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

November 30, 1988

34th Parliament, 1st Session

< Previous sitting day

Next sitting day >

Hansard Transcripts

L113 - Wed 30 Nov 1988 / Mer 30 nov 1988

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

BARBADIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

NATIONAL STUDENT CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN STUDIES

CORONER’S INQUEST

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

PROTECTION OF OZONE LAYER

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

JANE MAHER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

CONTROL OF SMOKING / RÉGLEMENTATION DU TABAGISME

RESPONSES

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

CONTROL OF SMOKING

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

CONTROL OF SMOKING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

SEWAGE TREATMENT

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SEWAGE TREATMENT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

FUEL TAXES

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

The House met at 1:30 p.m.

Prayers.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. Speaker: I beg to inform the House that I am today laying upon the table the annual report of the Provincial Auditor of Ontario for the year ended March 31, 1988.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

Mr. Morin-Strom: With the federal election now behind us, the duplicity of this Liberal Party on the free trade issue is becoming more and more evident every day. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) totally abandoned his own election mandate to stop a bad deal. Now he refuses to protect workers and communities that face serious restructuring and plant closures.

The Ontario Liberals prefer to use the federal government as a whipping boy for doing nothing about adjustment assistance. Even though jurisdiction for employment standards, labour relations and pensions is provincial, this government refuses to act on the Premier’s Council recommendation that the government “develop a comprehensive approach to meeting the adjustment needs of workers.”

In fact, the real actions of this government are to promote free trade at any cost to Ontario. While transportation was exempted from the free trade deal, Ontario has still proceeded with the Truck Transportation Act, opening up our $2-billion Ontario trucking industry to an unlimited American invasion. I fully agree with the Canadian Trucking Association that this bill is “an act of bad faith on the part of the Liberal administration in Ontario that was so much against free trade, but apparently quite prepared to throw the trucking industry to the wolves.”

The dishonesty of the Ministry of Transportation throughout the committee review of Bill 88 has been beyond belief. Surely it is time for this government to come clean with the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member’s time has now expired.

BARBADIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

Mrs. Marland: I rise today to recognize Barbadian Independence Day. On November 30, 1966, the island nation of Barbados became an independent nation within the Commonwealth.

Barbadians have been successful over the years in developing modern medical facilities, a social security system, a state-run education system and of course a successful tourist industry that has benefited the island and all those who have visited this Caribbean jewel. Barbados has become a popular vacation destination for Canadians. In 1987, 64,349 Canadian tourists visited Barbados.

In addition, a thriving community of Barbadian Canadians exists here in Toronto. We join them today in celebrating both Barbadian Independence Day and the beautiful island of Barbados. We thank the people of Barbados who have made their home in Ontario, and who through their living here have enhanced our opportunity to know and appreciate their culture and heritage.

NATIONAL STUDENT CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN STUDIES

Mr. Adams: I recently attended the National Student Conference on Northern Studies. This brings together the best northern studies students from Canada’s provinces and the territories. These students do research in the northern parts of the provinces and in the territories. This year, students from Alaska and elsewhere in the United States also attended.

Over 90 papers were presented on topics as varied as the teaching of native languages, glaciers, arctic sovereignty, northern lakes, day care legislation, whales, exploration history, Greenland cod, Arctic gardening and community health delivery.

Ontario was well represented by our two northern universities, Lakehead and Laurentian, and by students from Carleton, Guelph, Queen’s, McMaster, Ottawa, Ryerson, Toronto, Waterloo, York, Windsor and Trent.

I was proud of the quality of this province’s contributions. We support excellent work in northern Ontario and across Canada’s north. In doing so, we contribute to this country’s great northern heritage. One example of co-operation between Ontario and the territories is the developing links between the Northwest Territories’ Arctic College and York University and Trent University.

I commend the Association of Canadian Universities for Northern Studies for organizing this worthwhile conference. I congratulate all Ontario ministries that contribute to northern studies, especially the Ministry of Northern Development.

CORONER’S INQUEST

Mr. D. S. Cooke: On August 14 of this year, Bernard Bastien was killed by the Ontario Provincial Police tactical rescue unit. The coroner’s inquest that resulted from that death has now been going on for six weeks, at an approximate cost to date of between $500,000 and $600,000. Currently, the inquest has been adjourned while the lawyer for the family applies to the Divisional Court because of accusations that the coroner has been biased against the family and against the lawyer representing the family.

The application for that injunction to stop the coroner’s inquest should have been heard this week. It is now likely to be adjourned because the lawyer representing the coroner will be asking for an adjournment. This will mean that the next court hearing will likely not be until April of next year, which means the coroner’s inquest will be delayed until April of next year and then may in fact be cancelled at that time.

It seems appropriate to me and my party that what the government should be doing is abandoning the coroner’s inquest today and calling a public inquiry to deal with what can only be called not just a tragedy for the people in my community, but a tragedy for the people of this entire province. A lot of questions need to be asked about what the TRUs do in this province, why they exist and whether we continue to need them in this province. That can be answered only by a public inquiry.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

Mrs. Cunningham: In 1985, the government changed the policy affecting disabled students who attend a post-secondary institution on a full-time basis. Under the old system, disabled persons attending university full-time were covered by the Ministry of Community and Social Services through its vocational rehabilitation services program. Today, the disabled who attend school full-time must deal with at least two different ministries and several bureaucracies.

Joanne Ernewine of Thunder Bay is a victim of this bureaucratic red tape. Miss Ernewine, a sole-support parent, is determined to become a productive member of the workforce. We should not only admire this personal goal she has set for herself, but we should be helping her to achieve this goal.

