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

February 27, 1989

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L153 - Mon 27 Feb 1989 / Lun 27 fév 1989

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

SIMCOE DAY

DRUG ABUSE

KING GORDON

VICTIMS OF CRIME

FABIEN LEMIEUX

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

RESPONSES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

SOUTH AFRICAN IN VESTMENTS

HOSPITAL SERVICES

DRUG ABUSE

HOSPITAL SERVICES

VICTIMS OF CRIME

USE OF LOT LEVIES

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

HOSPITAL FUNDING

TRADE MISSION

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

CROWN LAND

INMATE WORK PROGRAMS

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

CRIME VICTIMS ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

AGGREGATE RESOURCES ACT

ROYAL ASSENT / SANCTION ROYALE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CORRECTIONAL OFFICERS

Mr. Farnan: All members of this Legislative Assembly should be aware of the insensitive manner in which the Ministry of Correctional Services is implementing its policy of salary compression and restructuring of institutional staffing patterns. The decision to extend the area of search beyond the institutions, where present staff have already demonstrated a willingness and ability to handle the responsibility of the post advertised, is a policy that is bound to undermine staff morale among correctional officers.

The January 10, 1989, guidelines to regional directors contained in a memorandum from the assistant deputy minister, operations division, suggested that regional directors should demonstrate some sensitivity to those individuals who have been reclassified to a lower position.

There is certainly some concern among correctional officers that in demonstrating this sensitivity, attention be paid to the area of pensions. For example, an officer demoted to a lower level who has contributed to the pension fund for 15 to 20 years at a higher level must be entitled to a refund of overpayment or the option of continuing to contribute to the pension fund at a higher level and his pension evaluated accordingly.

The correctional officers do not want platitudes. They want and deserve justice.

SIMCOE DAY

Mr. McLean: My statement is directed to the government House leader and concerns my private member’s Bill 72 respecting Simcoe Day. The purpose of this bill, which received second reading last year, is to name the third Monday in February Simcoe Day in honour of John Graves Simcoe.

Mr. Simcoe was appointed the first Lieutenant Governor of Upper Canada on September 12, 1791. He convened the first Legislative Assembly and he established the capital of this province at York, which is now Toronto.

I realize that if the government were to act on this bill now, it would be too late to celebrate this one-day holiday this year, but we could give it third reading and royal assent so that the third Monday in February 1990 could be designated as Simcoe Day.

We all have experienced or are experiencing the February blahs. That we must confront each year, and I believe a one-day holiday is called for. Webster’s dictionary defines the blahs as “a feeling of boredom, discomfort, or general dissatisfaction.”

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Well, we’re not feeling that way.

Mr. McLean: Come to think of it, Webster’s definition of the blahs could easily apply to this government. The people of Ontario are experiencing a feeling of boredom with this government, they are having discomfort with this government and they are certainly dissatisfied with this government. The Deputy Premier (Mr. R. F. Nixon) could probably agree with me on that in one of his calmer times.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Black: As the Premier’s special adviser on drug abuse prevention, I would like to congratulate and pay tribute to the Alliance for a Drug-Free Canada, a group of business executives who have united to help stem the growing tide of drug abuse across this country.

The group is composed of executives from 33 organizations, including ATçT, Abitibi-Price, the Bank of Nova Scotia, the Toronto-Dominion Bank, Bristol-Myers, CP Rail, the Children’s Aid Society Foundation, IBM Canada, McCain Foods, Procter and Gamble and many others.

Over the next five years, the Alliance for a Drug-Free Canada plans to raise $1 million which will provide grants to community groups currently campaigning against drug abuse. I would like to stress that the group’s goal is to support and work with existing agencies involved in the battle against drug abuse, a goal which I strongly support. As business persons, members of the group understand the demand side of the drug abuse problem, and it is in this area where they will concentrate their efforts.

The group has issued a challenge to businesses and organizations throughout this country. Today I would like to extend this challenge to other corporations and organizations as well as to the members of this House. We all must recognize the seriousness of drug abuse and the enormous amount of spinoff crime which it is creating. We must all band together to say no. We do not want the ill effects of drug abuse in our neighbourhoods, our schoolyards, our playgrounds or our places of work.

KING GORDON

Mr. D. S. Cooke: King Gordon was one of Canada’s most dedicated international public servants. His life’s work as a United Church minister, teacher, preacher of the social gospel, writer, editor, public servant for the United Nations and lifelong advocate for causes of international peace and social justice made him one of this country’s most remarkable citizens.

He died on Friday in Ottawa at the age of 88. Vigorous and vital to the end, a continuing influence on public opinion and on the hearts and minds of those who sought his counsel, King Gordon worked tirelessly for an end to poverty and injustice in Canada. It was over 50 years ago now that he was one of the founders of the League of Social Reconstruction. As well, he was present at the first convention of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in Regina.

His

interpretation of the social gospel had a major influence on great contemporaries, who included J. S. Woodsworth, Stanley Knowles and Tommy Douglas. His work internationally for the United Nations took him all over the world and he became one of Canada’s best known and most loved and respected representatives in his work for the United Nations. He never really retired, continuing his preaching and writing to the end.

His last years were devoted especially to questions of international peace and development. He was a trusted adviser to governments, international agencies and the growing community in Canada advocating on behalf of a new consciousness of an international order. He made a major impact on generations far younger in years. We pass on our condolences to the family.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Jackson: No society is truly just which does not give adequate protection to victims of violent crime. Their rights, which are even more important than those of the lawbreaker, are too often ignored. Today I will introduce a private member’s bill to establish a bill of rights for crime victims in Ontario. The bill begins with a statement of principles which defines a number of victims’ rights, including a special right to be informed whenever a previous assailant has escaped or been released from lawful custody.

Substantive provisions of this bill include the following: first, allowing the crown to seize the profits made by a criminal from any book,

article or interviews concerning his crime; second, allowing civil recovery of damages arising from emotional distress caused by violent crime and establishing a statutory presumption that victims of sexual assault and spouse abuse have suffered emotional distress; third, making prison income subject to the garnishment provisions of the Wages Act.

New Zealand and Manitoba already have statutes similar to this, and I cannot believe that an enlightened society like Ontario refuses to entrench the rights of crime victims in its laws. I therefore urge all members to listen to the voice of victims in their communities and to join in supporting this important and progressive legislation.

FABIEN LEMIEUX

Mr. Campbell: I wish to pay tribute to the life and achievements of the late Fabien Lemieux of Sudbury.

Fabien Lemieux enriched the lives of thousands of northerners through his long and understanding dedication to education, the arts and culture in the Sudbury region and beyond its borders.

Ses contributions au développement et à l’importance des arts dans la collectivité de Sudbury sont permanentes. M. Lemieux était la force qui animait l’Association du festival artistique de Sudbury/Sudbury Arts Festival Association. Il a également joué un rôle important dans la création du projet Les Arts vivants, conçu pour faire connaître les arts visuels et les spectacles de la région. L’un de ses projets les plus importants a été le Festival de marionnettes de Sudbury. Couronné de succès, cet événement était le seul du genre en Amérique du Nord.

I am privileged to say that Fabien Lemieux was a good friend whose insight into the diversity of our arts and cultural community I valued highly. Under his leadership, the arts community held a forum for candidates in the 1985 municipal election.

Although he is missed by many across this province, Fabien Lemieux’s vision, energy and unstinting enthusiasm will be long be remembered.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Welland-Thorold for 35 seconds.

DEVELOPMENTALLY HANDICAPPED

Mr. Kormos: James Luchyshyn is 21 years old and it has been over 11 years since he has lived at home, because since 1977 he has lived in institutions, punished for his multiple handicaps and imprisoned by a system which would rather that he be out of sight and out of mind. His family and home are in Welland, but he has been first in St. Catharines and now in West Lincoln, even farther away from friends and family who would visit and share time with him.

He and his family had their hopes lifted in 1987 when the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) promised a plan to move developmentally handicapped individuals out of institutions and into the community. How long --

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now

expired. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY THE MINISTRY

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I am pleased to announce that later this afternoon I will be introducing a bill containing a number of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act, improvements which will make for even greater safety and mobility for people using Ontario’s roads.

One series of amendments creates a portable parking permit for disabled persons.

Another series clarifies the status of bicycles as vehicles subject to the same rules of the road as automobiles. Bicyclists appearing to break the rules will be required to identify themselves to police. I am sure the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Mrs. Grier) will be pleased to see this introduction. Another amendment will require bicycles to be equipped with adequate brakes.

A very important provision of this bill will reduce the number of small children travelling on laps or in the cargo area of vehicles. Also to protect children, several amendments are proposed to clarify the responsibilities of school bus operators, passengers and others.

Vehicles removing snow from municipal roads or doing emergency maintenance will be exempted from certain rules of the road which now inhibit those vital operations. Tow-truck operators will be prevented from soliciting at accident scenes.

The portable disabled-person’s parking permit deserves special mention. This card will travel with the disabled person no matter what vehicle that person or the disabled person’s driver is using. The portable permit, to be displayed on the dashboard or sun visor of the car, will replace the disabled-symbol licence plate now issued by the ministry and permits issued by municipalities.

Experience has shown that the plate is not practical for disabled persons who must use more than one car. There have also been abuses of the disabled-symbol licence program by drivers who are not disabled.

My colleague the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has graciously allowed me to propose complementary amendments to the Ontario Municipal Act which will give the permit status under that statute. His ministry has also prepared a model bylaw which will encourage municipalities to provide consistency and uniformity in parking for disabled persons across Ontario. Municipalities will still be able to tailor their own disabled parking programs to fit local conditions.

I would like to single out the Minister without Portfolio responsible for disabled persons (Mr. Mancini) who, along with his office, has been a strong advocate for this change. I would also like to thank the Minister without Portfolio responsible for senior citizens’ affairs (Mrs. Wilson), the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith), the many organizations representing disabled and senior citizens, the Ontario Traffic Conference, the Ontario Good Roads Association and the Association of Municipalities of Ontario for their contributions to this progressive legislation.

The remaining provisions of the bill deal with housekeeping matters, such as dishonoured cheques, services rendered by agents, fire marshal vehicles, municipal signs and bylaws and removal of abandoned vehicles.

The net result of the Highway Traffic Amendment Act will be a safer, more efficient and more convenient road system. Bicycle safety and parking for disabled persons are both urgent matters. I therefore urge members of the House to give their support to this many-faceted piece of legislation.

