the future, would she in fact respond the way she did in April?

Hon Mrs Smith: The member for Riverdale asks a hypothetical question. As I have told members repeatedly on the circumstances of one incident, I got a call from someone who expressed great concern for somebody’s safety. I did nothing improper in inquiring into and reassuring her on that matter. The same situation will never be replicated. It is a matter of judgement. If I said I would never, ever do anything, would the member opposite think I am a better person for such a statement?

Mr Reville: I do not think the question is whether or not the minister is a good person. I have no doubt about that. What I am worried about is that she is a good minister. Can she show the right kind of judgement that we need in the chief law enforcement officer of this province?

The minister says she cannot answer a hypothetical question, but I need to remind her of some things she said about her office in the past. On 11 January 1989, she said, “It would be most improper for me to rush the police.” What was she doing on 9 April? On 3 January she said, “It would be most improper for me, as Solicitor General, to try to get particular information that is in a police investigation.” What was she doing on 9 April? On 13 December 1988, she said of the Clare-Lewis task force that it was her “plan to remove any vestige of discrimination or perception thereof.” What was she doing on 9 April?

Hon Mrs Smith: I was doing none of the things referred to in those incidents and I would stand by all those statements at the time.

Mr Reville: No one wants to get this person qua person, that is for sure, but the minister continues to misunderstand the problem here. I have to ask again, does the minister not realize that by saying she is not here in her official capacity in fact nothing changes, that tomorrow morning she is the Solicitor General as long as she occupies that position?

Hon Mrs Smith: I repeat that on that occasion I made absolutely no inquiry into the case, knew nothing about it and found out about it only later from the media. I simply inquired into the safety of the young man and left.

Mr B. Rae: My question is for the Premier. The last time he was in the House, on Thursday, in an answer to questions from my colleague the member for Riverdale (Mr Reville), the Premier said that he asked for a complete investigation of the situation. He went on to say that, “I had the investigation; it came back to me and said that there was nothing untoward, that there was no unreasonable influence exercised in this circumstance.”

I wonder if the Premier can tell us the precise nature of the investigation which he asked for, the precise nature of the investigation which took place and why he remains unprepared to make that report public.

Hon Mr Peterson: I asked for a police report of the matter, of all the circumstances surrounding the Solicitor General’s attendance at that police detachment on the particular evening we are talking about, that is, the event and all the details attendant thereto.

It is a police report. As the member knows, it is not the tradition to make police reports public. There was one exception to that -- my honourable friend will be aware of that -- but in this particular case there are circumstances in there that relate to the charges that have been laid in this case. This matter is before the courts, and the advice I have is it is not appropriate to make that public.

Mr B. Rae: Since the Premier has referred to a particular police report, I can advise him that my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr Kormos), who will also have some questions this afternoon, went down to the Ontario Provincial Police this morning and had a lengthy interview with Detective-Inspector Howard Williams, who we understand was the individual who conducted the investigation.

Mr Williams has reported to my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold that, first of all, at no time did he personally interview the Solicitor General. I wonder if the Premier is aware of that.

Hon Mr Peterson: I do not know who he interviewed or who he did not interview. I do not tell the police how to conduct their inquiries.

Mr B. Rae: The inspector also made it very clear that his sole responsibility was to inquire into the possibility of criminal wrongdoing by any of the officers involved or by the Solicitor General herself. His report had nothing whatever to do with the appropriateness or the reasonableness of the minister’s judgement or discretion. That, I would say, is the exclusive responsibility of the Premier of this province.

I wonder why the Premier has such difficulty in making it clear precisely what standard he requires of his ministers, as previous premiers in this province did when he was sitting in this place and asked them to do it and when Mr Trudeau did so in the 1970s when there were phone calls from politicians to judges. Why does the Premier have such difficulty in establishing for himself the reasonableness of the minister’s conduct --

The Speaker: Premier.

Mr B. Rae: -- when he knows full well that the police report had absolutely nothing to do with the question of reasonableness by the minister?

The Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Peterson: The honourable member is quite right. I did not ask a police officer to make a judgement that only I can make in these circumstances. I asked the police to inquire as to the facts. I have the facts in front of me. As my honourable friend quite rightly said, I had to make a judgement with respect to the appropriateness. I discussed in the House the difficulty I had in making the judgement I did. I can understand others having a different opinion in the same circumstances, but I take full and complete responsibility for the judgement I have made, and the judgement I have made is that this does not warrant dismissal from the post.

Mr Brandt: My question as well is to the Premier on the same subject. I wonder if the Premier could perhaps share information with this House in regard to how the incident in question was originally brought to his attention.

Hon Mr Peterson: One of my staff members told me shortly thereafter.

Mr Brandt: I have some difficulty, as does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr B. Rae), with respect to the whole question of how the so-called investigation by the OPP was carried out.

I want to say that in the case of a former Solicitor General, when there was a matter of the boating incident which the Premier will very clearly recall, at that particular time it was considered inappropriate by the Attorney General (Mr Scott) to have the OPP carry out the investigation because of the very unique and very specific responsibilities the Solicitor General had with respect to that police department. The Attorney General, who took on that investigation, decided to call in the Metro Toronto Police to investigate the matter, which involved the member for Kingston and The Islands (Mr Keyes).

I wonder why there is a double standard here. In one particular case it was inappropriate for the OPP to investigate their boss, and in this particular instance the Premier is indicating that a report completely satisfied him, a report drafted by the same OPP. Could he --

The Speaker: Thank you. The question has been asked.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend would agree that they are different circumstances from this point of view. In the first case my friend alludes to, there was a question of a charge being laid against a minister of the crown. In fact, charges were laid in that case. In this case, there was never any suggestion of any wrongdoing in a criminal sense by the Solicitor General. I wanted to determine the facts, because as my honourable friend knows, it was a political judgement that had to be made.. There was never any question here about charging the Solicitor General.

Mr Brandt: My colleague the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr Runciman) has on numerous occasions indicated the appropriateness of an investigation being carried out by the boss of the very department for which that minister is responsible.

Also, we have had some difficulty on this side of the House understanding why this report, which the Premier has received for his eyes only, is not available to other members of the House. The Premier has answered this by very casually indicating that it is a police report. I wonder if he might respond to the House by indicating who besides himself has seen the particular report in question. Has he in fact received an outside legal opinion as to the appropriateness of the report, and was the final decision, as I understand it to be, made by him personally?

Hon Mr Peterson: The crown law officers looked at it from the point of view of criminality.

I am very much aware of the view of the member for Leeds-Grenville. I have had the benefit of that on many occasions and I take it seriously, as I always take his advice on these matters.

I say to my honourable friend, ultimately, as the first minister, I have to make these judgements, be accountable for them and take responsibility for them.

Mr Brandt: I want to remind the Premier of a disagreement in position with regard to how he views the matter now that he has seen this report, and how the Solicitor General sees the matter. The Premier has been quoted as saying, “I have frankly agonized over this question. It is not an easy one for me. Maybe in retrospect, she’d do something else,” meaning the Solicitor General.

Then, as has already been pointed out, the Solicitor General is quoted as saying, “In retrospect, I don’t think I’d do anything differently.” On the one hand, the Premier is saying the Solicitor General should have done something differently, and on the other hand, the Solicitor General is saying she acted quite appropriately.

I wonder if the Premier, who was concerned enough to have this matter reviewed by the OPP, recognizing that he agonized over the decision, feels that it is appropriate now for the Solicitor General to indicate that she has not done anything inappropriate by visiting that particular OPP station on that evening.

Hon Mr Peterson: I think reasonable people can certainly understand the circumstances at hand here. I understand my honourable friend having a difference of opinion. Perhaps in a similar situation he would have done something differently. Had he been the Solicitor General and been phoned in similar circumstances, he may have reacted the same way, he may not have. We can always sit here with the benefit of hindsight and say “What if?” this or that, and I understand that.

Obviously, nobody likes to create an unnecessary problem. It is obvious that the member would like to make this into as big an incident as he possibly can, and I understand that as well. I understand the democratic process. But I say to my honourable friend that I think reasonable people could have different points of view on this. No decision I make is completely 100 per cent one way or the other. I did agonize on this, I said, and I have come to the conclusion, the bottom line, that the minister does not warrant dismissal over this incident.