There are many others who are trying to become productive members of society, but their hopes are diminished by the educational and financial barriers that for some have proved to be insurmountable.

Recommendation 106 of Transitions addresses the need for adequate financial assistance to enable low-income students to attend post-secondary educational institutions, as well as assistance in overcoming administrative barriers. I made reference to Transitions earlier this week and I again urge the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) to act upon this recommendation immediately.

PROTECTION OF OZONE LAYER

Ms. Collins: Recently, we have been alerted to the health dangers posed by the decline over the last decade of the ozone layer, the layer of gas that shields the earth from harmful ultraviolet rays. The depletion of ozone is linked to the release of increasing quantities of chlorofluorocarbon compounds, or CFCs, and Halons, the major sources of which include refrigeration and air-conditioning products.

Although the Montreal protocol on the depletion of the ozone layer is a significant step forward in dealing with this problem, most experts agree that even more drastic and more rapid reductions in CFC atmospheric releases are needed in the near future to avoid epidemic increases in ultraviolet-linked diseases such as skin cancer.

The federal government has primary responsibility for taking action in this area, but there is considerable scope for provincial and municipal initiatives as well. The environmental organization Friends of the Earth has recommended a number of measures that lie within provincial purview, including establishing recycling centres for CFC reclamation and requiring the recovery of CFCs from disposed automobiles and refrigerators.

I urge the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) to give serious consideration to these and the other recommendations put forward by this organization and to report to this House as soon as possible on the government’s plan for further action in this important area.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Markham, for 35 seconds.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Cousens: I think it is high time the government did something about Highway 407. Highway 407, which had its beginning two years ago, is a $650-million project. Unless we start spending more than $25 million a year, it is going to be 25 years before it is finished. By then, the member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) is going to be in a rocking chair or an old folks’ home and will not have a chance to enjoy it.

For the member for York Centre and for myself from Markham, let’s proceed with speeding up the whole building process of Highway 407. It will help Metropolitan Toronto and York region. It will help all the people of Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: That completes the time for members’ statements.

Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I ask for unanimous consent to make a statement about a person who served many people in this Legislature over a period of years.

Agreed to.

JANE MAHER

Mr. McCague: It was with great sadness that we learned of the death yesterday of Jane Maher, a young woman in the prime of her life and one of the unsung heroines of this political process. While members of parliament, by the very nature of our occupation, are in the limelight, we depend a great deal on the staff, the people who work behind the scenes.

They are the ones who do the research, verify the facts and keep track of what is going on; in other words, they enable us to do our jobs. Such a person was Jane Maher. She had worked in different ministries before starting with Dr. Stephenson in the spring of 1976. Jane worked with Dr. Stephenson throughout her various ministerial portfolios until late 1987 when Dr. Stephenson resigned.

Bette said that Jane, as principal secretary and office manager and later as executive assistant “kept the whole process working and ran the show. We couldn’t have managed without her.” All those who knew Jane were impressed by her warm personality, by the feeling that she was a person who really cared. She had a wonderful sense of humour, and as one friend said, she “lit up the room the minute she entered.” She was popular among her peers and highly respected by her employers.

At the time of her death, Jane was working for Dr. George Podrebarac in the pay equity branch of the Ministry of Labour.

On behalf of all members of this House, I would like to extend deepest sympathy to her mother and to her brothers and sisters in their loss. We are all richer by her example. We hope and pray that example will live on.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of my colleagues and from a very personal point of view, I want to join the member for Simcoe West in expressing our sorrow on this very sad occasion.

I knew Jane Maher very well. Of course, I had many dealings with her over many years while she was my contact in the office of the then Minister of Education. I can say from personal experience that all the member for Simcoe West has said is certainly true, and then some.

Jane was very helpful, always friendly; in some ways just an absolutely marvellous antidote to her boss -- I am sure Bette would allow me to say that -- because I can remember often having very lively discussions in this chamber and elsewhere with the then Minister of Education and meeting Jane in the corridors afterwards, and she was always very willing to help me in the many requests I put to her.

I just want to say that she served her minister and all of us very, very well. I was shocked to hear of her passing today, since it does not seem that many months ago when we had a very extended chat in the Whitney Block.

I am deeply saddened to learn of her passing and I want to join the member for Simcoe West in extending my personal sympathy and that of the government to her family.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: We in the New Democratic Party would also like to extend our sympathy to the family of Jane Maher. I personally did not know Jane, but it is obvious from my colleagues and other members of the Legislature that her contribution to the government and to the Legislature was extensive. We extend our deepest sympathies to the family.

Mr. Speaker: When the official record is printed, I will make certain a copy is sent to the Maher family so that your words of sympathy are received by them.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

Hon. Mr. Fontaine: On behalf of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), it is my sad duty to inform the Legislature of the tragic plane crash near Chapleau last evening which took the lives of four people.

The plane was one of the Ministry of Health’s air ambulance fleet. It was a King Air 100, operated by Voyageur Airways and stationed in Timmins, which crashed approximately six kilometres outside of Chapleau while on a flight to pick up a patient at Chapleau.

All of those aboard -- the pilot, co-pilot and two air ambulance paramedics -- were killed. There was no patient on board when the crash occurred.

The sequence of events is as follows:

At 9:53 last evening, a patient transfer was requested from Chapleau to take a critically injured person to Sault Ste. Marie. Estimated departure of the aircraft was 10:15 p.m., with an estimated arrival time at Chapleau of 10:45 p.m.