RESPONSES

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

Mrs. Grier: I am indeed pleased to learn of the introduction of this legislation today and I thank the minister for his acknowledgement of my private member’s bill, which would have achieved that bicyclists have to identify themselves. I look forward to speedy passage of the legislation.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I welcome this initiative from the government as well. We look forward to seeing the details of the bill that has been presented and hope that the minister will take into consideration opposition points of view and the points of view of others in the general public in terms of possible improvements to such

an act. Certainly we would all like to do whatever is possible to ensure that our highways and roads are as safe as possible.

We would like to join with the minister in at least several of the specific announcements he has made today with respect to this initiative of amendments to the Highway Traffic Act. In particular, I welcome the initiative with respect to disabled persons in the province. The initiative of introducing a portable disabled-person’s parking permit is one which should be of tremendous assistance to the disabled in the province.

The old concept that the disabled would have to designate a vehicle and then be restricted to the use of that vehicle will go out with this. This will enable the disabled to have much greater flexibility in using various vehicles and not being committed to a particular vehicle in terms of their transportation through their local communities. That should be an initiative that will be welcomed by the disabled community and certainly by our party.

As well, the minister makes mention of several amendments that are proposed to clarify the responsibilities of school bus operators, passengers and others. I look forward to seeing the details of that clarification and I hope in particular that the minister has addressed the very serious problem of lack of seatbelts in school buses.

There has been considerable demand that our children receive the same kind of protection. We know there are considerable safety benefits in putting seatbelts in cars and we hope this kind of initiative will be included in this legislation for school buses as well. The minister does not say that specifically, but if not we hope to make amendments to the bill to ensure that protection is included for the children going to our schools and further transport throughout Ontario.

We look forward to dealing with this bill and hope that in fact the full provisions of this bill will ensure greater safety of the public throughout Ontario.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to commend the minister for his announcement today on portable parking permits for disabled persons and senior citizens. Let’s just hope that they are able to continue driving and that, indeed, the insurance premiums do not drive them underground.

It is always nice to see the government recognize, with lipservice to start with, some of the more positive things that it tries to take credit for. Let’s not forget that it is not only lipservice and political Brownie points that we want to make here, we want to make sure that the people who were mentioned in the announcement today are serviced.

I well recall last week at the Ontario Good Roads Association convention an amendment from the floor asking that it no longer be designated “Ontario Good Roads” but “Ontario Bad Roads.” I hope the minister remembers that.

I drove up from home last night along Highway 401; as a matter of fact, the member for Prescott and Russell (Mr. Poirier) and I happened to be following one another. It used to be a great highway. Through the Belleville area it is a dangerous highway; it has ruts in it and if it is slippery at all, as it was last night, it is a very dangerous highway.

Hon. Mr. Scott: Go slower.

Mr. Villeneuve: I know the Attorney General would rather not hear these things, but these are the facts.

Highway 416 not only must be looked at on a Brownie-point basis but must be looked at with a view to effectively restructure it as a four-lane access to the nation’s capital. When the minister is there next week the Jaycees of the Ottawa area will make absolutely sure that he gets the message, as they will make sure when the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) visits Ottawa on Thursday. The Treasurer should make sure that he has his ear to the ground and that he is listening to the grass roots, because they do mean business.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: It’s hard to keep my shoulder to the wheel when my ear is to the ground.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: We in the Progressive Conservative Party certainly appreciate the announcement made by the minister today, but he has a long way to go simply to maintain the quality of roads that he took over in 1985.

Mr. Jackson: I too would like to commend the minister for his announcement and, like all members, will be anxious to read in detail how substantive these reforms and amendments really are. It is apparent that in the last year and a half his two bouts of convalescence in Ontario hospitals have increased his sensitivity and awareness to the lack of mobility facing disabled persons in this province. I am delighted that at least he has been able to get through to the member of his cabinet responsible in this very sensitive and important area.

While he is talking to that minister, perhaps the Minister of Transportation might look, as are several cabinet ministers, into the case of Wally Elgersma. His transportation services have been cut off, as his medical treatment has been cut off, because of his Christian convictions. I would like to invite the minister to comment on that.

Should these amendments go to committee for examination, perhaps the minister would like to consult with school boards. Obviously the reforms are welcome, but if there is a price tag attached to it, perhaps he could distinguish himself among his colleagues in cabinet for having at least consulted with school boards before he offers these reforms, since school boards have had to pay additional taxes that the Treasurer did not relieve them of in his last budget. The school boards are now, as he will find in the fine print in Mr. Kruger’s document, paying additional moneys for the insurance put on school buses.

These are all added costs on which they were not consulted. The matter of safety is an important one for school bus operators and the children they serve.

I ask the minister whether he would also look carefully at the construction of school buses and at including them in the motor vehicle safety standards legislation. To date they have been outside that legislation, and I would like to see them brought well within it.

Finally, would the minister consider looking at GO Transit load factors, if he is concerned about safety, since we are not getting a straight answer from the government in terms of at what point it is safe to ride a GO train or a GO bus in this province? What standards of load factors does he find acceptable, at which he is willing to put trains on those rails for commuters? Otherwise, they will be back on very overcrowded highways in Ontario.

Again, I thank the minister for the legislation. We look forward to participating in the debate on each and every one of the amendments.

ORAL QUESTIONS

CHILD CARE

Mr. R. F. Johnston: My question is for the Minister of Community and Social Services. I have in my hands a memorandum from the commissioner of community services in the municipality of Metropolitan Toronto to the community services and housing committee. Basically, it is dealing with a number of recommendations to handle a $6-million shortfall in the 1989 budget for day care in Metro.

In that document, I would like to read the following quote, “The final option, the total and immediate divestment of the municipally operated program, as suggested by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, is not, in the opinion of the department, a viable option to effect cost savings.”

Would the minister comment about this allegation that his ministry has actually been suggesting that Metro divest itself of its child care services?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I met with officials from Metro, I guess it is about six or seven months ago now, dealing with this specific issue. I pointed out to them that the cost of operating their own facilities is 40 per cent higher per diem than it is for them to buy the same service from one of the nonprofit centres already in the community.

On the basis of that, I indicated very clearly that our ministry would no longer be supporting in any financial way the establishment of more directly operated facilities and quite frankly suggested to them that they ought to look at the fact that, of all the communities in the province, they had the highest percentage of those directly operated.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister knows he is comparing apples and oranges when he says that. This municipality in particular has been a leader in raising the salaries of day care workers to the position of almost adequacy. Their average salary for a graduate with a community college diploma is $23,500. That, plus some ancillary programs which they have, which no private organization in Metro has that I am aware of, is the reason for the difference in the costs.

Their analysis is that it would make no significant difference to divest, except that this leadership would be lost and perhaps this would be seen as a means of avoiding the pay equity responsibilities of Metro. Does the minister have any comments on that?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I clearly did not suggest to them that they divest totally. I never in any way suggested that. What I did suggest was that I would not support them financially to enlarge that base any more and, quite frankly, that they ought to look at divesting some of what they have. We did not talk about the pay equity issue at all. That never came up in our discussions. Therefore, I am not sure to what extent it would make any impact one way or the other on that particular issue.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: The minister seems to be oblivious to the slap in the face this is to the pioneering efforts of Metropolitan Toronto in raising the standards of quality day care.

Is the minister not aware that we already have 4,000 people on waiting lists for subsidized care in the province? Talking about divesting any of the 3,000 spaces that are presently available under Metro’s responsibility would be a major mistake. The series of options they are looking at include partial divestment of some of the best and oldest day care facilities in Ontario that have led the way.

Is the minister not ashamed that he, as a Liberal minister, is promulgating such a notion, rather than funding the government’s portion of that $6-million shortfall for good, quality day care in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Part of the reason for that $6-million deficit is that, in fact, Metro has gone out and increased, despite its discussion with me, its directly operated facilities. The very fact that they have such a long waiting list, when they are spending 40 per cent more in their own centres than what they are buying, is to me an improper use of the funds that are available to them.

SOUTH AFRICAN IN VESTMENTS

Mr. Laughren: I have a question for the Treasurer. The Treasurer would know -- indeed he talked about the fact -- that when Ontario Hydro had a Eurobond issue in Europe recently, the Swiss banks were excluded from participating in that issue because of their dealings with the South African government. That is to be commended, and of course we agree with that.

It would appear, however, that the Ontario government is not quite as pure as the Treasurer would have us believe concerning the commercial arrangements between this province and South Africa. The Ontario government presently owns about $20-million worth of shares in Varity Corp., which was previously Massey-Ferguson.

Could the Treasurer tell us why he has not had his government divest itself of the $20-million worth of shares in Varity Corp., which deals with South Africa?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I do not make any pretensions to purity, unlike the honourable member. We do the best we can. It was decided, in establishing the syndicate for the Euro-Canadian dollars, that we should include the banks and financial institutions that the honourable member is aware of. We did the best we could there.

The Varity shares, I am informed by proper advice or advice that I am prepared to take, should not be sold under the circumstances the honourable member describes since in fact we have certain actions pertaining to Varity. If we were to divest the shares at this time, it might be construed as having internal information or even a conflict of interest. These shares came into the control of the Treasury some years ago under circumstances that the honourable member would recall.

Mr. Laughren: I guess there is always a reason for not wanting to lose a few dollars.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: We would gain on that.

Mr. Laughren: Then there is no reason why the government cannot divest itself of those shares.

The government does not seem to have any articulated policy on dealings with South Africa. In the 1987-88 Public Accounts of Ontario there is an example of the Ministry of Health doing business with National Business Systems to the tune of about $36,000. It is not that the dollars are so great so much as the principle involved. Although since then National Business has divested itself of South African shares or businesses, at that time it was active in South African business.

I am wondering why the Treasurer’s government does not have a position that says, “There will be no dealings with companies that have investments or business in South Africa and we will not buy supplies that come from companies that have dealings with South Africa or if those supplies or part of them are being made up from products in South Africa.” Why is there no government policy on procurement in that regard?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The government attempts not to do business with South Africa. In the instance the honourable member referred to in the first part of his question, we try not to do business with financial institutions that are directly involved in financing the operations in South Africa.