Mr Brandt: The Premier can perhaps attempt to trivialize this incident to the extent that he may want to, but I would remind him that in the case of the former Solicitor General, the member for Kingston and The Islands, and in the case of the member for London South (Mrs Smith), the current Solicitor General, both investigations were criminal investigations. That has been very clearly pointed out to the Premier.

I would suggest that the visit by the Solicitor General would be absolutely no different, if I may draw an analogy for the Premier, than the chief of police of the Metropolitan Toronto force walking into the station late at night in his civilian clothes and inquiring of a constable why they had arrested the son of a friend of his. It is exactly the same kind of situation, and the Premier surely would agree that is inappropriate. Is anything less than appropriate now than to ask for the Solicitor General’s resignation?

Hon Mrs Smith: On a point of privilege, Mr Speaker, I have repeatedly said that I did not inquire why or anything about their actions.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Hon Mr Peterson: To assist my honourable friend, I do not think anybody is trivializing this at all. I think my friend would like to oversimplify this to some extent, and I think the facts are all there. He can draw his own conclusion on it. I respect his right to draw his own conclusion, but the analogy he used I think is quite inappropriate, because it does not conform to the facts and the circumstances.

Mr Brandt: The analogy is totally appropriate, and I might add that the Solicitor General herself has already admitted that she inquired as to the health of the individual in question. Her very presence is an intimidation of the police in that particular instance.

I want to read to the Premier a letter from the former minister of that same department. George Kerr, who resigned in 1979 after calling an assistant crown attorney on behalf of a constituent:

“I am wholly conscious of the fact that there can be no suggestion of impropriety on my part that could in any way reflect upon the administration of justice and law enforcement. Under the circumstances, therefore I feel I have no alternative at this time but to submit my resignation.”

That is the standard we have been accustomed to in this House. I want the Premier to think over very carefully his actions, because by condoning the actions of the Solicitor General he is agreeing to a new standard for ministers in his government, a standard I think is unacceptable to the majority of Ontarians. Will he not protect the integrity of the justice system in Ontario, as has been done in the past, and ask --

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend has drawn a number of parallels in his questions, and I say as respectfully as I can that I do not think any of them are appropriate in the circumstances. That is the judgement I ultimately have to make. He obviously will make another judgement in a partisan way with respect to his responsibilities, and I understand that. But I have to deal with the facts as I see them and obviously make a judgement I can feel comfortable about and support. So I say to my honourable friend that although I wish this whole incident did not happen, I do not think it is appropriate to justify dismissal in the circumstances. That is the decision I have had to make.

Mr Kormos: I have a question for the Premier. Much justification has been made of the Solicitor General’s conduct by virtue of explaining that there was an allegation that the parents were out of town and that a young person had been beaten by the police. Those are the words of the Premier in terms of explaining or helping to explain the Solicitor General’s conduct. But it remains that the OPP investigation reveals that the father arrived at the detachment at 1:20 am, was permitted an opportunity to speak with his son, left the detachment, and the Solicitor General, upon arriving, met the father outside the police detachment in the parking lot.

Surely at that point she is aware that the parents are not out of town. She is aware indeed, because the father had just seen his son, that he was not being abused. How can she then justify carrying on at that point, no longer under any misapprehension, and going into that police station and spending some five to 10 minutes there concerning herself with this matter?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member is quite right, and as I understand the facts, when she was satisfied that she had been misled, she withdrew.

Mr Kormos: Not only did she not withdraw, she carried on into the police station, spent some five to 10 minutes there before she left at 1:50 am and then, notwithstanding that, the Solicitor General called the police station again, that time at 3:51 am, indicating that there were further allegations of abuse.

Mind you, once again, she was not acting in an official position. That is tantamount to prefacing a comment by saying “Nothing personal.” The fact is she is the Solicitor General one way or another. How can that be justified under the circumstances? There is no withdrawal; there is no misapprehension at that point. How can it be justified?

Hon Mr Peterson: As far as I know, there was no question there.

lnterjections.

The Speaker: Order. New question.

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier as well. The Premier has said that the Solicitor General’s misconduct was bad enough that he agonized over asking for her resignation, yet at the same time be failed to insist that a full report of the incident be made public as soon as possible, although that was exactly what he did in the case of the member for Kingston and The Islands.

The Premier himself thereby acquiesced in a coverup. Is the Premier now prepared to correct his own error of judgement and release a full report of this incident with appropriate deletions of the names of people who are now before the courts?

Hon Mr Peterson: It is a serious matter, but I do object to the excessive and outrageous language the honourable member employs in this circumstance. Let me pass over that for a moment and say that it is a police report. I have explained this, I think, to his interim leader when he asked me the same question. It is a police report that deals with a particular set of circumstances in which charges have been laid, not against the Solicitor General but against another person. The advice I have in the matter is that it would be prejudicial with respect to a criminal proceeding that is being undertaken.

Mr Runciman : In the 4 December 1986 issue of Hansard, the Premier is quoted as saying in respect to the Ken Keyes incident, “The Attorney General decided to make that police report public, even though that is not the custom, because of the particularly sensitive nature of this matter and given the fact that it was the Solicitor General who was involved.”

We will hark back to yesterday, and again from Instant Hansard, the Solicitor General responding to my question: “The report was ordered by the Premier to be doubly certain for political reasons.” Is the Solicitor General perhaps inadvertently explaining the real reason why the Premier is reluctant, even adamant, to release this document to the House and to the public -- simply because of political reasons, as the Solicitor General suggests?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think there is a difference between that and the Keyes case. That was one exception, to the best of my memory, of when a police report was made public, but there is quite a distinct difference here. In that case, the Solicitor General was the accused and the accused agreed to have the report released, In this case, the Solicitor General is not the accused, someone else is the accused, so the matter is before the courts.

I think my honourable friend, on taking legal advice from one of his colleagues in front of him, would agree that is the appropriate response in the circumstance. I am sure the member for Cochrane South (Mr Pope), as a former Attorney General, would agree with that approach.

WASTE MANAGEMENT

Mrs Stoner: My question is to the Minister of the Environment and is about the provincial directions in waste management, specifically in waste reduction. The minister knows that landfill is a major issue in my riding and that my community is leading the way in recycling in Ontario. My constituents would like to see an expansion of the existing recycling programs. How is the minister responding?

Hon Mr Bradley: I think the member has certainly identified what has to be the wave of the future in terms of waste management when she talks about the reduction of the amount of material that would normally go into a landfill or an incinerator. It is our idea and plan, to be supplemented by a big investment of government’s money in this area as well as from the private sector, to expand rather considerably the blue box program that we have in the province now to include a number of other materials which, up to the recent past, have not been able to be recycled and to extend that right across Ontario.

We also -- and we have some of this happening at the present time -- are expanding our activities in Ontario, through the municipalities, into apartment dwellings, which in the past was not considered to be appropriate by some people. I always thought they would be an appropriate place to expand it. We expect the private sector to develop 4R programs which, for instance, would affect -- and again that would be with provincial help -- office towers and would reduce the tons of fine paper that have been recycled over the years.

In addition to that, construction companies will be recycling their materials, and food wholesalers and retailers. There are a number of issues. I could go on, but in the sense of time I should limit my remarks.

Mrs Stoner: Composting has the potential of reducing our waste stream significantly, and communities such as Seattle are doing so in their programs. What are we doing to encourage the composting of both kitchen and garden wastes?

Hon Mr Bradley: There is a considerable program being initiated in Ontario. Once again, there are a number of other jurisdictions looking at what we are doing in this direction. The member for Durham West has long been an advocate of composting and of other measures of reducing the material that would normally go into landfill sites. In fact, the province will be contributing an estimated $50 million for the expansion of this program.

It would work in two different ways. In some communities there would be a distribution of individual composters which would allow people, on a personal basis, to compost those items appropriate for that within their own household or within their own business. Second, other communities have selected the opportunity to use composters on a municipal-wide basis to ensure that material could be collected and wet and dry materials separated and composted. We have already had examples of leaves that used to be put in landfills being composted.