When the plane had failed to arrive by midnight, a search and rescue mission was initiated, and shortly after 5 a.m. today the crash site was found and it was confirmed there were no survivors.

Meanwhile, the patient had been transported by land ambulance to Timmins and is under care there.

Those who serve in the Ministry of Health’s air ambulance service do so in a dedicated fashion. Many of our citizens owe their lives to these professionals. I know honourable members of this House will want to join the Minister of Health in expressing their heartfelt sympathy to the families, friends and colleagues of pilot David Townsend, co-pilot Bryon Bewart and paramedics Ian Harris and Donald Contant.

The investigation is continuing and the Minister of Health, along with Dr. Ron Stewart, medical director for the air ambulance base hospital program affiliated with Sunnybrook Medical Centre, and Terry Turner, supervisor, air ambulance, have gone to Timmins to meet with air ambulance staff.

CONTROL OF SMOKING / RÉGLEMENTATION DU TABAGISME

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Later today, I will be introducing for first reading a bill to restrict smoking in the workplace. The bill will prohibit smoking in all enclosed Ontario workplaces under provincial jurisdiction, except in areas specifically designated by employers as areas in which people may smoke. These designated areas will not be permitted to exceed 25 per cent of the total space of the workplace.

Within that basic standard, the legislation will allow employers and employees to work out no-smoking policies. Consultation with joint health and safety committees in the workplace will be required before an area can be designated to permit smoking.

This legislation, which I will describe further in a few moments, reflects the increasing concern about secondhand smoke, a concern which has led to a public consensus on the goal of reducing smoking in the workplace.

In this area, government has two responsibilities:

As an employer, the government has an obligation to determine policy regarding smoking in the Ontario government workplaces. My colleague the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston) will outline for members the specific no-smoking policy that will apply in Ontario government facilities.

As a regulator, the government has a duty to propose legislation that will ensure a basic standard that will apply to all workplaces under provincial jurisdiction. The government now is fulfilling its responsibility through this legislation which prohibits smoking in all areas unless they have been explicitly designated as smoking areas. Under Ontario legislation, therefore, work areas in which smoking is permitted will be the exception rather than the rule.

This bill will apply to all workplaces that are subject to Ontario labour legislation. That covers approximately 3.9 million workers at some 233,000 workplaces, more than 90 per cent of the province’s workforce including retail, commercial, manufacturing and mining operations, governments, hospitals, social service agencies and, of course, educational institutions. It will not, however, require the prohibition of smoking in areas of a workplace in which the public is served such as restaurants, bars and hotel lobbies. Outdoor work areas will be exempted, vehicles such as provincially regulated buses and the residential portions of facilities such as hostels and detention centres.

Ce projet de loi s’appliquera à tous les lieux de travail assujettis au code du travail de l’Ontario. Cela couvre environ 3,9 millions de travailleurs dans 233 000 lieux de travail, c’est-à-dire plus de 90 pour cent de la main-d’oeuvre de la province.

The basic standard set out in this bill will work hand in hand with municipal regulations. Municipal provisions that already regulate smoking in the workplace will stay in force so long as they meet the legislation’s requirements. New municipal bylaws will be permitted so long as they at least match the provincial standard.

By leave of this assembly, the legislation I am introducing today will take effect on July 1 of next year, and Ontario will become the first province in Canada to restrict smoking in the workplace.

The standard this legislation sets will form the basis of no-smoking regulations in workplaces throughout this province, including regulations in Ontario government workplaces, which my colleague will detail in just a moment.

It is now a little over a quarter of a century since governments first took steps to discourage the use of smoking tobacco by requiring warning labels on cigarette packages. Today, we are taking another step in the direction of a smoke-free society. The legislation that I am introducing today will do a great deal to hasten that day.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am sorry our colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) is not here today, because I think it should be mentioned at the outset that the member has been fairly adamant in addressing the issue of smoking in all workplaces. I think in the light of that consistent and fairly vocal presentation of his position, the member for Carleton ought to have been consulted before we delivered these speeches so that he could have been here -- to revel, I suspect.

Anyway, further to the announcement of the Minister of Labour of this government’s intention to introduce legislation regulating smoking in all enclosed indoor workplaces in Ontario, I would like to indicate my support for this initiative. As Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet, I believe it is the responsibility of the government to demonstrate its commitment to and support of the policy.

Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that as of March 31, 1989, smoking will no longer be permitted in Ontario public service and

schedule 1 agency workplaces. The policy will apply equally to our employees and to those who visit our workplaces.

Achieving a smoke-free working environment will be beneficial for everyone, but it will not be easy for everyone. We are depending on the consideration of nonsmokers as well as on the co-operation of smokers to make this important initiative a success. As part of this initiative, we will be offering assistance to those employees who wish to enrol in smoking cessation programs.

I might add by way of an aside that we are hoping to build on the positive aspects of the program that was implemented at the Ministry of Health not long ago. We are looking to that to provide us with guidance in assisting those people in a very sensitive way to deal with smoking.

The government of Ontario is committed to its role as a caring and model employer. I am confident that this policy is a positive step forward in the development of a healthy workplace.

RESPONSES

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

Mr. Laughren: I wish to join with the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) in expressing our sorrow as a result of the air crash near Chapleau last night. I want to make sure members understand very clearly that this is not simply the delivery of an ordinary service; it is the delivery of a service with built-in dangers and, obviously, built-in sacrifices, and we must never forget that. I am sure it is not simply those of us in this chamber but people all across northern Ontario who join with us in our sorrow today.