I say again that the ramifications of various businesses -- presumably including the one the honourable member mentioned, which I have never heard of before but probably should have -- are intricate and difficult to unravel. Other jurisdictions with at least good intentions towards expressing their opposition to the policy of apartheid are subject, I suppose, to the same kinds of questions and arguments that they do not achieve perfection.

I simply say to the honourable members that we do our best in indicating publicly by our actions that we do not support and in fact are totally offended by the policy of apartheid. We want to show, by the actions of this government, what our views are.

Mr. Laughren: It is difficult dealing with the Treasurer, because he says all the right things but then does not do anything to back up what he says.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I just said your first question was --

Mr. Laughren: We know that between January and September, 1988 over 1987, imports from South Africa to Canada were up 45 per cent and exports to South Africa from Ontario were up 52 per cent. Surely to goodness, even if the Treasurer does not have a legal responsibility, there is some kind of moral responsibility to let it be known in Ontario that this must stop, that we have to discourage this and reverse the trend.

What plans does the Treasurer have to make sure that trend of increasing trade with South Africa is reversed?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I believe the best way to accomplish this is not by passing some legislation nor for the Treasurer, who does not have the power, to promulgate some edict that businesses must do thus and so. We can, however, show by our example in the allocation of public funds where the views of the government stand, and we know that they are strongly and heartily supported by all members of the Legislature. I say again that the House and the people of this province are against the policy of apartheid and we are trying to demonstrate, as effectively as is reasonable, that we want to substantially support that through our actions and our decisions.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of Health. The question relates to a young lady by the name of Sarah Riviere, who was born in a small community just outside of Tillsonburg, Ontario. This young lady was born in May 1988 with a very serious heart defect, as well as being afflicted with Down syndrome. When she was six weeks old, it was diagnosed that this young child would, because of heart problems, require heart surgery and the doctor determined that the surgery would not be able to be undertaken until she was at least eight months of age.

Subsequent to that background, I want to inform the minister that the doctor tried to book this young lady for surgery, since she had now reached that age, at the Hospital for Sick Children in January and was subsequently advised that the operation will not be possible until April of this year.

Is that an indication of how well the health system of our province serves our people, when there is this very lengthy delay in a situation that is as serious and life-threatening as the one that I have just identified?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that if he would care to give me the information that he presented to the House today, I will ask ministry officials to contact the hospital and to determine what, if anything, the decisions were in the hospital in making this medical judgement. If, in fact, he is correct that it is serious and life-threatening, I can tell him that people in life-threatening situations are never turned away from Ontario hospitals and in fact are given priority.

Mr. Brandt: There is a letter which has been sent to the minister as of February 16. She may not have had an opportunity to read it yet, but the letter was addressed to me with a copy to her about this particular case. I want her to know that the parents are not in fact blaming the hospitals or the physicians. They are very frustrated with the fact that they have a troubled child who was born with some serious problems. Obviously they are very stressed and apprehensive about the surgery this child is going to have to undergo.

I want to advise the minister as well that the child must be fed at the moment through a nasal gastric tube. There are many complications at the moment. It would appear from my perspective -- and I say this to her with all respect -- that our health care system appears to be one in which we receive health care not when needed, but when available.

In this particular instance, “when available” appears to be in April of this year. Is that acceptable to the minister? These are the circumstances this family faces.

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important for the leader of the third party to know that decisions are made based on the very best medical judgement available. Physicians determine who receives care and when, in the order of priority based on their needs, in this province and in this country.

The basic principles of medicare are that attention is given to those most in need and that priority is always given to those in life-threatening and emergency situations. I can tell him that often there are a number of hospitals which offer services. We encourage those hospitals to work together on a referral basis.

If he will give me that information, I will be pleased to investigate this particular situation.

Mr. Brandt: I do not like to exaggerate these cases when I bring them before the minister. In this particular instance, we have a child with only two valves working in her heart. It has been determined by the attending physician that heart surgery is going to be necessary. Whether it is life-threatening today, certainly it is highly critical that this child receive surgery as quickly as possible because of the other complications that I have already pointed out to the minister.

Will the minister, upon receipt of the letter that was mailed to her on February 16, intervene if at all possible, and see that this child’s timetable be moved up to as short a period as possible and feasible at the Hospital for Sick Children, to see that this particular surgery can be undertaken?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the leader of the third party that, in fact, I rely on physicians to use their very best medical judgement. I believe it is inappropriate for politicians to interfere in the prioritization of cases. It is extremely important that people have confidence in the fact that these decisions be made on the basis of need and not on the basis of any kind of inappropriate interference on a political basis.

I have said that I would be pleased to investigate, but I can tell the member that I have confidence in the physicians in this province, that they make their determinations on the basis of need. I will be pleased to investigate this case.

Interjections.

Mr. Brandt: Applaud if you like, but the best medical judgement in this case was in January.

DRUG ABUSE

Mr. Brandt: My next question is to the Solicitor General. I have been absent from this House for a couple of days, and during --

Mr. Campbell: A couple of days. Fourteen is a little more like it. That sets the tone for the outrageous question you asked.

Mr. Brandt: All right, three.

I have taken the time, upon my return, to look over some of the news reports, as most of us do obviously when we return from a short sabbatical. While I was looking at some of those news reports, I became increasingly disturbed about the number of headlines in most of our leading newspapers dealing with the increased incidents and concerns surrounding the issues of both crack and cocaine.

In fact, the minister was in receipt some months ago of the Black report, which indicated a number of recommendations to fight this very, very serious problem in our society. Can the minister tell this House what she has done with respect to assisting our police forces in what may be the number one problem that we have to deal with in today’s society?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: We welcome back the member for Sarnia and hope he has had as good a holiday as he looks as if he had. We are happy to work with him for the one week.

On the more serious problem which the member has addressed, the problem of drugs in our society, we indeed are working very hard to co-operate with metropolitan police forces in their efforts to address the problem of drugs which in so many cases falls under their jurisdiction.

As well, the Ontario Provincial Police are co-operating with the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in areas -- Sarnia being one of them, I believe, and Windsor and Kingston -- where it seems most important that their co-operation with the RCMP be directed toward stopping the drugs at the borders.

We are also looking very closely at educational matters within the training of police forces themselves, so that the police will be more aware of what they can do in prevention and in the education of young people in order to avoid drug use among those young people.

Mr. Brandt: I do not hear a great deal of hope in the minister’s response, I say with respect. The Black report called for -- this is one of your colleagues who produced this report -- a doubling of the OPP drug enforcement squad in order to more effectively fight the problem of drugs in our society.

The minister is going to have a new budget submission shortly, which the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) will be dealing with. Is the minister prepared to recommend a doubling in order to provide an adequate response to this very serious problem? Is she prepared to provide a doubling of her budget in terms of the OPP drug squad, as recommended by her colleague the member for Muskoka-Georgian Bay (Mr. Black)?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I am happy to report that the justice ministries are working together and working on the Black report to see what they will recommend in the new budget that will be forthcoming in the new House. We looked closely at all the recommendations. They do not all apply to our ministries. There are recommendations as well in education, in the health field and others. We know that these will be closely regarded by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) as he prepares his throne speech and by the Treasurer as we move into a new year, but we recognize as well that it must be a co-ordinated effort of all ministries.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to point out to the minister that some of the municipal police forces have already taken some action in this respect. Metropolitan Toronto, as she knows, has increased its force by 90, specifically to fight drugs. Within the last week Mississauga has requested an additional 15 officers to put on drug detachment, with the specific purpose again of fighting the drug problem.

Is the minister prepared to look at any kind of a special supplementary grant or assistance program to assist municipal police forces in the context of her next budget? I say that because the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) has flat-lined his budget. Municipalities have serious problems with respect to the good roads that they have been attempting to maintain and that they are now calling bad roads. They have a series of problems. They cannot cope with this issue by themselves. Is the minister prepared to help by providing some supplementary funding for police forces?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, it is not generally done to fund individual programs within police forces that are in fact the responsibility of the areas that hire them. We do many supportive programs to assist through training, through support and through other such areas, and will continue to do so. But we recognize, as does the member, that metropolitan police forces, in choosing their programs, have the responsibility of making their own choices.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. Farnan: I have a question for the Minister of Health. I wish to read from a letter I received from a constituent, Fernando Frazao, on February 18, 1989:

“I have had heart problems for a few years and was diagnosed for a heart bypass on February 1, 1989, by Dr. Nunkis of University Hospital, London, Ontario, and was advised by him that I would have to wait six or more months before surgery could be performed. So therefore, like other Canadians, I have been put on a waiting list. I could be dead before then.”

Mr. Frazao asks the question in his letter, “If all the Ontario hospitals that do this kind of surgery are unable to keep up with the demand, why not refer those patients who are waiting to a hospital in the USA and have all their expenses covered?”

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: On numerous occasions in this House we have discussed the issue of access to services in this province, particularly highly specialized services such as cardiac care, which we recognize is delivered in nine hospitals in six centres across the province.

I can say to the member opposite that in fact services and access to those services are determined by physicians, based on medical need. We determined that it was appropriate to increase capacity in this province and last June acknowledged that with an increase of funding of $20 million.

As the member knows, there has been some frustration in bringing that on line, but we are working very closely with both the hospitals and medical professionals to see that that capacity is increased. I know the physicians, nurses and hospitals are working together to make sure we have the resources available so that people will have access to the services they need in a timely manner.

Mr. Farnan: My staff phoned Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston and were informed by Barbara Hebert, administrator of the cardiac unit, that arrangements could be made within a six-week period of the first contact with the hospital to provide heart surgery for Mr. Frazao or any properly referred Canadian citizen. The minister will be aware that the Ontario health insurance plan does not come close to covering the costs of this surgery in a US hospital.

My question to the minister is: Given that her ministry is responsible for providing these services, does it not make sense to pay for the surgery of Mr. Frazao and others in the US in the short term, while she attempts to bring about the changes that will allow surgery to be performed in Ontario within a reasonable time period?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The increase in capacity in Hamilton in fact has resulted in a stabilization and a shortening of the waiting time there. Ottawa reports a waiting time not much longer than what the member has referred to the House from outside of Ontario, and that is some 8 to 10 weeks. However, I want to tell him that emergency and urgent cases are prioritized by physicians, that care is delivered in Ontario in different centres of this province, as he knows, based on the patient’s need and that the physicians are the ones who determine the priority in which care is given.