We see this as a major thrust forward. We think it will have a remarkable effect on the reduction of materials normally going to landfills, and I know that communities across this province will be supporting it very strongly.

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr B. Rae: I have a question of the Premier. The Premier has said it is his information or understanding that the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) withdrew as soon as she realized that she had been misled. I wonder how the Premier can possibly continue to say that when the facts are that the Solicitor General spoke to Mr Whalen’s father in the parking lot and was approached by Constable Foley, who was surprised to see the Solicitor General.

He approached her and she indicated to the officers that she was there in response to a call from the daughter alleging abuse to herself and her brother. She then went into the detachment. She was not accompanied by the father and was told specifically by the police that the father had just been there. She continued to stay there and spoke to the police, according to their information, for some five to 10 minutes.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us how this and the subsequent phone call are compatible with his statement in this House that the Solicitor General withdrew from any involvement in the case as soon as she realized she was there under false circumstances.

Hon Mr Peterson: There is an allegation that the parents were out of town and that the brother was being physically abused by the police. So she satisfied herself that those charges were not valid and left. There was no discussion about charges being laid or anything else, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr Brandt: And then called back.

Mr B. Rae: And then she phoned back two hours later. On 7 September 1978, after it was first revealed that Mr Kerr had phoned an assistant crown attorney, the then Premier said that he was satisfied that Mr Kerr acted from no motive other than a concern for his constituent’s problems.

The Premier will recall that the first instinct of the Premier at that time was not to insist on the resignation of Mr Kerr. But he did make this statement: “Such a call should not have been made, and Mr Kerr does not dispute that fundamental fact. Propriety, in the conduct of one’s affairs at all times, must be characteristic of the actions of any member of cabinet and must be so perceived by the public. That this requirement was not displayed, in this instance, is clear.”

I want to ask the Premier, why is he incapable of making a similar statement with regard to the conduct of his Solicitor General?

Hon Mr Peterson: As the honourable member knows, I think I have discussed this in a full and fair way, with my own views on the subject as well as the facts as I know them, but my honourable friend has not been here listening to the entire matter. I think we have discussed that as clearly as we possibly can, laid the dilemma before the members of the House, and a decision has been made.

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier, as well, on the same issue. I wonder if the Premier would advise the House if he or any member of his staff has discussed this issue, this controversy if we will, with Don Smith.

Hon Mr Peterson: Not as far as I know.

Mr Runciman: We would certainly appreciate the Premier’s following up on that and advising us, at some point in the not-too-distant future, if indeed it has occurred.

The Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) was quoted, in the 20 May issue of the London Free Press, in respect to this matter, “In retrospect, I don’t think I’d do anything differently.” Has the Premier discussed this matter with his Solicitor General?

He indicated that he was in extreme discomfort in respect to this whole matter. I wonder if he has discussed it with her and if he has advised her in respect to her future actions. Does he concur with what she is suggesting in the London Free Press, “In retrospect, I don’t think I’d do anything differently”?

Hon Mr Peterson: I have discussed it with her at great length; there is no question about it. Obviously, it is a concern to her. It is a concern to me. We have shared our views in this House with members in as forthright a way as we possibly can.

ELECTRIC POWER

Mr Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Energy. What is the status of negotiations between TransCanada, ConGas and Ontario Hydro?

Hon Mr Wong: Yesterday, I met with the president of Ontario Hydro. I was pleased to raise this matter with the president and can assure the honourable member that negotiations concerning the installation of a gas-fired power-generating station facility at Hearn continue to be ongoing.

Mr Tatham: Is Ontario Hydro planning to use more natural gas for future power generation?

Hon Mr Wong: I thank the honourable member for his questions. I think that even before the Power Corporation Act amendments have been passed, Ontario Hydro is showing a responsiveness and a sensitivity to what the people, industries and other users of electricity within this province want. People in this province and the industries want a reliable supply of electricity. They want low-cost electricity and they want our environment to be protected as much as possible when we are generating electricity. One advantage of natural gas, of course, is that it is less environmentally harmful than coal-burning fossil-fuel plants.

In conclusion, let me say that the natural gas option is one that Hydro is certainly considering in its plans for development of the system. It will give the electricity system in Ontario diversification and flexibility, so we hope that we will see more use of natural gas in the future.

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr Kormos: The Premier tells us that he is going to keep secret the report prepared by the Ontario Provincial Police. It remains that this report does not concern itself with the charges laid against the young people in Lucan, but the report prepared out of Toronto concerns itself with the attendance of the Solicitor General at the police station and the subsequent contact by the Solicitor General with the police.

Is not the real reason that the Premier will not release that report because it chronicles and documents very precisely the inappropriateness of the Solicitor General’s behaviour; the fact that she did not withdraw when she became aware that the parents were there and that there was no harm done to anybody who had been arrested that evening? Is that not the real reason we are not being allowed to see that secret report?

Hon Mr Peterson: My honourable friend is absolutely wrong and is taking a very different line than his leader takes in asking questions. The facts were laid forward in that.

Judgements were not made about the appropriateness of that particular set of behaviours. Those are judgements for me to make, as the honourable member’s leader asked in questions some time ago. It laid out the facts. It did not lay out any conclusions with respect to the appropriateness of it.

Mr Kormos: All the more reason that the report should not be secret. We should be allowed to see it and see exactly what the Solicitor General did. It remains that, using the police in this way, using the Ontario Provincial Police like a private or secret government police, preparing secret reports for the Premier’s eyes only, secret reports that the rest of this Legislature is not entitled to look at, is that not an abuse of the OPP? Does that not put the OPP into a compromised and totally unacceptable position?

Hon Mr Peterson: I believe my honourable friend is a lawyer, although it would be hard to discern from the question he just asked. He understands that police reports are not made public. Surely, he has been in criminal court enough in his life to understand that. My honourable friend’s use of innuendo and value-laden words is, frankly for a lawyer, not appropriate.

Mr Brandt: Again, with respect to the same issue, since the Premier has indicated that the Solicitor General did not in fact have any influence over any of the proceedings that occurred at the station that particular evening, could he perhaps, as a result of his eyes having seen the police report, indicate why it was necessary for the Solicitor General, after having visited that location that evening, to make the subsequent phone call that occurred? Why was the follow-up phone call necessary?

Hon Mr Peterson: Charges were laid and I think that she wanted to make sure that there was no misunderstanding about why she went there. It was in a humanitarian capacity, to respond to a call in the middle of the night and I think that was the reason for it.

Mr Brandt: I am having increasing difficulty with the way in which the Premier is responding to these questions. It is not easy for those of us in opposition, as l am sure it is not easy for him. The fact of the matter is that the Premier has in fact established his defence on the basis that the Solicitor General perhaps did not act according to how the Premier wished she had acted, but did nothing inappropriate.

I ask the Premier again, if in fact the Solicitor General was not, even in some modest way, interfering with the way in which justice was being carried out that evening, why was the subsequent phone call necessary?

Hon Mr Peterson: For the reasons I have expressed and the facts as I have them. The question is, did she interfere in the carriage of justice, and the answer in my judgement is no. Charges were laid in the circumstances and those are the facts. They are there for all to see.

OTTAWA AREA HOSPITALS

Mr Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of Health. Last week, the Ottawa area members met with the administrators of our hospitals. One of the questions raised was the decrease in revenue for Quebec patients who are no longer treated at Ottawa area hospitals. As the minister probably knows, the Quebec side has now moved ahead with several hospital constructions and they are serving the Quebec residents on that side of the river. However, this means that there is a revenue loss for the Ottawa area hospitals.

I understand that the administrators have recommended that the ministry undertake to negotiate, with each Ottawa hospital, a mutually acceptable base, from which point that institution’s Quebec revenue budget will be rolled into the budget base of the Ministry of Health.

I am wondering whether the minister is prepared to follow through with this recommendation?

Hon Mrs Caplan: I want to thank the member for the question, which is of significant importance to the Ottawa area hospitals.