On behalf of my colleagues, I want to express our condolences to the colleagues of the people who were killed in the crash, their friends, and their immediate families of course. On a personal note, I want to thank the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) who kept me informed from early this morning as the events unfolded; I appreciated that very much.

I hope that we, as members, will be ever mindful as we think of this tragedy of that service which is provided to people in northern Ontario, of the risks and the sacrifices some of the people who provide that service take as a regular part of their job.

Mr. B. Rae: I want to add my condolences to the comments made by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt. I actually met Ian Harris, one of the paramedics who was killed, just a short few days ago in this Legislature. He was one of a number of ambulance attendants who, I am sure members will recall, were sitting up in the gallery on a day which had been chosen by their union as a day on which they would be lobbying the government about their work, their pay and their conditions.

I might add that one of the things I can distinctly remember having raised with me upstairs in room 351 by Mr. Harris, along with a number of other people who were there, was this very question of air safety. I hope there will be a thorough investigation of what happened. I think it simply underlines the importance of this service to northerners, as well as it outlines the very real risks and dangers that are run by those people who work in our health care system trying to protect the health and indeed the lives of all of us. It shows us the debt we owe to all of them, and our heartfelt condolences and feelings go out to the families of the four men who were killed.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. B. Rae: I want, in the two minutes remaining, to say a few words with respect to the announcement made today by the two ministers of the crown. I would have thought that it would have been perhaps appropriate if more had been said on the government’s side about the work of our colleague the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) who has led us all in this battle here, as have others in the House of Commons.

I might pay tribute to my good friend Lynn McDonald, who is a former member of the riding with which I had an acquaintance. She, along with others, took up a cause which, when it was first taken up, was not popular and was certainly not trendy and was one which was opposed by one of the most well-financed, well-heeled and highly lobbied industries going, the tobacco industry.

Tobacco is a killer. There are lots of euphemisms we can use to talk about this subject, but there is no point in beating around the bush any more. We know that tobacco causes diseases which kill people, and we also know it is an addiction which affects literally millions of our fellow citizens. I would hope that in addition to making the announcements that have been made today, which I regard as a very minimal first step our government should have taken some time ago, we need to have a much more aggressive and helpful approach from the government with respect to the people who have what I would regard, frankly, as an addiction.

If we are going to have programs which say, “You should not smoke. You cannot smoke here. You cannot smoke there,” we have to do more than talk about education in the schools. We have to do more to actively encourage people and help people to deal with the addiction to nicotine.

We look forward to proceeding with this discussion in the weeks and months ahead and look forward to hearing from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) about what she is going to do in her department to see that we really take this problem seriously in this province at last.

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

Mr. Pope: In relation to the statement of the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine), I know from my own experience that one of the most difficult times for a minister in the Legislature is when that minister has to stand up and announce just such an event as the minister had to announce today. I recall the Maple Mountain helicopter crash of 1984 with the loss of some lives, people who were working for the government of Ontario at the time.

From conversations with the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) this morning, I know that all is being done to assist the families of the deceased and to reassure the community and those involved in the operation of the air ambulance system in northern Ontario of the concern of the government for a full and complete investigation and, if need be, some improvements with respect to the air ambulance system. I do not think it is a time for debating the public policy issues, although there are a couple associated with this event that will no doubt be dealt with at a later time.

The air ambulance system has grown throughout northern Ontario over the past decade. It has been established from one part of northern Ontario to the other, from the Manitoba border to the Quebec border and beyond.

It has been successful in meeting the needs of northerners in large and small communities across northern Ontario, not just because of the commitment of this government and previous governments but because of the selfless dedication of those who work within the air ambulance system: pilots, paramedics, attendants, people in the hospitals, doctors, nurses, all of whom have given of their time and efforts over the years to serve their fellow northerners and to make sure they have prompt, adequate health care made readily available to them.

It has been a successful program, but with every successful program there are risks. Those involved in the delivery of this necessary service across northern Ontario -- and there were 14,000 occasions when the air ambulance was used out of Timmins alone last year -- are aware of the risk of flying in difficult weather conditions in the dead of winter across northern Ontario and willingly accept that risk, because they know the good they do for their fellow northerners, their fellow Ontarians, far outweighs that risk.

There were four people, the pilot, co-pilot and two paramedics, who gave their lives to perhaps save a life themselves and to improve the quality of health care for all of us. These residents of Timmins were well known to us. They were very caring, community-minded people. We will miss them very much in our home town. We want to give our deepest condolences to their families, the small children who are left behind and to those who knew them well. We will all miss them in Timmins and we all pay tribute to them today for what they have tried to do to make our province and the lives of the people of northern Ontario much better for their efforts.

CONTROL OF SMOKING

Mr. Pope: With respect to the statement of the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) and a follow-up statement by the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet (Mr. Elston), we wish to congratulate the government on introducing the bill of the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling) today. Clearly it is.

I do not think anyone in this Legislature can help but acknowledge the contributions of the member for Carleton, his relentless efforts over the years in private member’s legislation and questions in question period, in asides to the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and to the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) and to others on the government side about moving forward with progress on this very important public policy issue. Members will all appreciate and want to acknowledge today the efforts that he has made to bring this legislation forward and to make sure the public and the members of this House were aware of the importance of it.

To the member for Carleton, who I wish had been informed yesterday so he could be here, congratulations. He is no doubt watching these transactions. I know all members of the Legislature will want to join with me in paying tribute to the member for Carleton for making this an important public policy issue that all members of the Legislature must face.