We are addressing this problem and this issue together, and I am confident that we have the foundation upon which to build and that we will, in very short order, see the waiting times significantly reduced right across the province, as they have already been in certain locations.

VICTIMS OF CRIME

Mr. Jackson: My question is to the Attorney General. This morning I met with Mrs. Carole Cameron, who is both provincial and national president of a group known as Victims of Violence. I am sure the Attorney General is familiar with the group. They are very supportive of victims’ rights legislation, but they are also very concerned about Bill C-89.

As the minister knows, that was passed by Parliament, but certain sections, specifically those which relate to restitution orders for criminals to compensate their victims, have not yet been proclaimed, at the request of the provinces. Is Ontario now prepared to implement Bill C-89, and will any necessary legislation that the minister might have be introduced in this session?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There will not be any new provincial legislation required in order to implement the provisions of Bill C-89, in so far as restitution hearings are concerned. That portion of the federal bill has not been proclaimed by the Governor in Council, at the unanimous request of all the provinces in Canada, led by the most conservative provinces, because the provinces are anxious to get from the federal government some assurance that there will be support for the very serious financial obligations that bill will impose on local taxpayers.

However, as the honourable member knows, that aside, we are working hard in Ontario to ensure that victim-witness programs are widely developed and widely applied. We have offices in 10 communities in Ontario which are doing a wonderful job in this area, and I hope very much in the near future we will be able to expand this program across the province.

Mr. Jackson: I was more specifically asking the minister about Bill C-89, the federal legislation. He will be aware that another

section of that bill has not been proclaimed, and that provides for a victim fine surcharge against criminals. That money will go to the province, and it will in fact go to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), sitting next to the minister. Its purpose is to provide specific support services for victims.

The organization Victims of Violence is concerned that once this bill is proclaimed, these funds will go into the Treasurer’s consolidated revenue fund and not to the victims for whom this federal legislation was envisaged. The minister responded on February 3 in a letter to the organization, and he was unclear. It would appear he has not yet decided on that fundamental question. Therefore, I would ask the minister, in the House today, will he give his commitment today that these funds will go directly to direct services for victims of violence in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member, in his second question, brings up another provision of Bill C-89. He will understand that the provincial governments are not opposed to the proclamation of this

section and look forward to its proclamation at whatever date the federal government selects.

As the honourable member will know, this provision is very important, because many provinces in this country do not have the kind of victim-witness programs that we are lucky enough to have in Ontario. The money is being provided to ensure that victim-witness programs and criminal injuries compensation such as we have in Ontario can be instituted in other provinces.

Mr. Jackson: What about funding sexual assault centres? That is what we are talking about.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Scott: As the honourable member would know if he was not so noisy, the reality is that this government, over four years, has made a major commitment to criminal injuries compensation, raising for the first time in 1986 rates that that empty volcano of a government had not raised in over 14 years. The commitment of this government to victim-witness programs and criminal injuries compensation is very well established, and this bill will ensure that we will be able to continue.

We hope that the honourable member can persuade his leader in Ottawa to proclaim it.

USE OF LOT LEVIES

Ms. Poole: My question is for the Treasurer. On Thursday, February 23, the Toronto Board of Education responded to the government’s green paper which deals with education lot levies. In analysing the issue of lot levies, the board asked for a guarantee that if the government does decide to go ahead with the proposal, lot levies for school boards would be used to augment and not to substitute for provincial funding of capital programs.

I ask that the Treasurer confirm that if the lot levy proposal proceeds, the province’s current commitment of $300 million per year in capital funding for the education system, for each year over the next three years, will be maintained and that any funds raised by the Toronto Board of Education through lot levies would in fact augment the capital funding resources of the board.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I thank the honourable member for notice of the question, because it is an important one. I am glad to have the chance to reiterate that the commitment of $300 million a year for educational capital, beginning next year, is for three years. If the Legislature decides to enable school boards to establish a lot levy program, it will be with the thought of speeding up the capital development of our school system rather than reducing the cost to the province.

I think it is worth noting that just four years ago, the capital commitment from the previous government, a moment ago described as an empty volcano, was only $78 million We have moved this to $300 million, and the commitment is for three years. I am glad the honourable member has given me an opportunity to reiterate it.

Ms. Poole: According to the green paper, the major purpose of implementing a lot levy system is to relieve some of the enormous pressure to build new schools across the province, particularly in the high-growth areas. The problem is that this pressure for new schools has made it difficult for jurisdictions such as the city of Toronto to obtain much-needed capital funding to renovate and repair our ageing schools. It is my understanding that a substantial portion of the provincial share of capital funding would be used in future for renovating our ageing schools if the lot levy proposal is adopted. Can the Treasurer confirm that this is indeed the case?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I think that would be particularly of interest to the school board in Toronto, because the thought of extensive new development in Toronto that would require the capital from lot levy sources is not clearly apparent. However, the honourable member correctly points out that the pressure for renovation, capital improvements, will be very great.

It is certainly our hope that if the concept of more autonomy to school boards, that is by way of having the right to levy the improvements in financing that are included in the green paper -- and it is not just lot levies but a variety of other alternatives -- it really means that the $300 million referred to in the honourable member’ s original question might be available in larger amount for the kinds of renovation a mature community would require.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Morin-Strom: I have a question for the Minister of Transportation with regard to highways in northern Ontario. The minister must know by now that the number one priority in transportation needs right across northern Ontario is the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway, a project that has been advocated by northerners for years and one that this government, like the previous Conservative government, has refused to act upon.

The minister’s own party took a stand in northern Ontario in the last federal election that this would be a vital project for the north. Will the minister, who is responsible here in the province for that highway give us some assurance that he has a timetable and a plan to see that we will see the four-laning of the Trans-Canada Highway in the foreseeable future?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: That question has been asked in this House on a number of occasions. I am not sure the member’s colleague the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) would necessarily agree with that priority.

We have addressed this issue on a number of occasions. We recognize, with no uncertainty, the priority that is required and the enormity of that project. It is a 2,000-kilometre project. It is not something that is going to be done overnight. But the member will recognize the work that has been done; he will recognize the ongoing work in Ottawa West and from west of Ottawa, he will recognize the work that is being done in northern Ontario between Sudbury and Sault Ste. Marie.

I appreciate that his friend the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman) will fully appreciate some of the difficulties we have in that area. He will appreciate the work we are attempting to do with respect to the Nipigon to Thunder Bay area, for which we have spent enormous amounts of money in the riding of our friend the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) in repairing Highway 17.

We have said before and we say again that the four-laning and the incremental improvements on Highway 17 are of paramount importance to us. I think we have demonstrated that by our actions over the last few years.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I think the minister has just led into the supplementary in terms of his action in the last few years. The minister admits the project is a 2,000-kilometre project, a substantial one indeed, but what has the government’s record been? Let’s look at the construction projects for northern highways in 1987-88. That program included, for multilane divided highways, five kilometres in his program. Then this last year, 1988-89, for northern transportation construction projects, two kilometres of multilane undivided highways is the only commitment in northern Ontario. That is a total of seven kilometres over the last two years.

This book is going to be published again in the next few months in terms of the minister’s construction projects for 1989-90. Will the minister tell us whether he is going to beat his record of the last two years and how many kilometres of divided highway in northern Ontario we are going to see actually proceed next year?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: The importance of the highway from one end to the other, from Manitoba to the Quebec border, cannot be understated. The member has to understand that he is not including the truck climbing lanes, the passing lanes and the incredible amount of money that is spent annually on maintenance, on preventing rock slides and all sorts of things, and on bridges. In the riding of Lake Nipigon, I might add, there is the most significant bridge on the entire highway in the north. We have to spend an inordinate amount of money to maintain that.

The member does not acknowledge the work that was done in the area of Hemlo, as my friend the member for Lake Nipigon would appreciate, or many of the other projects that are done up there. He knows we are addressing those needs. He knows the difficulties we are having in the area of my friend the member for Algoma, which I am sure he would be more interested in addressing, with respect to the Sault Ste. Marie area of that very highway. He knows we are committed to it and he knows we have attempted on a number of occasions to get the federal government, which was a primary funder in the first instance, to co-operate and once again demonstrate the needs of Ontario as well.

HOSPITAL FUNDING

Mr. Harris: In 1984, Premier Davis made a commitment to the North Bay joint hospital committee and to the people of North Bay and the surrounding area that the province would provide funding for a new hospital for that region.

He made the commitment on behalf of the government. He told the community and the board they could go ahead and start the planning. He flowed the funds so the planning would start. He recognized it would be a five- or six-year project. He followed it up with a letter from the Minister of Health of the day who said, “Yes, we are committed to funding this hospital to completion and we will fund it each step of the way as the planning goes along.”

In 1985, this government took over and all of that was stopped. It has been five years since that commitment was made on behalf of the government. I would like to ask the minister today, when is she going to live up to a government’s commitment to North Bay and the people of that region, that a new hospital would go ahead in that area?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member will know, numerous commitments were made by the previous government without any planning within the Ministry of Health. We know in fact that the case he cites is an example of one of them.

Mr. Harris: The minister has made this statement previously and in fact the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has made this statement previously. In effect, what she and the Premier have said to the people of North Bay is that Premier Davis lied in 1984, that he had no plans to deliver that hospital.

I want to tell the minister that, with all the similarities that are being drawn these days between Mr. Davis and the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson), there is one thing: When Premier Davis went around this province and he made a commitment, he lived up to the commitment; he put the funding programs in place. He and the Minister of Health followed up with a letter in writing that said: “As each stage of this goes forward, we will provide the funding. We acknowledge North Bay hospital as a priority and we will provide the funds in the regular way throughout that period of time.”

What the people want to know is why this minister and this government, since 1985, are not prepared to make the same commitment. What new priorities does the minister have that say the North Bay hospital is no longer important to this government?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: The categorization by the member for Nipissing could not be further from reality. He knows full well that in fact the North Bay project was not included in the ministry’s capital plan that was announced, that it is one of a number of projects ongoing in the province that are looking at innovative and creative approaches to providing appropriately for the services in their community into the future.

I can tell him that we have been very supportive of the initiatives undertaken by the board, under the chairmanship of John Hobbs, to look at innovative and creative approaches. I would say to him that he should be supportive of those kinds of discussions as opposed to raising the spectre of partisanship entering into good planning. I know he would support good rational planning for the province, as I do.