When the Ottawa hospital system was originally built there was in fact significant capacity arranged in that area to meet the needs of Quebec residents who would be coming to Ontario for services. Over the course of time, that has fluctuated and created problems in planning for the Ottawa area hospitals.

I want to tell the member that I visited Ottawa, and we have made a commitment to attempt to work co-operatively with the hospitals to resolve what has been a difficult issue. As well, it is very important that we review the capacity requirements and needs of the Ottawa area in light of the changing relationship with Quebec and the needs of the people of Ottawa as they relate to the Quebec revenue issue.

Mr Daigeler: I appreciate the minister’s willingness to work with the hospitals to look at this serious situation. I understand there have been negotiations with the Ministry of Health already. Could she give us some indication as to what time frame she is looking at, within which this important question might be settled?

Hon Mrs Caplan: In the past, adjustments have been made on an annual basis to the hospitals for those costs which could be directly related to loss of Quebec revenue. This is a situation which is not unique to Ottawa; it implies a relationship between Ontario and Quebec, and in fact has implications on the Manitoba border as well.

I can tell the member of our commitment to wanting to resolve this in a manner which is considered fair and equitable, and that we are working co-operatively with the hospitals to develop an approach that will resolve an issue which has been very difficult for the hospitals in the Ottawa area particularly, to be able to encourage the kind of good planning that we all know is necessary if we are going to be able to deliver the services to our communities that they really need in the future.

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr B. Rae: I want to go back to the Premier again. He has already stated that he had received a criminal investigation report from the Ontario Provincial Police with regard to the conduct of the Solicitor General, which dealt in some detail with the question of criminality. I hope the Premier would not be saying that one has to be proven a criminal before one’s conduct would be deemed inappropriate.

The question that I have for the Premier is this: has he had any conversations with senior officers of the OPP with regard, not to the criminality of the Solicitor General’s conduct, but to the appropriateness of her conduct?

Hon Mr Peterson: The answer is no.

Mr B. Rae: The obvious question would be, why the hell not? The Premier told us on Thursday that the police report said there was nothing “untoward,” but in fact the police report did not say what the Premier told us it said back on Thursday.

I would like to ask the Premier if he could document for us very specifically what conversations he has had with the Solicitor General with regard to the appropriateness of her conduct; and precisely what standard and what message he is sending to her and to other members of his cabinet with regard to their contact with law officers of the crown, as well as with senior police officers and with police officials who are dealing in their day-to-day jobs with the citizens of this province.

Hon Mr Peterson: Obviously, if the Solicitor General or any member of the cabinet does anything that in any way influences untowardly the course of justice or the laying of a charge, that very clearly would be inappropriate.

In the circumstances, and the facts brought forward in the report, that was not the case and in fact charges were laid. That was part of the report coming back to me. I made my judgement based on those facts.

As the member said, the function of the police report was to give me the facts so I could make judgements based on those. I did that and I thought that was appropriate in the circumstances.

Mr Runciman: To the Premier again with respect to the Solicitor General’s misconduct. The sad fact of the situation is that in this case the Premier has set aside all his own past statements and policies as well as the public good, because of political debts. If Ken Keyes’s name were Ken Smith, he would still be Solicitor General.

Can the Premier tell us how many other ministers are exempt from the general rules of conduct for cabinet ministers?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am trying to be as forthcoming as I can, but I do not think that the question merits a response.

Mr Runciman: That holier-than-thou reaction was really, “The answer is there is no answer.” The Premier does not have an adequate answer for this House.

The Speaker: And you have a supplementary?

Mr Runciman: Earlier the Premier was asked about how he knew about this incident. He mentioned a member of staff. I wonder if he could advise us specifically how this member of staff learned about the incident and under what authority he himself personally ordered a police investigation?

Hon Mr Peterson: It was done through the Deputy Solicitor General.

NIAGARA DETENTION CENTRE

Mr Pelissero: I have a question to the Minister of Correctional Services. Recently the minister was down in the Niagara Peninsula opening an addition to the Niagara Detention Centre and received some criticism with respect to the facility only being readily accessible to young male offenders. I was wondering if the minister would wish to comment on that.

Hon Mr Ramsay: It was a pleasure to be down in Welland-Thorold and welcome the member there when we opened this facility, the addition to the Niagara Detention Centre for young offenders.

The member is quite right. With the counsel we had and the transportation needs of the regional police to transport young offenders to the Hamilton-Wentworth facility, we felt that it would be most appropriate just to build a facility for male young offenders at that time.

Mr Pelissero: I was wondering if the minister has any plans to correct this situation in the future should the need arise.

Hon Mr Ramsay: I would like to assure the member that I will be continually monitoring the count situation at that facility. If need warrants, we could make plans in the future for expansion.

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr B. Rae: I want to go back to the Premier, because, frankly -- like, I am sure, many other Ontario citizens -- I remain entirely unclear as to what this Premier’s standards of conduct are with regard to a senior law officer of the crown, in this case the Solicitor General, in terms of what contact with police is acceptable, what contact with other law officers is acceptable and what is appropriate.

I do not know now, and I do not think the people of this province know, what the standard the Premier of Ontario is. He has said if somebody commits a crime, that is to say is accused of or alleged to be interfering with the course of justice, then that would be unacceptable. I would hope that it would be unacceptable; you would be charged by the police. It would be hard to know how you could carry on as Solicitor General.

What I want to ask the Premier is this: Short of committing a crime, what precisely is his standard? What is the Solicitor General supposed to do next weekend when she gets the phone calls from all those people who now have her phone number? What is she expected to do with regard to problems that she says constituents are facing with the police? Is she supposed to go down to the police station next week? Yes or no?

Hon Mr Peterson: Obviously, no one can interfere personally in the administration of justice with respect to the laying of charges or bring any influence to bear one way or the other. In other words, she cannot say, “I want charges laid against this person” or say “I don’t want charges laid against this person.”

Mr B. Rae: That is criminal.

Hon Mr Peterson: Well, no. With great respect, there is nothing criminal about that. I do not think my honourable friend is right, but she cannot have any influence on that and neither can anyone else -- neither should he or me or anyone else -- and clearly, that has got to be a rule that has got to be sacrosanct.

Mr B. Rae: Back in 1976, 12 March, to be precise, the Prime Minister of Canada was faced with a problem. It was alleged in a newspaper that a number of ministers of his cabinet had in fact been having conversations with judges. There was a special inquiry held by the Chief Justice of Quebec, Mr Deschênes, which found that in fact there was no criminal wrongdoing, that in fact there was no attempt to obstruct or interfere with the course of justice, but there was another question for the Prime Minister of Canada and that was the appropriateness, the judgement of ministers in dealing, in this case, with judges.

At that time the Prime Minister of Canada made a special statement in the House of Commons. He laid down a standard which made it clear there could be no contact whatsoever between individual ministers and members of the judiciary --

The Speaker: You have a question?

Mr B. Rae: -- and subsequently a member of the cabinet broke that rule and was asked for his resignation, and he resigned.

I want to ask the Premier: Why does he have such difficulty in setting out, with clarity, standards which have been laid down by the Prime Minister of Canada and Premier Davis with regard to the appropriateness of what the Solicitor General did on that Saturday night at one o’clock and at four o’clock in the morning?

Hon Mr Peterson: The member brings in an analogy about bringing influence to bear on a crown attorney and/or a judge, and I say to my honourable friend, I think those are quite different circumstances. I have said to him as clearly as I possibly can what I think the standards have to be here and I try to be as forthcoming as I can in responding to his question.

Mr Brandt: Again, I would like to advise the Premier, as he is well aware, that the first public information of this particular incident came to our attention as a result of a story that appeared in the newspaper. I wonder if the Premier could share with us who in fact informed his government, either the assistant deputy minister, his office or whoever, that there was a visit by the Solicitor General to the Lucan detachment.

Hon Mr Peterson: I was told by my staff. I am not exactly sure who called them. I think it was the Solicitor General and/or her staff.