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to ask the Premier some questions arising from the statements that were made yesterday by the Minister of Northern Development (Mr. Fontaine) and by the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) on the subject of Temagami, which, I am sure the Premier will appreciate, have a symbolic importance extending far beyond the boundaries of Ontario. We seem to be getting a conflicting message.

The Temagami Wilderness Society has applied to the courts for a judicial review of the decision by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) not to hold an environmental assessment hearing with respect to one of the roads in question, the Red Squirrel Road.

I wonder if the Premier can tell us why, in that case, since that whole question is now in dispute and in fact is before the courts and has not been settled one way or the other, at the same time as that is happening his government is applying to the courts to remove the Indian band from being on that road when the subject of the extension of that road is directly before the courts of this province.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think the Attorney General is in the best position to discuss some of the legal implications here.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The answer is that the application is being made by the government to refer the question of whether the road should be constructed in these circumstances to the Court of Appeal, because the blockade of the roads is undertaken at present by the native people. As the honourable member knows, their blockade is undertaken -- and I do not criticize any good faith here -- in support of their land claim with respect to 4,000 square miles in the Temagami area. Therefore, we have elected to ask the Court of Appeal, which will be hearing the appeal from the judicial dismissal of their land claim, whether an injunction or an intervention is appropriate at this time.

The wilderness society is not blocking the road allowance and, of course, its judicial review application does not impede any construction, or indeed anything else. But I am quite confident that if the wilderness society seeks to intervene in the court proceeding, it will be, if not welcomed, certainly permitted to play whatever role the court thinks is appropriate for it, so that at the end of the day, on this important and difficult and highly complex question, the court will have an opportunity to hear everybody who is concerned about this in the very land claim case.

Mr. B. Rae: It is not that complicated. The government is determined to build a road that the native people do not want to have built and the Temagami Wilderness Society does not want to have built. The Attorney General is turning this into a legal falderal in which people are going to end up confronting the government, when in fact it all has to do with whether or not a road should be constructed. That is what it is all about. That is what the issue is. The issue is: How seriously do we take the environment? How seriously do we take native rights? The answer from the government of Ontario is, “Not very seriously in either case.” That is the problem and that is the issue.

Is the Attorney General seriously arguing that in the event that he is successful before the Court of Appeal and gets an injunction with respect to the occupation, the construction of the road will go ahead, even before the Divisional Court has been able to hear the application for the Temagami Wilderness Society? Surely he is not saying that the government of Ontario is going to go ahead and build a road before a court has had an opportunity to deal with the gutlessness of his colleague the Minister of the Environment.

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member always gets loud and angry when it is not going his way. If the honourable member thinks that this issue is not complicated, he is living in a completely unreal world.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Depends on which side you are on in this one, that is all.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No, the member just has to listen for a minute.

The honourable member will want to understand that the Temagami area, which is the subject of the 4,000-square-mile land claim, has a very significant population largely dependent on the logging industry. We are concerned here, among other things, with the vitality not of William Milne and Sons lumber but of six other enterprises that are providing employment and support for the families, white and native, who live in that community.

We are also concerned about the environmental impacts. We are also concerned -- and the honourable member will have to allow this to me; I have a long history with it -- with native rights and native claims. Those are the issues, the competing interests that conflict in this problem in the Temagami area.

What we propose to do is this. The court has decided that the native land claim has no legal entitlement. After one of the longest trials in Ontario history, their land claim was dismissed by the court. They have done as they are entitled to do and probably should do: appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal. They do not want the road constructed pending the disposition of their appeal rights. What we are saying to the Court of Appeal is this: Does the court agree with that? If it does, fine.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. It seems like a fairly lengthy answer.

Mr. B. Rae: I think the Attorney General has been less than candid with us, I really do. He knows full well that the government of Ontario is applying not to ask a court’s opinion, not to say, “What does the court think?” That is not what the government is all about. It wants that road built. That is the road it is determined to build. That is why the Minister of Northern Development was up on his feet. The government has decided that getting that road built is more important than settling the land claim. It has decided that getting that road built is more important than the environment.

I would like the minister to answer the specific question I put to him in my second supplementary. I would like him to answer specifically this question: Is he saying that if he is successful in persuading the Court of Appeal that an injunction should be issued against the Indian band, he will go ahead and build the road, regardless of the application by the Temagami Wilderness Society against the refusal of the Minister of the Environment to defend the environment? Is that what he is saying, yes or no?

Hon. Mr. Scott: That is not what we are saying. What we are saying is that the government of the day will be governed by the advice and opinion of the court.

The court can give its advice and opinion in one of two settings or both: first, in the Court of Appeal, where the Temagami Indian land claim is being dealt with and where we propose to bring our motion; second, in the wilderness society application, which of course is not under our control but is under the control of the wilderness society.

If an injunction in our favour is granted in the appeal case, we will have the right to enforce that injunction. If an injunction in favour of the wilderness society is granted in its case, it will have the right to enforce that injunction. That is the simple fact.

I just want to impress on honourable members that this government is not prepared to just barrel through. What this government is doing in a most complex and difficult situation, certainly the most difficult I have seen, with many competing interests, all of important entitlement, is to approach the court and say: “You are the masters of the situation. You are dealing -- ”

Mr. Laughren: That is what you would like people to believe. Nonsense.

Mr. B. Rae: Now you are being ridiculous.

Mr. Pope: Finally, the true answer.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier arising from the statement of the Provincial Auditor. I draw attention to the auditor’s presence in the gallery this afternoon. The report is as thorough an analysis of government expenditure as we could possibly hope for.