TRADE MISSION

Mr. Owen: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Technology. India has a large population of close to one billion people and therefore provides a substantial market for both raw materials and manufactured goods. At the same time, it has a reputation of being highly self-sufficient and therefore a difficult market to penetrate. I understand that on the weekend the minister returned from a trade mission to India. I want to know if he can share with us whether anything was accomplished at that time, and whether he has some good news or bad news as a result of his visit there.

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: I thank the member for his question. I think members would like to know that as part of my trip we had the occasion to open the first subjurisdictional trade office in India for Ontario, which caused a great deal of interest. I also represented the federal government at the Indian International Engineering Trade Fair, where Canada was the second largest exhibitor. I had the honour of being the keynote speaker.

We also entered into a memorandum of understanding with ACMA, the Automotive Components Manufacturers’ Association, to provide technological assistance, so that they can establish the kind of auto parts industry we enjoy in Ontario. The purpose of this is so we can exchange technology and set up two-way trade.

It is also important to note that India, which has a population of 800 million, will be approaching one billion before the year 2000; in that situation, there are 150 million consumers There is an incredible opportunity for Ontario-based companies to do business in India, not only in the domestic market but also as joint ventures in other areas in southeast Asia and particularly in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. India has a unique ruble-rupee relationship, and one of the biggest problems when you deal with --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Owen: I looked at some figures with regard to our trade with India and I noted that from 1983 to 1987 the two-way trade has increased $100 million, from $346 million to $446 million. At the same time, in Ontario we have been shifting our emphasis from supplying raw materials to the export of manufactured goods. As well, during that same period of time, the number of joint ventures has more than doubled, from 40 to 97.

If the minister can share it with us, in the light of these figures that I have provided and in the light of what has been happening to our shift to manufactured goods to that country, what can we look forward to happening by way of collaboration with India in the 1990s?

Hon. Mr. Kwinter: There are some excellent opportunities. One of the things I did when I was there was witness the signing of a memorandum of understanding between a company in Windsor called Judricks Enterprises and a company in India called Mahindra and Mahindra, which manufactures the Jeep. The joint venture is going to allow them to build components in India for that using the expertise of this Windsor-based company.

There are several other companies that are exploring joint ventures with Ontario-based companies. I think the dramatic increase in the number of joint ventures shown over the last couple of years will be even greater in the next couple of years to come. We are very excited about the prospects and we really look to India as a major market in southeast Asia.

DARLINGTON NUCLEAR GENERATING STATION

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of Health. I am sure the minister is aware of the concern of the members of this party about health problems associated with nuclear plants. That concern is shared by the residents of Pickering and those residents surrounding Darlington and has been increased by recent reports of incidents in the United States.

The minister may also know that a request has been made for a proper base-line health study to be conducted of the population surrounding Darlington prior to the opening of the Darlington nuclear generating station. At a recent meeting in Newcastle of the Ontario Hydro liaison committee, a representative of the ministry acknowledged that existing data were inadequate and that no proper study had been done. Does the minister support the need for a base-line health study of the population surrounding the Darlington nuclear generating station prior to the opening of the plant?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would say to the member opposite that I am not familiar with the request, but would be pleased to look into it.

Mrs. Grier: I appreciate the fact the minister is going to look into it, but I want to point out to her that time is of the essence. In January, the Hydro liaison committee, in consultation with the town of Newcastle, asked for a meeting with ministry staff to discuss the need for a study. What I would like to have from the minister is a commitment that she will proceed with all haste with such a study.

The plant is scheduled to open in September and the whole point of doing a base-line health study is to have data prior to the operation of the plant, so that if in the future there are reasons for concern, there is something with which to compare the data at that time. Does the minister understand that and will she agree that if she finds there is a need for such a study, it should be done quickly?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I can inform the member opposite that my interest in establishing data on health status and information of population surveys is very clear. In fact, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) announced the commencement of a health status survey that would be done in conjunction with the Premier’s Council on Health Strategy. Planning for the Ontario-wide health status survey is under way at the present time. I will review her request, but I can tell her that we are planning to proceed with a health status survey of the population of Ontario that will give us an important benchmark for future planning.

CROWN LAND

Mr. Pollock: I have a question for the Minister of Natural Resources. At the convention of the Ontario Federation of Anglers and Hunters a week ago Friday, a gentleman asked the minister if he had any intention of selling off large tracts of crown land. As he indicated, he meant whole lakes for development, over and above the norm of selling off occasional lakefront lots. Will the minister place on the record his comments on that particular situation?

Mr. McLean: Probably asked him to resign.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: No; that is right too, but that is not going to happen, of course.

The fact is that the question was not posed quite like that. The question was whether we were going to sell huge tracts of land to American investors to build on. I said that was not what the crown land as a development tool arrangement was about, that the initiatives we were taking were to give opportunities for people in northern Ontario to go forward with tourism involvements, building cottages, building hydro sites with our native people, and doing all sorts of good things for the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Certainly, it was never taken into account that we should sell large tracts of land to investors who would be going in that direction, to subdivide or some such thing. The answer was unequivocal.

I am surprised the member did not get a report on that from one of his members who attended because he was there when the question was raised. He was telling people how they could join the Tory party if they wanted to hunt in every park in Ontario.

Mr. Pollock: I was there too. I just wanted the minister to place on the record what his comments were. I would like to know, if the minister is going to sell off some of these tracts of land for hydro development or whatever, is it going to be subject to environmental assessment?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: That question is quite different from the first one. The member asked about selling huge tracts of land to American investors and I said that certainly was not the case. I think anything else that takes place on crown land, for whatever purpose, is going to go through the proper process.

The member must be witness to the fact that right now we are doing a major involvement with checking the fisheries on Indian Lake. It is one of the reasons that initiative is being held up. I am doing that to conform with the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who has every right to make certain that when we do things in this province, as was not the case in the past, we do them not only to have these opportunities but we do them in an environmentally sound way. The member can depend on this Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources to do it in a very acceptable way.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have dealt with that subject.

INMATE WORK PROGRAMS

Mr. Tatham: My question is for the Minister of Correctional Services. A recent newspaper

article said that a number of American states are considering allowing prison inmates to work for private industry to help pay the cost of incarceration. Is this idea worth pursuing?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We have many in-house industries in our different correctional centres throughout the province. These could be classified into different types: ones that are run by the ministry itself and those that are run in conjunction with private enterprise. I would like to give the member an example of some of the industries we do ourselves. We produce all of the inmate clothing. We produce socks, mattresses and other items that we consume ourselves and that we sell to other ministries of the government and to other institutions. We look upon these programs as more of a skills-training exercise than a revenue-generating exercise.

Mr. Tatham: The

article suggests that about 14 states have set up programs to allow private firms to hire inmates to make goods for sale to the public. Part of the proposal of California Governor George Deukmejian recently announced that for each day worked inmates would get a one-day reduction in their sentence. Part of the earnings would go to compensate the victims of the crime. Are our correctional inmates involved in any work-for-pay programs like this?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: We certainly have work-for-pay programs. We do not credit them against their keep or towards shortening the sentence. Some of the examples of joint enterprises that we have with private companies are a trout processing plant at our Guelph Correctional Centre and an auto parts plant at Maplehurst Correctional Centre in Milton. These are some of the examples of some of the products that we produce.

Again, I would like to say to the members that we look at these programs as extremely valuable in teaching skills and work habits in order to prepare the offender for the world outside of our institutions.

NORTHERN HEALTH SERVICES

Mr. Hampton: I have a question for the Minister of Health. As the Minister of Health knows, we have asked several questions about health care in northern Ontario. Recently, I received a letter -- in fact, a stack of letters -- from the Ontario Medical Association.

It comes as no surprise, I think, to the minister and to myself that the OMA has been in touch with her ministry over the last two years asking her ministry to take initiatives on northern health care and her ministry has been saying, “Oh yes, we have this planned, we have that planned,” and yet I receive a letter from the OMA representative in northwestern Ontario saying that nothing is moving, that although they have received letter after letter, after two years special committees that were to be set up have not been established.

In view of the fact her ministry has carried on discussions with the OMA specifically about improving northern health care, what is the minister going to do? What initiatives does she have planned, if she has been going about setting up this program over the last two years?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: We have discussed our commitment to northern health care in this House on a number of occasions and spent considerable time during estimates. The member knows full well that there are numerous initiatives under way, specifically the Northern Health Manpower Committee, which is being formulated right at this present time. We have established a northern health care co-ordinator within the ministry. The underserviced area program is working actively with northern communities.

The list is ongoing and significant, and I would say to him that my vision of providing equity and access to the people of northern Ontario to effective quality health care is unquestioned.

Mr. Hampton: I get quite another impression from those northern doctors who sit on the OMA committee on northern health care, because what they are saying is that her ministry has done nothing but stall over the last two years. There have been promises. There have been promises to deal with the doctor shortage and there have been promises to deal with facility shortage, but in fact in two years there has not been one concrete step.

What is the minister doing to deal, first of all with the doctor shortage? Above and beyond the underserviced area program, which has not worked, what is she doing to deal with the doctor shortage?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I would take exception with the statement from the member opposite. The underserviced area program is in fact working and it is working well. We know that more than 800 doctors, dentists and other health care professionals have been placed in 218 designated underserviced areas in this province.

I can tell him as well that I believe the most significant undertaking initiated by this government in the past two years was the northern travel grant program, which has been reviewed on an ongoing basis.

I can tell him as well that we have been working diligently with physicians from numerous organizations across northern Ontario, and when I travelled across the province the response from physicians on an individual basis was that in fact they want to work with us so that we can meet those special needs of the people of the north and acknowledge both geographic and regional distributional problems.

I can say to the member opposite we had many opportunities to discuss our bursary programs. We have had numerous opportunities to discuss the new programming initiatives in areas of rehabilitation, specialization, physiotherapy, occupational therapy --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

BEEKEEPING INDUSTRY

Mr. Villeneuve: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister is aware that the cost of producing Ontario honey is now greater than the price for which it is being sold. Can the minister tell this House why he has refused to provide temporary capital, research or marketing assistance to the beekeeping industry, in spite of having a $37-million surplus in his budget this year?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: One has to know a little more about the honey industry than the honourable member has revealed.