Mr Brandt: Surely, when we cannot get at the police report, which the Premier indicates is not available for us to observe for reasons that he has outlined, and when we are in fact attempting to get to the bottom of the story as to how it unfolded, it would be of some interest to determine who thought the incident was serious enough to advise the government, either the Solicitor General’s office or the Office of the Premier, that an incident had occurred in Lucan.

The simple question I have, which I think deserves a response, is: Who made the contact indicating that there was a problem there? Was it an OPP officer, some government member, or who?

Hon Mr Peterson: The Deputy Solicitor General, who told my staff, who told me.

EDUCATION FINANCING

Mr Black: My question is for the Minister of Education. In the recent budget speech, there were some announcements related to the pooling of commercial and industrial assessment and the impact that would have on education financing across the province.

I know that was a recommendation of the Macdonald Commission on the Financing of Elementary and Secondary Education in this province and I know that the minister and his staff have been looking at those recommendations at some length, over some considerable period of time.

I wonder if the minister could share with the House some of the options that were discussed and some of the alternatives that he examined before arriving at the particular model that he did arrive at.

Hon Mr Ward: The member is correct that the Macdonald commission did make a recommendation for the province-wide pooling of commercial and industrial assessment.

I want to stress to the member that the model we chose and the plan we will be utilizing is a regional one in that it will not see revenue from assessment within a given municipality shift outside the boundaries of that municipality by providing access to commercial and industrial assessment of publicly traded corporations. There will of course be some shift in revenues. This, however, is to be offset by increases in the grant ceilings.

One of the other options that was available to us was a province-wide shift which would have involved amounts in excess of $1 billion. A further option was the utilization of access to this revenue only on the basis of growth, in other words, just as new commercial and industrial assessment came on.

The latter option was rejected because it would have taken many, many years to achieve any sort of equity. The first option was not acceptable because of the size of the shifts involved and the localized impacts in some communities and also the fact that there would be a disincentive to regional economic development programs undertaken in many municipalities to attract business and industry.

Mr Black: I guess I am somewhat puzzled by what has taken place here and I wonder if the minister could share with me some further information that might help me understand the situation.

I believe I am right in saying that the minister rejected one of the alternatives he was looking at, which was a full pooling of commercial-industrial assessment across the province. He also gave an indication following the budget speech that no public school board would suffer any loss of revenues as a result of this fairly significant change that has taken place.

I wonder if the minister could elaborate a little on that for the benefit of all members of this House, regardless of the parts of the province they may represent. Could the minister share with us exactly what he meant by that statement?

The Speaker: I believe the question has been asked.

Hon Mr Ward: As a matter of fact, the question was so long I forgot what it was. But let me begin by saying that there are two initiatives involved here. One, of course, is the fact that publicly traded corporations will now be divided on the basis of the ratio of residential assessment in a given community, as opposed to the Treasury taking all of that revenue. The second major initiative is an extraordinary increase in grant ceilings over the phase-in period. The net result is that no public board will lose revenue as a result of this.

I just happen to have at my fingertips the figures for Muskoka, which may help the member somewhat. Based on projections utilizing the 1987 assessment rolls, bearing in mind that those are the most current data available, there would be a revenue loss as a result of access to the commercial-industrial assessment of about $32,000. The grant ceilings should provide --

The Speaker: Thank you. You may sit down.

SOLICITOR GENERAL’S VISIT TO POLICE STATION

Mr Kormos: I have a question of the Premier. The Ontario Provincial Police obviously have great concern because he tells us now that the original complaint about the conduct of the Solicitor General (Mrs Smith) is directed to the ministry from the OPP. People in the community have great concern because they see an interference here with police work, particularly when it was not a matter of making a phone call at 1:40 or 1:45 in the morning, but was a matter of driving to the OPP detachment.

It was not a matter of stopping short when she realized that the father was there, that he had spoken with his son and that there clearly could be no difficulties that could have arisen. Why is it that this sensation of impropriety exists across the province, yet the Premier persists in defending the conduct of the Solicitor General when it was so clearly improper?

Hon Mr Peterson: It was not a complaint coming from the OPP, it was just regular information that was passed on to my office, as is normal.

Obviously, it could be a very sensitive matter and obviously it is. I say to my friend that I think many people, in looking at the circumstances in a similar situation, would say, “Now look, here was a phone call in the middle of the night, certain allegations were made and a response was taken by the Solicitor General .” They would not judge it nearly as harshly as the member would, and they might, frankly, interpret the member’s motive as being political when he stands up in this House and continues to just be critical.

Mr Kormos: Exactly what did the Solicitor General have in mind when she went to the police detachment? She is not a lawyer and she did not concern herself with any apparent urgency by making a telephone call. She persisted in going into that police station, notwithstanding that she knew that the boy’s father had been there and that he had visited with his son.

The police were dealing with a particularly unruly accused. His conduct resulted in charges; there were two counts of mischief being laid as a result of the young man’s conduct in the police station. His own father did not want to take him home but rather told the police, “Keep him there until late in the morning and I’ll come back for him then.”

Do the police not have a hard enough job to do without the Solicitor General getting involved in what is very difficult work on their part?

Hon Mr Peterson: I think it just shows my honourable friend that justice works in this province, and he would support that.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Order.

Mr Runciman: My question is to the Premier on the same issue. One of the most serious things wrong with what the Solicitor General did that night was to leave the impression that she was trying to influence members of the OPP and how they handled a particular case. I think the Toronto Star story today highlights that. It is essential that there be and be seen to be equal justice for all in this province.

Can the Premier give us a categorical assurance that, as far as he knows, no OPP officer has indicated any feeling of intimidation or pressure as a result of this incident? If he cannot give this assurance, will he tell the House who felt intimidated or pressured and why?

Hon Mr Peterson: I am not aware of anyone who felt intimidated, because obviously charges were laid in the circumstances.

Mr Runciman: I will go back to an area that the Premier avoided answering earlier, and that is with respect to a comment the Solicitor General made in this House yesterday.

The Speaker: Actually, the question is supposed to come out of the response.

Mr Runciman: It is a supplementary. It is dealing with the same issue. The Solicitor General, in respect of the police report, indicated that it was authorized by the Premier and carried out for political reasons. Does the Premier agree with that assessment?

Hon Mr Peterson: What I wanted to do was to clearly determine, in an independent way, the facts of the situation. Some have suggested that I should have talked to the OPP to get advice on the matter, but did not. I got it all on paper, the facts of the situation. Then I had to make judgements with respect to the appropriateness.

I told the member how I agonized about that. I told him how I can understand a human response of the Solicitor General, a humanitarian one, if you will. I can understand as well other people having a different view of the situation. Ultimately, the judgement I had to make was whether this warrants dismissal from the executive council. That was the judgement.

The member for Leeds-Grenville may have taken a different view, my friends opposite may have taken a different view, but I took the view that it was not serious enough in the circumstances, because justice did work. Justice operated and charges were laid in the circumstances, and that is now before the courts. That is the course of action I chose.

PETITIONS

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mrs Fawcett: “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.”

I have signed the petition.

HOME CARE

Mr McCague: “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:

“We support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”

I have signed this.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr M. C. Ray: I have two petitions. The first is 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 system.”

I have signed this petition.

ANIMALS FOR RESEARCH

Mr M. C. Ray: I have a second petition to the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

“Each year, thousands of animals suffer and die slow, painful deaths in laboratory tests of cosmetics and household products.

“These tests are cruel and not required by any provincial or federal law.

“Safe alternative methods of testing such products do exist; methods that do not involve the use of animals, but do provide reliable results.

“Therefore, we, the undersigned, beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario to pass into law a bill prohibiting the use of animals in cosmetic and product testing.”

I have also signed that one.

HOME CARE

Mr Black: I have a petition signed by 77 residents of Simcoe county, addressed 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:

“We support the expansion of home care and visiting nurses services as the most cost-efficient mode of health care delivery. We therefore want our government to adequately fund the Victorian Order of Nurses.”