I ask this question of the Premier because when he was in opposition there were some subjects that I am sure we will all recall he took a special interest in. One of them was government advertising.

I would like to read to the Premier the comments, just a few of the gems from the auditor’s report on page 13. Speaking of this government, he said:

“Advertising goods and services were acquired with insufficient regard for economy. Many of the expenditures we reviewed did not result in the ministries or the secretariat receiving value for money. For example:

“Competitive selection procedures were not followed for subcontracted goods and services.” I remember the man in opposition here saying how that had to happen in every case.

“Estimates and invoices were not supported with adequate detail.

“Excessive costs were incurred.

“Questionable expenditures were made” on advertising.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

Mr. B. Rae: If the Premier was critical of it while he was in opposition, why is he not doing something about it when he is the first minister in this government?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: We value the auditor’s advice on these matters. If there are things we can improve, obviously we will try to do so.

I do not know the specifics of that situation, but let me say that we have dramatically changed the system. We have an open and objective system now. It is not just awarded to friends of the government, as it used to be. I say that very objectively. Look across this country at the way these things happen. It is all open to review. The Leader of the Opposition should ask the advertising industry if it is considered fair.

I am not saying there are not some mistakes somewhere or other. We will do our very best to change that and to clean them up, and we value the auditor’s advice. I say that this system is unique, and other provincial governments are now looking at Ontario because they want to follow this way, because we have shown leadership.

Mr. B. Rae: Whatever happened to “love me tender”? That is what I would like to know.

On the revenue side, the auditor shows that there are literally not just a couple of hundred thousand, not even just a couple of million, but potentially over $100 million and possibly even more of revenues being lost to this province because of tax evasion, particularly in the gasoline field, both imported and exported, and in terms of tobacco and other areas in which taxes are not being collected properly to the benefit of the taxpayer. It is costing us literally hundreds of millions of dollars. What is the Premier going to do to close these loopholes?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: Let me say that we value the auditor’s advice in these matters. It is one of the discussions that is always ongoing in the Ministry of Revenue: Should we hire more people to enforce the laws? There is no question that if we had more auditors, more accountants and more people going out and checking these things, there would probably be more payback. I have no problem with that argument at all. It is a constant source of debate on that matter. Some people here think we should not be hiring more bureaucrats, and one tries to make the best argument one can and the best recovery one can in those circumstances.

Certainly we will take the auditor’s advice seriously where he is constructive and adds to provincial revenues. The member knows we are always interested in increasing provincial revenues.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier ran in the last election on wanting to do more about education. No aspect of the auditor’s report is more devastating than his comment on the computers-in-education program in this government. He says:

The computers “are incompatible with others in the marketplace and, therefore, any existing educational software is unusable....

“Inadequate emphasis has been placed on their effective implementation in the classroom.

“The training of teachers in the use of computers in the classroom has been generally lacking.

“Insufficient research into the effectiveness of computers in educating students has been conducted....

“The government’s objective to create a Canadian computer and software industry has not materialized.”

The program, according to the auditor, is now in need of a vital, strategic decision with respect to its entire future. I wonder if the Premier can tell us what he is going to do about this disastrous program.

Hon. Mr Peterson: The Leader of the Opposition is right. I notice my Tory friends opposite sinking down in their seats. Really, he should have directed his question to them; they are clearly at fault. He is talking about the famous Icon situation; he is talking about the famous bionic beaver that was brought forward. We are still paying the price for that. We understand that, and my colleague the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) can give the member

chapter and verse.

Do members know what is very interesting? I want to compliment the auditor in his perspicacity, because those very same speeches were then made in this House by the then critic in education, who is now the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), with respect to the problems relating to the bionic beaver, or the Icon as it was called. We were right then and we are right now, and I appreciate the auditor finally catching up to our views on these situations.

Mr. Brandt: I would also like to take just a moment and compliment the auditor on a very thorough report, one that will be of interest to those of us in opposition and that I hope will be acted upon by those who are in government.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr. Brandt: My question is for the Minister of the Environment. It relates to the auditor’s report and it is with respect to some of the information that the minister has in fact released publicly relative to discharges of sewage in this province.

The auditor points out that there were some 1,400 instances of untreated or only partially treated waste that was discharged into the waterways in Ontario. That amounts to some 61 million cubic metres of waste that was discharged; but in addition, I am somewhat startled to read that some of those discharges were not in fact adequately reported and therefore did not show up in the numbers that the minister has released publicly.

My question to him is, why are those numbers not being reported accurately, and what does he intend to do to bring about a more specific and accurate reflection of these inappropriate discharges?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: First of all, having been on this side of the House, the member recognizes the procedure that the auditor goes through. In other words, the staff of the auditor’s department comes into the various ministries and makes suggestions. In fact, as the auditor’s staff is in there speaking to our people -- an external, objective person making those observations -- what we do as a ministry is to implement them.

The ministry has already identified this particular problem -- and, as I say, the auditor has been of some assistance in this regard -- and is in the process of ensuring that all bypass occurrences that can be measured are fully documented and characterized as to the quantity and the quality and that these data are reflected in the ministry’s 1988 discharge report.

The member has to remember that some of the observations which are made actually refer to a previous report. Of course, what we will do with the report that the member will see coming from 1988 is that he will in fact see that incorporated and those improvements made.

Mr. Brandt: One of the problems I see that the minister surely would agree with is that there are periods of time, up to some two years in some instances, when these sewage treatment plants are not in fact being inspected. It is very, very difficult to get an accurate assessment of the level of compliance and the level of efficiency of a particular plant if it is not being inspected. Why is it taking in some instances more than two years for his inspectors to get around to look at these plants?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: We have developed a system with a dedicated staff which is dedicated specifically to doing just that.