The reason the honey industry is in a little trouble at the present time is that the American government has ceased to buy honey, as it did before. This means that no longer do the western provinces have an opportunity to export their honey into the United States, so now they are using Ontario as an export market for their honey. That is the reason the industry is in trouble at the present time. It may well be only temporary.

Mr. Villeneuve: Are you going to help?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We do help them in a number of areas. We help by way of research. We help them control damage to their colonies. We do a lot of work with the honey producers, but what they are asking for is an outright payment, and we are saying they should use the tripartite stabilization program. That is the program that all other people are using in order to stabilize prices. That is what they should be using.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Brandt: Today I am tabling a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is one of the largest petitions ever delivered in this House. It is signed by 32,000 residents of the province. These petitioners are objecting to the tax increases imposed by the Peterson government and in particular by Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. This legislation, which is to receive third reading later today retroactive to April 25, 1988, will increase the provincial sales tax to eight per cent.

The petitioners say, in essence, “Bob Nixon, the people of Ontario will not forget that you went too far.”

Here is one of the petitions, and I will have these delivered.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION

Mr. Tatham: I have a petition with 47 signatures:

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

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

“We request the government of the province of Ontario to recommence negotiations and direct the parties to the negotiation process to work towards a reform of pension arrangements which will serve the legitimate needs of both the government of Ontario and the teachers of this province. As Ontario educators, with full participation in the teachers’ superannuation plan, we have a direct and vital interest in these negotiations with respect to both our current and continuing status as contributors, and to our retirement security.”

It is also signed by myself.

Miss Roberts: 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, in order that all teachers who retired prior to May 31, 1982, have their pensions recalculated on the best five years rather than at the present seven or 10 years.

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

There are 167 signatures, and I have signed it as well.

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Miss Martel: To the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.

I have signed my name to it and I agree with them entirely.

Ms. Bryden: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads as follows:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

This petition is signed by 10 people. I will add my signature to it and I support it.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

Mr. Philip: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings on Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

It is signed by 12 residents of Ontario and I have also affixed my signature.

Mr. Hampton: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. I t states:

“Whereas the Liberal members of the standing committee on resources development have voted to oppose an opposition motion to hear all deputations who want to appear before the committee on Bill 162;

“We, the undersigned, petition the Legislative Assembly to instruct the standing committee on resources development to reschedule its public hearings of Bill 162 in order to give all deputations who wish to make presentations about the proposed changes to the workers’ compensation system an opportunity to appear before the committee and express their views.”

This petition has been signed by 10 individuals and I am signing it myself, as required.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Mr. Elliot from the standing committee on general government reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of Consumer and Commercial Relations be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1989:

Ministry administration program, $17,990,500; business practices program, $11,708,500; technical standards program, $10,574,500; regulation of horse racing program, $36,378,100; registration program, $62,067,200; liquor licence program $8,615,100.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

HIGHWAY TRAFFIC AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Fulton moved first reading of Bill 219,

An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I believe the minister gave an explanation earlier.

CRIME VICTIMS ACT

Mr. Jackson moved first reading of Bill 220,

An Act respecting Victims of Crime.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jackson: I have referenced this bill in the House earlier today, so briefly I would just like to say that this bill combines features found in the New Zealand Victims of Offences Act, the Manitoba Justice for Victims of Crime Act and Terry O’Connor’s Bill 40 -- he was the former member for Oakville -- which died on the Orders and Notices paper in 1987.

The bill also introduces certain features that are new and, as far as I know, unique in our Commonwealth.

Section 3 of the bill sets out a statement of principles which defines basic rights of crime victims. The rest of the bill deals with compensation and restitution, by facilitating victim law suits, allowing garnishment of prison income and providing for the forfeiture of profits made off books and interviews related to the crimes.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved third reading of Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Ms. Bryden: As members know, it is somewhat unusual to speak on third reading of a bill, but I feel it is absolutely essential to remind the House of certain very important things about Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

This bill provides what amounts to a 15 per cent increase in the seven per cent retail sales tax that we have had in this province for a number of years; one point amounts to a 15 per cent increase. It is part of a $1.3-billion tax increase which was put on this province in the first budget after the 1987 provincial election. The previous budget, a year before, was a no-tax-increase budget, which seems to me rather playing around with fiscal responsibility.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You do nothing but tell us to spend money. We have to raise it somewhere.

Ms. Bryden: I will go on and tell the member how the money should be raised in just a moment.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You don’t want the racetracks’ revenue, you don’t want the sales tax revenue, you don’t want --

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please, government House leader. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has the floor.

Ms. Bryden: This tax is the greatest tax increase in the history of the province. It is estimated to raise almost $1 billion. It affects the most people in this province, because it affects just about everybody who buys anything. It adds to our tax system, which already has too many consumption taxes, and it is not moving towards greater progressive taxation; it is a move in the direction opposite to a fairer tax system.

It will hit low-income people the most, because it is not progressive. It will hit single individuals, many of whom are on low incomes, because it does not provide for progressive taxation. Yet it also indicates the true colour of the present Liberal government. It talks about itself as progressive. In fact, back in 1985, shortly after the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) came to power, he was talking about budget possibilities and said, “Let us increase the sales tax by one per cent and thereby reap $700 million of additional revenue by just changing one little number one little bit.” Back in those days it was only $700 million; now it is almost $1 billion for one little point.

He went on to say, “However, the attitude expressed by most of the progressive members of this House, except for the Progressive Conservatives, is that sales tax is a revenue that we want to keep under strict control and, if anything, increase what little progressivity there is by improving tax grants and by keeping it as low as is practicable.”

Hon. Mr. Conway: Marion, you are one of the most thorough members on fiscal matters this House has ever known.

Ms. Bryden: I am just showing that the real Conservatives are over there.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I would remind all members that the member for Beaches-Woodbine is the only one who has the floor.

Ms. Bryden: We did get additions to some tax credits in the budget to offset this shocking increase, particularly on the low-income people, but those tax credits were not nearly enough to offset the effect of this big increase on low- and even middle-income people.

For instance, the tax credit for the sales tax went up from $50 to $100 for ordinary families, plus $50 for each child, but for seniors there was no increase in the sales tax rebate. They had been getting $50 each; in effect, it is now $50 for all persons whether they are seniors or not, and a small amount for a child. By no means does it offset the extra costs that a tax of this sort will put on the bills of many households, on municipal costs, on school boards and on all the other things to which the sales tax has been extended over the past four or five years since 1984.

Hon. Mr. Conway: What are your alternatives for the billion dollars? Which programs do you want to cut?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Bryden: I am getting to that.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: What did the Liberals say when Frank Miller changed the base for sales tax?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The member for Beaches-Woodbine

Ms. Bryden: They opposed it when Frank Miller extended the base in 1984, but now they are extending it even further. Among the things they are extending it to are cable and telephone bills because the federal telecommunications tax is now part of the tax base; so we have tax on tax, and that is going much further than adding just a straight 15 per cent. A lot of people are noticing this tax on tax on their telephone and cable bills. I think it is a very retrogressive step, trying to tax virtually everything that moves except food, and trying to keep extending the base.

I hope the Treasurer will not renege on the agreement that apparently most of the provincial treasurers came to, that they would not go along with Mr. Wilson’s national retail sales tax which he wanted to add to the provincial taxes, and his plan to roll them all into one, because his idea of the base for such a tax is practically everything that moves. He did not even consider food; while that may have been ruled out, it would mean a further increase in regressive taxes in this province if the Treasurer and this government should go along with that national sales tax.

I am just giving them a warning. They may have a revolt on their hands if they try to go even further with what they are hitting people with under this bill.

Our party has provided a list of extensions that could be added to the sales tax that would tap a lot of revenue which is now escaping tax.

Our Treasury critic, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), suggested that the imposition of the retail sales tax on various business services that are currently exempt from the sales tax would raise $300 million a year. That is part of the Treasurer’ s answer as to where he is going to get that money. Our critic suggests the services include management consulting, engineering services, architectural services, computer services and advertising and stock brokerage commissions. That is a step that has been suggested for the past two or three years and nothing has happened on it.

The main thing is that we have to find a government that will return to the principle that consumption taxes are not progressive taxes and that unprogressive taxes are unfair to the majority of the population. This is why we think it is time the Treasurer stopped going in the direction of more and more consumption taxes and began to look at progressive taxes. This is why we feel we must vote against this bill. It is a revelation that the government is sponsoring a tax system that will get more and more unfair and less and less progressive.

Right now, there are still thousands of people below the poverty line who are paying income tax in Ontario, and to add the insult of giving them an extra 15 per cent in sales tax is really a blow to those people. The Treasurer tells us he keeps dropping a few more people off the income tax rolls every year, but then he slaps a 15 per cent sales tax on them.

These are some of the reasons why we must vote against it, and I am taking the time of the House just to tell members that is why our party will not vote for this bill on third reading.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments on the member’s statement?

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have a brief comment. I was aroused during the speech of the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who, I repeat, is one of the most senior members here. She is very learned in matters of finance. I have to say I think she is one of the most thoroughgoing fiscal conservatives in this chamber. I said it by way of interjection and I repeat it now in a more official way. She is a thoughtful lady who knows a great deal about high finance and the kind of energy that turns the private sector in the direction of creating new wealth and investment. I defer to her very considerable knowledge and experience in that connection.

I listen to her in her intervention and I really have to think that if she, with all her experience in administration and the world of academe, would honestly believe that some of what she suggests is practical or feasible is to discount her very considerable experience and academic standing.

She knows better than most of us just what the pressures are in our day and age. To suggest, as she says, that we should tax the business inputs that the member for Nickel Belt has put forward would, I think, as the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) suggested, excite the Minister of Finance for Canada as he looks for allies in the national sales tax question.

I just want to say to my friend from Beaches-Woodbine that we listen on an hourly basis to those over there in the official opposition as they tell us, in any given moment or any given day, how we could spend tens or hundreds of additional millions of dollars. That is their job, to tell us how to spend money. But we have the responsibility in office to recognize that there are taxpayers out there who have some tolerance to tax increases, and I am just telling her that we think the tax package that is represented in part by Bill 122 is a fair and equitable one.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Do other members wish to comment?

Mr.