I have signed my name to this petition.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr Wiseman: I have a petition from 444 people who work in my riding, which 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:

“We care about the injured workers of Ontario and object to Bill 162, because the proposed changes will take payments away from injured workers who the minister feels have been paid too much or too long. Only strong reinstatement rights, real retraining provisions and pension reform, not pension removal, will improve the workers’ compensation system.”

I have signed this too.

NATUROPATHY

Ms Bryden: I have a petition on the subject of naturopathy addressed 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:

“Whereas it is my constitutional right to have available and to choose the health care system of my preference; and

“Whereas naturopathy has had self-governing status in Ontario for more than 42 years;

“We petition the Ontario Legislature to call on the government to introduce legislation that would guarantee naturopaths the right to practise their art and science to the fullest without prejudice or harassment.”

This petition is signed by 20 people, and I have signed it myself. I support it.

WASTE DISPOSAL

Mrs Stoner: I have two petitions 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:

“We request that Premier David Peterson and Minister of the Environment Jim Bradley guarantee that any proposal for a solid waste landfill in the region of Durham be subject to a full environmental assessment under the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act; and further

“That the Minister of the Environment not utilize the less restrictive provisions of the Environmental Protection Act to convene a hearing before the Environmental Assessment Board with regard to said proposal and thereby bypass the provisions of the Environmental Assessment Act and a full environmental assessment.”

I have signed this, and it is also signed by 24 residents of Durham.

My second petition is somewhat similar. It reads:

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

“To request that the Premier and government of Ontario withdraw immediately the P1 site located on provincially owned land in the town of Pickering as a proposed new mega dump site for Metro Toronto; and

“To urge that Metro Toronto never again be permitted to locate garbage dumps anywhere in the region of Durham; and further

“To urge that whenever a site or sites are chosen, either as contingency or long-term dump sites anywhere in the region of Durham or in the province of Ontario, the people always be granted their full and complete environmental rights and safeguards according to the Environmental Assessment Act processes.”

This has been signed by 24 residents of Durham and myself.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Miss Roberts: 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 refused to allow an equitable partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and satisfactory dispute resolution processes;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

There are 61 names, and I have affixed my name to the various petitions, as required by the rules.

Mr Tatham: This is from the local members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, district 46, Oxford:

“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 refused to allow an equal partnership between teachers and government in management of the pension fund, establishment of an acceptable contribution increase, benefit adjustments, equitable treatment of future surpluses and a satisfactory dispute resolution process;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to insist that the Treasurer of Ontario negotiate with the Ontario Teachers’ Federation towards an equitable settlement.”

That is signed by 220 good people and my name also is affixed.

Mr MacDonald: I also have a petition.

“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 to 10 years.

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

I have affixed my name thereto.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

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

Mr Morin-Strom: This is a motion that certainly I cannot endorse. The budgetary policy of this government as reflected in the budget that was delivered last week certainly has serious flaws in it.

Today I would like to address at least briefly some of the concerns with respect to tax fairness, an issue of prime concern to residents of this province and of concern with respect to all levels of government. As the years pass, it seems that our tax system gets more and more regressive and puts the burden more and more unfairly on consumers and on middle- and lower-income residents both of Ontario and of Canada as a whole. This government in this budget certainly has not gone the distance it should have in terms of putting some progressivity into our tax structure.

I guess I would really characterize it as an opportunity lost. The Treasurer (Mr R. F. Nixon) has had many recommendations made to him that came from our critic in terms of the opportunities that were there to improve tax fairness in Ontario. I, as a member of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, know that we had suggestions made to our committee from groups across the province in the public hearings we held, recommending improvements to our tax structure that could make the system fairer and more equitable for everyone in Ontario.

Many of these recommendations were made to the Treasurer in terms of possible tax changes that could be made with our system, but for the most part they have been rejected out of hand. The Treasurer has not acted with respect to ensuring that everyone pay at least some tax at the higher income levels. We do not have in Ontario today a principle that everyone at least pay a minimum tax. The wealthy and major corporations have the availability of large tax write-offs and loopholes which allow them to avoid having to pay taxes despite having high incomes.

Today we have figures that indicate more than 2,900 taxpayers with incomes of over $50,000 last year were not taxpayers at all and paid zero income taxes either to the federal government or to the Ontario provincial government. When it comes to income taxes, which should be the fairest system of taxation and the one we would encourage the use of because it is based on ability to pay and allows for formulas that would allow progressivity in the tax calculation, the provincial government continues to adopt and use the formulas that are being implemented on the federal level by the Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson.

The Treasurer knows full well that as a provincial government we have the right to set our own income tax formulas and calculations. Quebec has taken that initiative and has taken the opportunity to change the tax rules and ensure a fairer tax system, an opportunity that is available to our Treasurer but which he has rejected in this budget.

When it comes to sales taxes, the Treasurer continues to rely on sales tax as a major source of revenues for the province. Last year the Treasurer hit the province with an increase from seven per cent to eight per cent in our provincial sales tax, and as a result of that he took in an increase in revenues of well over 20 per cent above the revenues he had taken in the year before from sales tax. These are revenues coming from a form of taxation which is very hard on the consumers of the province and does not hit the wealthy and those who are able to put much of their income into investments and savings, as opposed to those who have to buy goods and services with most of their income.

One of the major tax opportunities that could have been used, particularly here in the Metropolitan Toronto area, was the opportunity to do something about the tremendous speculation in house prices. There could have been a speculation tax imposed on speculators -- not on home owners who occupy their own home; we are talking about speculators who are buying and selling and trading properties. In many cases properties are being traded, purchased on pure speculation months and years in advance even of the actual construction.

While that construction is going on, speculators are trading on the value of the housing market. The final home buyer, the person who is actually going to live in the home, ends up paying tremendously inflated prices because of the overheated market and the high percentage of units, both single-family homes and condominium units, that are currently in the hands of speculators who are looking for a quick buck.

The Treasurer could have made a move to provide some revenues from a speculation tax. As well, it would have gone some considerable distance to cooling down an overheated market in a marketplace where it has become more and more difficult for average income earners, for young families, to actually have the opportunity to have their own home, to be able to purchase their own unit, whether it is a condominium unit or a single-family home.

That opportunity is only available today to those who have incomes well over the average income in Ontario; and in many communities, income levels required for mortgages on the average priced home now have to be from $80,000 to $100,000 just to be able to convince a bank that you can handle the mortgage payments.

The one area I think the Treasurer has come through on, in terms of an issue that will be of benefit to many, is the elimination of Ontario health insurance plan premiums. This is the one initiative I would commend the government for. It has been long overdue. It is an item that our party has stood for and advocated for a long time, certainly going back to the accord agreement that was negotiated four years ago with the Liberals.

I wish the government had acted on it sooner, but the elimination of the OHIP premiums will go some distance to assisting those kinds of employees, particularly at the lower-income levels, who do not have higher-level management jobs or a strong union that is able to negotiate the payment of their OHIP premiums. Many lower-income working people in Ontario have been paying that cost of more than $700 a year for their OHIP premiums, one of the most regressive sources of income this province has had. I know the Treasurer will find that one a political winner in terms of the numbers of people it will assist.

The funding for the replacement of the funds that came in for OHIP premiums -- And we know that OHIP premiums were only paying, I believe the Treasurer had indicated before, 16 per cent of the total cost of health care in Ontario as projected for this year. As an alternative for raising that portion of the cost of health care, the government has proposed to impose a new payroll tax that it calls the employer health levy. I certainly do not think that was the best alternative to OHIP premiums. Although it is better than continuing OHIP premiums. there would have been sources in the tax structure that would have been far fairer and more progressive than imposing a payroll tax.

There is also some question about why the imposition of the payroll tax should be in the form of something called an employer health levy. I take it that the Treasurer sees that as an opportunity to justify the payroll tax, by putting it on to a subject matter that everyone in the province endorses and knows has to be funded, but it is a bit deceptive to suggest that the employer health levy will pay the costs of our health care in the province today. In fact, it will only cover a relatively small proportion, under one quarter of the total cost of health care in the province, so by no means should people or employers think they are paying the full cost of health care through this levy.