The member would know, as I say, having had some experience in this regard, that you have a substantial portion of your people who are in the central office and some people who are in the various regional offices around the province. There are those who would like our regional people to be out inspecting various things, such as companies, municipalities and individual complaints from citizens. At the same time, there are others who would like them to be inspecting these plants.

I know the member opposite has criticized this government on a number of occasions for the number of staff. I think it has been close to some 500 staff that we have added to the Ministry of the Environment since I have become the Minister of the Environment, and there is a substantial amount of money involved. Those funds are being expended to try to meet all of the obligations that the ministry has and all of the expectations. The difficulty, I think the member would recognize, is in determining which shall be the priority on a given day or a given week.

I can tell him that what we are doing is having a dedicated staff -- he knows that terminology -- specific people who will be doing a plant inspection. That will be done at least on a once-a-year basis at the minimum.

Mr. Brandt: In the minister’s figures of October 1987 relating to the discharge of sewage, the Provincial Auditor indicates that the figures are in fact wrong for the 407 sewage treatment plants in Ontario, because the minister has not accurately pulled those figures together through his own staff, recognizing that many of those plants in the large municipalities are operated by the local communities and, in the smaller municipalities, generally are operated by or under the auspices of the Ministry of the Environment.

The minister’s reports indicated, I believe, that some 280 or 281 of those plants were in compliance. Because the minister’s figures were incorrect, can he give us a revised number as to how many of the sewage treatment plants of the 407 in Ontario were actually in compliance with his water quality guidelines?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I understand it, there are general water quality guidelines for the discharges from sewage treatment plants. What we have done in the reports that have gone by is measured those against those general guidelines. I think what the auditor is making reference to is that in specific plants we have required, even on a specific basis, a greater guideline -- in other words, a better performance than the general guidelines would suggest.

What we have in fact incorporated into our 1988 report is the suggestion of the Provincial Auditor that it be measured against the individual guidelines for the individual plant as opposed to the general guidelines. I think the member will see that reflected very well.

In addition to that, as the member knows, we have expended a very significant additional amount of money to assist the various sewage treatment plants that operate -- some of them are operated by the ministry and some by municipalities -- in meeting those obligations by increasing the amount of money available on a percentage basis, for instance, from 15 per cent to now up to 33 per cent for those larger municipalities which previously, regardless of the circumstances, had only 15 per cent available.

What we are seeing is an accelerated program that is designed to improve the performance of those plants. What we see are remedial action plans in each one of those plants being initiated or in effect already. For those plants that did not indicate the results --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. That is a fairly full answer.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet and it is with respect to an issue that I raised with him some time ago and that he indicated he was going to be handling with the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon); namely, the methodology being used for advertising in the provincial government. I warned the minister that there was a pending problem in this regard. I specifically gave him some examples, and I find that there are more examples of a specific nature that the minister should be aware of.

In July 1985, the Ministry of Energy received five bids to undertake production of a film called The Conserving Kingdom. It is interesting to note that among those five bids, the winning bidder was not the lowest bidder but was, in this particular case, for the production of this film, the highest bidder. Can the minister indicate to this House why, in fact, the highest bidder for the production of this film was chosen?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I am afraid that I am not able to provide the honourable gentleman with an answer on this date on that particular item, but I will undertake to get back to him with specific information. I can tell the honourable gentleman something of a general nature about the manner in which we bring together quotes for large projects and the guidelines under which the ministries operate when they tender for production of materials and in fact for carrying out certain activities.

We do require the ministries to send out a proposal, take into account the number of firms that are interested and then create what is commonly called a short list to be assessed by the people even more closely than the original applications or interest statements by the firms. From that short list there is a choice, based on an evaluation process, that determines who is best able to do the best job under the circumstances.

In this case, as I have said to the honourable member, I am quite prepared to look into the details so that I can provide more information specifically as to how this particular event occurred.

Mr. Brandt: I want to be of further help to the minister, because I would like to save the taxpayers a few dollars and I think the only way that can be accomplished is if we make recommendations to the minister and then he follows through on them.

This same company that produced the film The Conserving Kingdom was then asked to distribute the film. The cost of distribution of this particular film worked out to $75 per unit, rather an interesting and a very significant cost for the simple distribution of the film. A company already under contract to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) would have distributed that same film for $10 per unit. It cost fully seven times as much for the company which originally was the highest bidder and produced the film and then brought in a figure to distribute the film for $75 per unit. Can the minister explain how something that ludicrous can possibly happen?

Hon. Mr. Elston: From time to time, the honourable gentleman brings in specific cases like this which I, of course, have not had an opportunity to review.

I can agree in principle with his assessment of the initial set of circumstances which he has outlined to us here, but without having had the opportunity of examining for myself the particular material, I am unable to address his item specifically.

I can tell the honourable gentleman, though, that from time to time mistakes are made. If mistakes are made and suggestions made to us as to how to manage them much better -- as the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has indicated, we are quite pleased to have the Provincial Auditor come in to make suggestions about how to tighten up management -- we are pleased to have suggestions made by the opposition. Indeed, our own backbench people and our own parliamentary assistants and ministers come to our aid to make suggestions about how we can better make use of the taxpayers’ dollars.