Harris: Very briefly, I too, on behalf of my party, would like to thank the member for Beaches-Woodbine for reiterating her federal party’s support for a national sales tax plan and, on behalf of the provincial party, for indicating a general thrust and direction, that it is indeed an acceptable way to go; recognizing, I am sure, as she does, that it ought to lead, if you can trust politicians these days, and certainly Michael Wilson has made a definitive statement that it will be revenue-neutral and it will lead to a fairness in tax change, not to additional revenue; that indeed the broadening of the base will be accompanied by a lowering of the rate, which will substantially improve our competitiveness in a number of areas.

I also would like to indicate that our party shares that general thrust in direction as being responsible and forward-looking, and to remind the Liberal members today that their party as well, in the federal House, concurred and agreed that the direction the national sales tax plan wished to go in was good and, at the committee level, received unanimous support of the members of the three major parties in the federal House.

I say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine, I am encouraged that the federal support that was there in the House of Commons is being reflected here. It is important and it is particularly relevant, as we debate this bill and look for fairer ways to raise the revenues that are required to run the affairs of this province.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I want to congratulate the member for Beaches-Woodbine for another fine contribution to a debate in the Legislature.

I heard quite a different thing than, it would appear, the House leader for the government or the House leader for the third party heard. What I heard was what I have been hearing from our member for Beaches-Woodbine for many years, and that is that we advocate the expenditure of money -- we do -- but we advocate also raising those funds in a very fair and equitable way.

The difficulty we have had, with budgets that have been presented in Ottawa by Mr. Wilson and by the Treasurer at the provincial level, is that the tax increases have hurt working and middle-income families the most and have had no understanding of what low-income families go through in this province.

This sales tax increase by the current Liberal government hurts people on fixed and low incomes the most. The $1 billion that will be raised through the 13 per cent or 14 per cent increase in the sales tax will have and has had a devastating effect on low-income families across this province.

All we have wanted the current government to do is to live up to its promises in the past. When Frank Miller tried to increase the sales tax and increase the base of the sales tax, the Liberal Party, when it was in opposition, brought the Legislature to a grinding halt. There were bells. There were filibusters. There were all sorts of tactics by the Liberal finance critic when they were in opposition.

All we would like the Liberal Party to do when it is in government is what it used to advocate while it was the official opposition, and that is fair taxation to the people of the province and a recognition that low-income families need to get a break in our tax system. Instead, the Treasurer and the Liberal government have gone way too far. They are really damaging low- and middle-income families through this unfair tax.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Do other members wish to comment? If not, would the member wish to respond?

Ms. Bryden: I find the idea of fiscal conservatism from the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) rather strange. Is it fiscally conservative to be in favour of a corporation tax increase, which would bring some of that needed revenue in, instead of letting them off scot-free as this government has done?

Is it a fiscally conservative thing to be in favour of a land speculation tax which would bring in millions and also stop the housing turnover? Is it fiscally conservative to be in favour of a tax on business services? I know that business is sacrosanct over there, but it is time that they were properly taxed under this Retail Sales Tax Act.

Is it fiscally conservative to be in favour of a succession duty tax on the large estates, not on the ordinary family farm or small home, but to get revenue there? Many other provinces are still retaining succession duty tax. The Conservatives wiped it out here and the Liberals have not put it back in.

Those are some of the reasons why I think our tax policy will bring fairer taxes. The present trend of the Liberal government will do the exact opposite the way it is going, especially with no increase in tax on corporations, some of which are paying no tax at all, and no increases or trends in the directions I have mentioned.

I would also like to underline again that we do want the province to carry out the proposal of the standing committee on finance and economic affairs that we set up a study of what progressive taxes are.

Mr. Harris: I have a few brief comments I would like to make and put on the record before the Liberals vote in support of this particular part of the biggest tax grab in Ontario’s history.

I would like to say to the Treasurer, who is becoming known as Tax the Ripper, that I consider this to be one of the sorriest pieces of legislation we have had to deal with during a most unhappy session for his government.

I know the Treasurer and the government House leader, both keen students of politics, will be familiar with Benjamin Disraeli’s description of politics as “this career of plundering and blundering.” I cannot think of a more apt description of the record of this government, as it has plundered at nearly every opportunity and blundered nearly every issue it has had to deal with. It blundered free trade, it blundered the Temagami land claims and logging dispute, it blundered parks policy, it blundered the Sunday shopping issue, it blundered auto insurance. It has blundered literally its entire agenda.

Interjection.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Harris: Today we have in front of us Bill 122, a sterling example of Liberal plundering.

This bill, the Retail Sales Tax Amendment Act, could just as easily be entitled

an act to abuse Ontario consumers. Its clear intent is to make Ontario consumers pay for the excesses of the Liberal government in this province.

This bill, which will raise an additional $1 billion in a full year, is the major part of the Treasurer’ s $1.3-billion, smash-and-grab budget that he brought before us last spring. We said at that time -- and I repeat and say again today -- that this tax increase is unnecessary, inflationary and regressive. I think the Treasurer himself, who does not appear to be in the House today, would agree with me on at least two of those three points.

Specifically, I think the Treasurer would agree that the tax increase proposed by Bill 122 is inflationary and has added about half a percentage point to the increase in the consumer price index in Ontario. That is wrong and that is regressive. It has added to the tax burden on low-income people at a time when we are supposedly considering major reforms and changes in the social assistance system in Ontario.

I would love to hear what the Premier (Mr. Peterson) is saying to his counterparts from the other provinces today in Ottawa when they complain about the Bank of Canada’s interest rate policy, a policy supposedly designed to contain inflation and deal with pressures generated by the Ontario economy. I would love to hear what the Premier, whose own fiscal policies have contributed to the inflation problem, is saying to soothe his friends, who see their growth opportunities limited by high interest rates. I doubt that he is telling them they have to pay so that his government can prosper. Maybe he is telling them about some of his “sweet headaches.”

As for the necessity of this tax increase, I would simply point out to the Treasurer that over the past three fiscal years his government has collected windfall revenues of nearly $2 billion, and without increasing one single tax in his last budget. If he had not increased any of them, in his last budget alone revenues would have increased by 8.2 per cent -- essentially double the rate of inflation -- or $2.8 billion. That was the additional revenue coming in without any tax increases relative to last year’s levels.

None of this, however, was enough to satisfy this government’s voracious appetite for tax dollars and hence this bill, as part of a package, with its 15 per cent increase in the retail sales tax.

It is legislation like this which causes us to ask, “What does this government have against the consumer?” Let’s just take as an example a typical two-income family of four where one person earns $35,000 a year and the other earns $18,000 or so. Let’s take that fairly typical family. Even if they do not make any major purchases as a result of this bill, they will pay an additional $153 in sales taxes this year.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Who’s going to pay for the new hospital in North Bay?

Mr. Harris: If they go out and buy a new car --

Hon. Mr. Conway: Who’s going to pay for the waterfront improvement in North Bay?

Mr. Harris: I appreciate the interjections because it tells me that I am hitting a very sensitive nerve among those Liberal backbenchers who are afraid to speak up and put their thoughts on the record, but indeed would rather react to mine. I understand that.

Let’s say this typical family goes out and buys a new car for $14,000. They will pay an additional $140 in taxes as a result of this bill. After that they can start to pay the higher gasoline tax of the Treasurer and his higher government-improved insurance rates.

If they want to buy a new house, they will not only have to pay the Liberals’ increased land transfer tax, which has tripled or quadrupled since they have taken office, if we look at the budget documents, but they can expect to pay between $1,500 to $2,000 additional for their home as a direct result of this bill alone. That is not counting the additional $900 that will be added to the price of an average house because this bill expands the retail sales tax base to include ready-mix concrete and asphalt. That is not counting that one that is in there as well.

I find these to be pretty peculiar tax policies for a government which says, “We put housing first and homes now.” I find it very strange because the reality is that it is the Treasury first and taxes now. That is what we have seen demonstrated by this government. It is a strange thing indeed to read in the papers of the Treasurer’s concern about the probable impact of a national sales tax on new home buyers. That was last fall during the federal election. The Treasurer had a concern, he said, about the probable impact of a national sales tax on new home buyers, and his own government has so gleefully profiteered in the housing market.

Of course, the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) have not finished with our average couple yet. Bill 122 has not finished with them yet. Every time they buy some new furniture or a new appliance, they will pay 15 per cent more tax because of this bill. Every time they pay their phone bill, they will pay more tax because of this bill. The government, in its desperation to leave not a stone unturned and to leave nothing untaxed, has imposed a tax on a tax and will now tax the federal tax on the phone bill.

If they have any money left over, they will probably have to spend it on increased municipal taxes, which will be hiked to offset the fact that Bill 122 will run up the provincial retail sales tax bill for Ontario municipalities by anywhere from $100,000 to $480,000 this year, at a time when the government has frozen unconditional grants and frozen road transfers to municipalities. This bill alone has added that tax burden to municipalities.

We know that the Liberal caucus will pass Bill 122. We know that we do not have the numbers and we cannot stop this fiscal horror from becoming law. We know that they are sitting over there counting their additional billions with one eye on the calendar and thinking that time will heal all wallets. I do not think it will happen this time.

The people of Ontario will have their turn to vote on Bill 122. My friends opposite should remember that the people of Ontario will have their opportunity to vote on Bill 122, just as they and I have our opportunity today to vote on Bill 122. I think they should remember that.

I want to conclude by saying two things. When problems appear, this government’s approach appears to be one described in three words: ready, fire, aim. Every problem this government has looked at it seems to have approached in that way: ready, fire and then aim. There is no vision. There is no long-term goal. There is no understanding of what they are doing with one hand and the effect it is having on the other, and it is not responsible.

If they do not like that summing up, I have another one for them. Perhaps the Liberal fiscal policy could be summed up like this: If it moves, tax it; if it keeps moving, regulate it and if it stops moving, subsidize it.

An hon. member: I can’t follow the logic of that.

Mr. Harris: I think the member should be able to follow the logic of that, if he thinks about area after area after area of policy concern, if he thinks about housing, if he thinks about this bill alone and the taxes that are increased, if he thinks about how they have taxed the housing market and driven affordable housing out of the reach of people, and then if he thinks, “That didn’t work, that didn’t drive everybody out of housing completely,” then he thinks about the regulations that they brought in. Finally they brought it to its knees and it stopped.

Now they had only one other solution: not to look at what they had caused by the taxation, not to look at what is being caused by the regulations; in fact they had only one other choice, and that was to subsidize it. If members look at an affordable house or home or apartment or dwelling that is being built in this province today, it is being built with subsidization, because they taxed everything, then they regulated everything and now it is left to government.