However, I am one who is not totally opposed to the concept of a payroll tax. I think a payroll tax is one source of taxation that had to be looked at by the province and probably an appropriate one to be in a mix of revenues for the province. It is one which puts some burden on the business community to pay at least some taxes in Ontario. There are serious problems with our corporate tax structure today when we have thousands of corporations making considerable profit paying zero corporate taxes.

The government could have taken steps towards insisting that corporations pay at least a minimum tax, an item that even President Reagan and the American government moved ahead on for their corporate sector. I guess we could take some solace in feeling that a payroll tax is insisting that corporations pay at least a certain portion, based on the size of the corporation and the number of employees, towards the costs of the province.

I would also think that with the level of the economy we have in Ontario today and the increase in revenues he has seen over the last year, the Treasurer could have used that opportunity to do more in terms of a fairer tax system than having to rely on some of the other increases he has imposed on, for example, drivers in the province. If there is one set of consumers that got hit hard in this budget, it is the drivers of Ontario. The increase in gasoline taxes has to be one of the unfairest and least justified taxes the Treasurer has imposed on the province.

When we were within the minority government, the New Democrats insisted that this government have no further increases in gasoline taxes, and there was a freeze on gas taxes for that two-years-plus we were in the minority government. Now that we are back after a second election and the Liberals have a majority government, we see them sticking it to the drivers of the province, going back to the former policies of the Conservative government and imposing a very regressive, difficult tax that hits everyone on approximately the same basis,

In communities like mine and others in northern Ontario where drivers have to have cars, where, because of the distance involved, everyone drives relatively similar amounts and is dependent upon cars as the major means of transportation, the result of a heavy tax on gasoline is that it is a tax everyone pays in approximately the same amount. It is not based on income or ability to pay, and as a result it places a very difficult burden on lower-income and middle-income taxpayers and virtually no burden on higher-income people.

As well, this kind of tax is one which particularly hurts economic development and business activity in regions of the province which are geographically dispersed and farther away from marketplaces. Certainly in northern Ontario, we realize the kind of cost penalty we have, the disadvantages of our transportation infrastructure structure and the penalty we have to pay for energy costs, heating and, most particularly, gasoline and diesel fuel for carrying goods and services back and forth across the highways to reach our communities in terms of the goods we are purchasing in northern Ontario.

Then, for products that come out of the north, when one puts a penalty on industry in the north with higher and higher gasoline taxes, it is one which discourages the development and diversification of the northern economy.

I had hoped this government would have tried to change that type of policy and gone to a more enlightened policy which recognizes the difficulties of various regions more geographically away from the heartland of Metropolitan Toronto, where the major population and markets are, and recognizes that there are real benefits to encouraging economic development. A big part of that encouragement is providing the transportation infrastructure and ensuring that the costs of getting goods and services from communities in northern and eastern Ontario and the rural communities of Ontario can be done at a fair and reasonable cost.

Finally, in terms of taxation concerns, we have to express concern about where this province is going with its relationship to the municipalities and school boards of the province. I suppose the Treasurer uses the excuse of the federal government’s cutting back on transfer payments to Ontario as his excuse for doing the same to municipalities and school boards.

This government has not kept up its level of funding to municipalities. It has frozen funding particularly on an important component called unconditional grants and that freeze has resulted in municipalities having to impose property tax increases of eight per cent, 10 per cent or higher just to be able to keep up to inflationary increases in their costs, because in real terms the money coming from the provincial government has decreased.

This is putting a particular burden on communities like my own in Sault Ste Marie and the taxpayers are getting hit again with major property tax increases, a form of taxation which the province should be working towards eliminating, and certainly decreasing its emphasis as a source of tax revenue to governments in the province.

When it comes to education taxes, again, this government has done nothing to live up to its own commitment and its own promises in the last two election campaigns to ensure that the province goes back to the historical level of funding 60 per cent of the cost of education in Ontario.

Since the early 1970s, the percentage that the province has provided to school boards has declined continuously to a point where it had reached 47 per cent or 48 per cent when the Liberals took power in Ontario. Despite their commitment to move back to a 60 per cent funding of the cost of education, they have continued the decline in their support for our school systems and now we are down to support levels of 42 per cent to 43 per cent of education costs to school boards across the province funded from provincial taxpayers.

The burden is going on to municipal taxpayers, and property taxes for education, for our school boards are one of the most serious problems in terms of escalation of taxes to ratepayers across Ontario.

In many communities now education taxes are higher than their municipal property taxes, a very unfair burden and one that certainly does not make any sense in terms of the throne speech announcements we heard several weeks ago where the government proclaimed that among its six priorities, one of them was going to be education.

It really is a farce when a government says that one of its priority items is education and then continues a process of reducing funding and putting more and more of the education burden on to local school boards who have to hit their local taxpayers with increases well above the inflation rate just to stay even, let alone to be able to pay for some of the new programs that are being imposed upon them by the provincial government.

One of the surprise announcements in this budget was the announcement with respect to pooling. The Treasurer has taken it upon himself to announce that all local tax bases for educational property taxes “will be shared equitably by all school boards in the same area.” It is unusual that this announcement should come from the Treasurer and not from the Minister of Education (Mr Ward), particularly considering the amount of concern that has been expressed about this issue by school boards across the province, both Roman Catholic school boards and the public school boards.

My concern here is, how can one say that one is moving towards an equitable source of funding from commercial and industrial property tax assessment when one is going to do it on the basis of boards only in one particular area? How can one justify that a sharing is, as the Treasurer claims, “shared equitably” when the sharing occurs only in a given area? Most particularly, I do not see how this government can continue to justify the tremendous tax base that is available to the city of Toronto and the Metropolitan Toronto area because of the tremendous amount of commercial development in downtown Toronto.

In my view, the institutions -- those major banks, the financial institutions, the insurance companies and all those head offices on Bay Street in downtown Toronto -- represent corporations that service all of Ontario; those offices are not offices exclusively serving the city of Toronto. The sense of this government continuing to provide that tremendous tax base from those institutions arid the value of those properties solely to the school boards in Toronto does a disservice to this government, as it does a disservice to all the people of Ontario.

If one wants to look at fairness and equity in terms of a tax base, an assessment base where school boards have the right to get property taxes from commercial and industrial operations, fairness will never be achieved as long as that concentration of economic wealth in the city of Toronto provides a tax base solely for the school boards in Toronto. I do not see the solution presented by this government as one which is an appropriate one.

It is not one that is fair to rural Ontario, it is not one that is fair to eastern Ontario, it is not one that is fair to many communities in southern Ontario and it is certainly not fair to all our communities in northern Ontario. I would ask that this government reconsider its way of sharing that property tax base to ensure that there is some real fairness to property taxpayers right across Ontario.

Of course, in the long run, property taxes are a completely inappropriate source of revenue for Ontario. I would suggest that this government should be looking at new and innovative ways of funding municipalities that would allow us to avoid the use of property taxes. In particular, I would suggest that this government should look into the possibility of replacing property taxes on a local basis with a more progressive form of taxation, preferably personal income taxes.

In particular, I think this government should look at the possibility of allowing municipalities to disband their property taxes and go to a municipal income tax as an alternative. A municipal income tax which would piggyback on to the provincial income tax but still allow municipalities the right to control their own bases and set their own percentages would be a much fairer way of raising funds on a municipal basis.

I think we really have to have a joint provincial-municipal study and co-operation to look at how we might be able to make municipal taxes fairer taxes. I would strongly suggest that either a sales tax, or more preferably an income tax at the municipal level, would be a far more preferable alternative to the current property taxes, which are more and more becoming the major, if not the only source of new tax revenues being provided to them by this provincial government. I think they are moving in the wrong direction.

We could be moving to a system of fairer taxes in Ontario, but unfortunately our Treasurer again this year has found an opportunity and has lost it. This really is an opportunity lost. I regret that I cannot support the budget direction that has been indicated in the budget address by the Treasurer. I ask that members from all parties take very serious consideration as to what the alternatives could be for a fairer system of taxation for all the taxpayers and all the types of taxation we have in Ontario.