If members think about policy area after policy area, about what is happening in the insurance industry -- they tax it, then they regulate it -- and think about what may happen two, three, four, five, six, seven years from now. Just think about the insurance industry, about whether the only way is going to be then to subsidize it.

That appetite for tax dollars fuels itself. The direction that this government is going in is wrong, and my party will be voting against this bill on third reading. We have taken a few moments today, in an unusual move on third reading, to speak up once again and to take some time in debate to remind those who will be voting very shortly on this particular piece of legislation that they are wrong. They are proceeding in the wrong direction at just about every opportunity that they have.

I started by talking about plundering and blundering. I ask members to reflect on the blunders that this government has made and the plundering that it has had to come up with to pay for its mistakes.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just want to say two things quickly. First, no member in this Legislature is as persistent in his demands that the government spend money in his constituency as our good friend the member for Nipissing. He stands up and he demands, in sometimes the most unbecomingly strident tones that one could imagine, that vast sums be appropriated to new courthouses, new hospitals, four lanes of highways and all the rest.

To give my friend the member for Nipissing his due, he has not been without some measure of success. When it comes to the request for, the demand for and the application of public funds to his constituency, none of us in this chamber needs to take a back seat to the member for Nipissing.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: But where do we get the money?

Hon. Mr. Conway: My friend the member for Niagara Falls asks where we get the money. Of course, the member for Nipissing would like to have one believe that there is some kind of social credit out there that could be applied to meet the need and avoid the pain.

My second comment will be a remembrance of that day in June 1985 when my good friend the member for Nipissing was over here. Talk about plunder and blunder. For those of us who remember the last days of the ancien régime, the member for Nipissing sat dutifully beside our friend the former member for Nipissing and there was not anything they were not prepared to consider to hold on to their seals of office. So I say to my friend for Nipissing, when he was over here, he was not shy about what he was prepared to do by way of raising taxes or spending money:

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. The member’s time is up.

Ms. Bryden: I want to clarify what both the member for Nipissing and the member for Renfrew North appeared to indicate, that the national New Democratic Party is favouring Mr. Wilson’s national sales tax or value added tax. In committee meetings, they may have said, “We might like to hear more about this.”

Hon. Mr. Conway: Oh, here comes the great NDP fence-sit.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Wilson has not clarified what he means or what he is planning to do. When the second shoe drops, we will then be able to evaluate what he is proposing.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Well, there is no one who sat on a fence on this better than Nixon.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Ms. Bryden: When we get a chance to study it and see that it will greatly increase the base and greatly increase the regressivity of taxes in this country, I am almost positive that our NDP caucus will not support that. But we have not taken a position on it yet. We believe in examining things and debating them in our caucuses first.

Mr. Villeneuve: I too want to compliment my colleague the member for Nipissing and refer to the glowing terms in which the government House leader referred to the way he represents his constituents. That is something I am sure will go down and be read by numerous people throughout the province.

Of course, our House leader, as he usually is, was right again. It is the situation that from 1985, when this government took over, until now more than $12 billion in additional taxes, money, funds was taken from the people of Ontario. Indeed, they are looking for more, tax upon tax upon tax.

It is always interesting to find out where some of this taxation money goes.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Villeneuve: They sure do not like the facts, Mr. Speaker. You have noticed that. As I was saying, an additional $12 billion has gone into the coffers of this government in less than four years. Where has some of this money gone? There are some 8,000 additional civil servants.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Villeneuve: I can go back to my riding. In the county of Glengarry, for instance, we have a business --

Mr. Ballinger: When are you leaving?

Mr. Villeneuve: I am not leaving. I represent them well here. I go home on the weekend and I meet them down there.

But in the county of Glengarry, for instance, the Ministry of the Environment is holding up a privately owned and privately funded $200,000 project. All we are waiting for is the green light to give them the okay so that they can go in and do the work they have to do. The particular operation I am talking about is a retail gas station -- $5.3 million of government taxes come from that particular operation -- and the Ministry of the Environment is preventing it from running its business.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. The member for York Mills.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: Listening to the member for Nipissing, I could not help but remark to myself that in the 42 years of Progressive Conservative rule we saw the retail sales tax go from zero to seven per cent, we saw the budget deficit go from zero to over $30 billion and we saw the deficit in funding, the failure to build schools, roads and hospitals, go way, way up to a point where it is immeasurable.

Yet the new Treasurer, I suggest, with one minor adjustment in the Retail Sales Tax Act has been able to reverse that trend. The budgetary deficit for the province is now going down; the deficit in underfunding is going down. For the first time in a long time, necessary roads, schools, hospitals and social programs are being funded.

If the member for Nipissing does not want that to take place, he should stand up and say so, make it clear for the record that he is opposed to funding necessary social programs, necessary roads, necessary hospitals and necessary schools. He does not want to invest in the future. He does not want to invest in our physical and human capital. He should make it clear that that is what he believes in.

The Deputy Speaker: For a few seconds, the member for Simcoe East.

Mr. McLean: I have not got long enough, but I want to ask the member for Nipissing: Is this the government that brought in the extra cost for ready-mix for building houses? Is this the government that brought in double the executive assistants’ salaries? Is this the government that pretty nearly doubled the deputy ministers’ salaries? Is this the government that put its administration costs up 35 per cent? Those are all costs.

The Deputy Speaker: The member’s time is up. Does the member for Nipissing wish to respond?

Mr. Harris: If I might take a couple of minutes, as is my right, to respond, I will say to the member for Beaches-Woodbine that I enjoyed her original comments more than the two-minute summation as she looked at my remarks. I am disappointed that she appears now to be aligning herself with the Treasurer in this ambivalent, do-nothing approach. “Yes, I like it; but maybe no; yes.”

I was proud of her comments originally when she made a strong, forceful statement, in my view, that the direction she was going in was in total support of her federal colleagues who supported the principle of a national sales tax plan and a broadening of that base. Now, however, I am disappointed to see she is a little more like the government House leader and the government Treasurer, in which case they want to waffle on the whole thing.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Harris: I also want to refer to the comments that were made by the government House leader, the member for Renfrew North when he indicated how hard I fight on behalf of my riding. I make no apologies to this House for how hard I do fight.

On the other hand, let me say this. When I see $500 million to hire 9,000 new civil servants, I say to myself that I think maybe Nipissing could use a few million dollars here in direct programs instead of fattening up the civil service. I think maybe we should look at delivering services to people, as opposed to fattening the salaries and substantially increasing the numbers of political aides, as this government does.

The first priority is to look after my own office, then see how we can increase those salaries, then see how many more we can hire. Let’s hire some more civil servants to carry out all the studies we have to do, because we do not know what to do, so we have to study it. I do not apologize for saying Nipissing is entitled to its small little piece of that share, before all that money is frittered away.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I have not heard a new thing today. I have listened to my friends the member for Beaches-Woodbine and the member for Nipissing. It was a duplication of their comments on second reading.

But I would like to remind the House, especially my friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and my friend the member for Nipissing who were talking about the biggest tax grab in this province, that back in 1966, the Tories increased the sales tax from three to five per cent, which is a 66 per cent increase. Back in 1975, they increased it again by 40 per cent. Back in 1978, they increased it from four to seven per cent, and that is a 75 per cent increase.

Maybe I should be asking the opposition, especially the Tories, what they have done with those fat increases. They have not built roads or bridges. They have not improved our infrastructures. They have not improved our education system. When we came to power we had to, let’s say, do a little catch-up job, because of their negligence of the past.

Now we have increased the retail sales tax by one per cent, trying to provide northern Ontario with the needed roads and the needed schools and also to transfer jobs to northern Ontario -- 1,700 new jobs in northern Ontario -- and they are asking us to do more. We are trying to do more with less. This is what we are actually doing.

My friend the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry should not criticize about eastern Ontario, because he found out on Saturday where eastern Ontario stands in this province with these additional dollars. Just in schools, in education, he has seen more progress in eastern Ontario and his own riding than he has seen in the last 42 years.

In the last budget, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities was increased by 7.5 per cent. The Ministry of Community and Social Services was increased by 14.6 per cent -- that is not bad -- the Ministry of Education by 6.2 per cent, the Ministry of the Environment by 9.2 per cent and the Ministry of Health by 9.8 per cent. I think the additional dollars this additional percentage of retail sales tax will bring to this government will ensure every Ontarian is well served.

We have done more for housing. We have increased the housing budget by more than 30 per cent.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order. One member at a time, please.

Mr. Wildman: You haven’t built any houses; you have just increased the budget.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That is not exactly true. We have built more houses. Right now, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hoŝek) is in Ottawa announcing close to 700 more units in nonprofit.

I think we are investing our dollars wisely. Also, due to the federal limitation in the growth of transfer payments, especially for health and post-secondary schools, this province will lose $1 billion. Opposition members are asking us how we can build more schools, and yet the federal government cut back on the transfer payments by $1 billion. I think that is their answer.

We will continue to do more with less, and also provide better services in this province for many years to come with less money.

The Deputy Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House that the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say “aye.”

All those opposed will please say “nay.”

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

Mr. Harris: Mr. Speaker, I think we can quickly arrive at some form of unanimous consent to stack this vote until Wednesday.

Hon. Mr. Conway: By previous agreement, we have agreed to stack any votes arising out of the --

Interjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I just got so excited. We had agreed to stack any votes arising out of the third reading debates this afternoon until 5:45 Wednesday afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Is there unanimous consent to this proposal?

Some hon members: Agreed.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you for letting me know.

Vote stacked.

WATER TRANSFER CONTROL ACT

Hon. Mr. Kerrio moved third reading of Bill 175,

An Act respecting transfers of Water.

Mr. Wildman: Just briefly, I want to reiterate the concern we on this side of the House have with regard to the inadequate job of drafting the legislation in the first place, the farce we all experienced when we had to point out to the minister that a bill that purported to prevent the export of water was in fact a bill that was set up to regulate the export of water and to gain revenue for the provincial Treasury through that export.

When we suggested an amendment in the House, the minister said yes, he would amend it, but then tried to maintain that the bill was not really designed to regulate the export of water to the United States or outside of this country, but rather outside of this province into other provinces such as Manitoba. Of course, we have been exporting water to Winnipeg since 1913 without any such legislation and we do not need it in order to continue doing it.