Mr Cousens: This is an important budget that is touching just about everybody in this province, and as one realizes that the power does lie with the government to implement its programs, as poorly defined and as poorly thought out as they might be, it has brought forward a budget that is really invoking the anger and the frustration of those of us who sit opposite and try to understand just where this government is coming from and why it is doing this to Ontario. There are many problems that I have with this budget and I trust that I will have enough time in this House to at least touch upon some of them.

The problem you have when you are in opposition, as I am, sitting with the Progressive Conservative Party, is that there are 17 of us and there are 113 of them. That includes both the Liberals and the New Democratic Party. I am not about to agree with some of the statements made by my friend the member for Sault Ste Marie (Mr Morin-Strom), but it really is that what you would call the balance of power really does not give that much opportunity for those who do oppose this budget to really stand up, stop it and force some thinking on it.

If there were a minority government right now, if there was some way in which this government had to negotiate with other members of this House, I can assure you, Mr Speaker, it would not be presenting this budget to this House, because if it was a minority government, it would be defeated. The combined resources of both the New Democrats and ourselves would be sufficient, maybe for different reasons, but at least we would be speaking for the people of Ontario. I have to say I believe that, on balance, I am speaking for the people of Ontario.

There are things within this budget that I will touch upon that I see as a positive statement and something that indeed is needed so that we can become stronger, more tolerant and a province that really is the place that people want to live, but I see major problems with the fact that this government continues to have a deficit when in fact we are dealing with an economy that is burgeoning.

It is strong, it is strident, it is growing, and yet what continues to grow at the same pace as the economy is this government’s size. They have increased the size of this government by more than 7,000 since they came to power four years ago. They continue to spend money in the delivery of programs that really affect the staff and the complement of people who are delivering them, but not the people who are receiving the support. An example of that is the Ministry of Housing, where the budget in four years has gone from $7 million or $8 million to over $40 million -- just phenomenal increases in the cost of running government.

What it is is the ineptitude of a group of people who came from Ottawa when Pierre Elliott Trudeau went into his retirement. They are in there helping the Premier (Mr Peterson) and his cabinet run things, and they are spenders.

They know how to do the public relations. They know how to build things so that they are comfortable and secure. They have got the latest cars, they have all the things and services that really are part of the blue-eyed sheikhs of Ontario, because there they are, living in a state of comfort with all these support mechanisms around them while the people of Ontario pay the bill. I have to say government spending is a source of a great sore and problem to those of us who look on and watch how these spenders are taking our money and just throwing it away.

I think we have to see how this government is taxing the life out of people and out of businesses and everybody who has made this province as strong as it is. They know how to tax, and then they know how to build a strong, great bureaucracy and they know how to make themselves look good, but the test is in how much they are doing to serve people and how much they are doing to really meet the needs of all the people of Ontario.

What I see is a province here now that has had some control for some time on inflation, and yet what they have introduced in this budget is a most inflationary budget. They should not kid themselves. When people sit back and say how wonderful it is that we are not going to have to pay our Ontario health insurance plan premiums. they can be just assured that those businesses that have to collect that extra money out of their payrolls are going to go back to the people who are buying their products. buying their services, in order to recapture the money they will have lost through the payroll tax. I will touch on that further in a moment.

I believe this government is going to lead our province into another series of inflation. Anyone who went through the stages of inflation when it was at such a high rate and was on a fixed income understands just how terrible inflation is. Speaking for those people who seem to have no defender on the government side, I have to say this budget is wrong and it is going to lead this province in the wrong direction as to what it is going to do to those people who we really have to serve.

I think one of the other realities is that the people of this province should realize that there are 130 seats, and of those 130 seats, approximately 30 are Metropolitan Toronto-oriented. Another 10 or so service York, Durham and Peel, which surround Metro. Therefore, 40 of the 130 seats are really Metro- or greater-Toronto-oriented.

Therefore, when you start seeing a double standard for the province, where in the past the province has had a standard service of serving all people equally -- I remember when I was on the York Region Board of Education we said, “We want to treat the children in the southern part of the region equally with those in the northern part of the region so that there is equality of opportunity.” That was a concept of government where there was no one being treated differently.

This government is now, in its budget, deciding that it is going to treat the greater Toronto area differently from the rest of the province. That comes through in the commercial tax; it comes through not just in the gas tax but the licensing fees; it comes through in just a number of the areas of this budget.

The people of greater Toronto must understand that we help fuel the economy and we also have other costs and other things that it takes in order to survive here. Now, what this government has done is to impose an extra penalty on those who happen to have chosen to live in the greater Toronto area.

Part of the problem one has when he is in opposition is that everybody says, “Okay, Donald, you’re going to get in there and you’re going to lambaste the budget.” I hope to do so, but I think, on the other hand, one has to have some balance. One cannot always come out from the starting gate damning everything that is being done. I would like for a moment to touch upon three areas in its budget that I would like to compliment the government on, because I think there are a number of things that have happened that are a part of the ongoing government that I feel worthy of mentioning in that they really touch upon the area of south York region, Markham, that I represent.

The first is, in 1985, when I was in cabinet for just a short time, I had the pleasure of being able to bring the announcement to the people of Markham, Unionville and Stouffville of the approval by the government of the Markham Stouffville Hospital. It was a significant decision made back in 1985 when the Miller government did not have many days left. None the less, the decision was made, and the decision, having been made, has continued to be supported by the Ministry of Health in this government.

There are many times when one government does a thing and another one will cancel it, change it, retract it. That has not been the case with the Markham Stouffville Hospital. I am very pleased that the Ministry of Health, the Management Board of Cabinet and the Premier have continued to support the construction of this great hospital for our community. It is going to open in January 1990, all going well, and the fact of the matter is that over 250 beds will help service our community. It has been a project that is a model of a good relationship between the province and our community, and I would like to compliment the government for having done that.

There are not that many hospitals being constructed in Ontario right from scratch. I think one in the past was the Credit Valley Hospital. and certainly this is another one. There was no hospital previously in the town of Markham or to service this southeastern part of York region. I stop, pause and reflect with a sense of gratification and satisfaction that this government has allowed the Markham Stouffville Hospital to continue.

It will serve our community well. We have had an outstanding board, and the community as a whole has raised in excess of $6 million. The community has raised its share of the funding and the region, as well, has contributed its share. The other part of the equation was that the province had to do its share, which was over 60 per cent of the total cost. So I give credit to the government.

Another comment I would like to make that is really part of this budget is about the Social Assistance Review recommendations made by Judge George Thomson. I want to compliment our own member for London North (Mrs Cunningham) and her ongoing support for this program. I would especially like to compliment the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr Sweeney).

I happen to believe that the minister is a very conscientious, hard-working, good politician, by virtue of the fact that he has been able to take these recommendations through cabinet, having had the recommendations in the first place prepared and presented to him by Judge George Thomson.

It starts with the process. It started at least with a consensus of feeling from within this House of all three parties, where we knew that something had to be done to help those who could not really help themselves. They are on the social welfare rolls of the province, they want to get out and make a contribution to society and yet are not able to. So our system really was hindering their opportunity for self-fulfilment and for contributing something of themselves back to society. We really had a system that was archaic, that had worked in its own time but needed to be changed.

The recommendations now being implemented through the Ministry of Community and Social Services certainly have my support, the support of our critic, the member for London North, and the support of our party. I think commendation is due to the Minister of Community and Social Services for his leadership.

I would also like to comment in a positive way on part of the strategy this government has announced, in the form of a transportation strategy for the greater Toronto area. I have found it very easy to criticize the Minister of Transportation (Mr Fulton) for his failure to come up with an overall comprehensive strategy that will begin to meet the needs of all of us who are part of the greater Toronto area.

For those people in Ontario who do not come from the greater Toronto area and who are seeing us now, please understand that I respect the needs that go on in South Porcupine, Cornwall and other parts of the province. But I have to say we have got a major problem here in the greater Toronto area, and it is becoming worse and worse by virtue of the failure of the government to put in the money in a way that would begin to solve the transportation crisis. It is unbelievably bad.

No wonder people do not come to Toronto. They only come when they have to, and when they are here they go away really glad to disappear and go back to their home town or