At no time, I say to the member, are we unprepared to take examples like that one and learn lessons as to how better to manage. I will specifically look into the full situation, because, as I indicated earlier, I am unaware of the full background to the information and I will get back and report. The former minister knows there are, from time to time, certain things that need clarification and I am quite prepared to provide that clarification and update when I have the opportunity to provide myself with a review.

Mr. Brandt: By way of a final supplementary to the minister, The Conserving Kingdom was obviously not talking about taxpayers’ money, from the way in which this particular matter was handled. The auditor pointed out, with respect to five specific ministries which he looked at in detail, some of the same concerns we brought before the minister; namely, that some of the advertising budget is out of control and that there is a laxity, if you will, on the part of those ministries with respect to looking after, in an adequate way, the interests of the taxpayers.

As there are not only concerns in connection with the Ministry of Energy and the specific one I have raised for this minister but also with regard to five other ministries, and, in addition, as we have raised this point with the minister before and he indicated he was going to talk to the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) about this, could he perhaps share with this House any interim steps he has taken with respect to controls and any further steps he intends to take in addition to those he has already commented on briefly?

Hon. Mr. Elston: As Chairman of Management Board and charged with reviewing programs and delivery of advertising and otherwise through the Advertising Review Board, I can tell the honourable gentleman that we do try to manage as best we can to keep a very tight rein on what is spent.

From time to time, the member will know, there is a need to make information available to the public in the broadest possible way and sometimes on a very urgent basis; from time to time, we are asked by opposition people to put that information out. We do the best we can in managing our budgets.

Having gone through this particular year, sort of the first full year, I can tell the member that we have had great co-operation from all the ministers involved and the people in each of the ministries in assessing what they are delivering through their advertising budgets and through their information services and looking at those in a manner which would allow them to be much more specific with the placement of advertising.

In fact, with respect to one item about a particular advertisement which this honourable gentleman raised with me before the summer recess, one we took steps immediately to address, we have tried to co-ordinate much better the manner in which a number of ministries place --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mrs. Grier: My question is for the Minister of the Environment and, of course, it concerns the damning indictment of his ministry by the Provincial Auditor. Last year the Provincial Auditor criticized the Ministry of the Environment for inadequate inspections, the standing committee on public accounts made specific recommendations, which we were assured the ministry was implementing, and now today we find that most sewage treatment plants have not been inspected for at least two years.

Is the minister now at least prepared to admit that despite all the rhetoric, despite all the press releases, despite increased expenditures and many references to the municipal-industrial strategy for abatement program, there is no evidence of one whit less pollution being discharged into the province’s waterways today than there was when he took office?

Mr. B. Rae: Exactly; exactly the same.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: I do not think objective observers in this province would say that. One of the --

Mr. B. Rae: You have not been effective.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The Leader of the Opposition can misinterpret what he wishes and twist what he wishes around to whatever way he wants. That is his role as the leader of the official opposition, so we will let him do that.

I guess, as I explained to the leader of the third party, who understands these matters so very well, what we have done whenever the Provincial Auditor has made suggestions to us -- as he did last year, as he does this year -- is implement them. We do not even wait until the auditor’s report comes out, because there is discussion that goes on with officials of the auditor’s department and officials of the Ministry of the Environment. When he suggests improvements, we make those improvements.

I have outlined to the leader of the third party a number of the improvements we have made as a result of the observations of the Provincial Auditor. We will continue to make those improvements and we will continue to expend those funds and we will continue to add the staff necessary to carry out our obligations. I know we may be criticized as a government for increasing our spending or increasing our staffing levels but the reason we are doing it is to meet those obligations.

Mrs. Grier: The Provincial Auditor points out that in the 12 months ending December 31, 1986, 61 million cubic metres of untreated and partially treated sewage bypassed the province’s water treatment plants. This box which I am holding up represents, in volume, less than one cubic metre. Can the minister give us any assurance that there is not today 61 million times the volume of this box going into our waterways from which our drinking water is obtained?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: The member touches on two things. She touches, first of all, on the sewage treatment systems in Ontario. As she knows, through the answer that I gave to the leader of the third party, this government has in fact invested millions upon millions of dollars in the improvement of those plants. When we have identified the problems, when there has been an exceedence in a discharge, for instance, we provide the money to the municipalities to assist them in meeting those obligations.

There is a vast program going on across Ontario. In virtually all communities you see this happening where the actual construction is taking place, where the fine-tuning of the plants is taking place, in comparison with other jurisdictions. When I go to environment ministers’ meetings with those in the rest of the country, I talk about infrastructure renewal, I talk about fine-tuning our plants, I talk about overcoming problems with their bypasses; those people talk about building a sewage treatment plant.

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Community and Social Services. The Provincial Auditor has identified serious deficiencies in controls over the Ontario drug benefit plan, including the fact that the Ministry of Community and Social Services could not verify billings from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) and that blank drug cards were not adequately safeguarded. Those were his observations. I am sure the minister is aware of them.

Could the minister tell us why the auditor is commenting on these matters in his 1988 audit when in fact the minister’s own comprehensive audit and review branch exposed similar concerns in 1987? Would the minister not agree that he has been slow to address these well-recognized problems with the management of this important and costly program?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: The honourable member might be aware of the fact that the Provincial Auditor will often make use of the internal ministry audit material in order to put together his own report. That is the way it is done and that is fine. It is not at all unusual that our own internal audit report would have found those and that the Provincial Auditor, in reading those reports, would report the same thing. That is fairly normal.

With respect to the particular difficulty, for the last number of months we have been working very closely with the Ministry of Health on how we can more effectively put controls on the costing it gets from the pharmacies and then transfers to us. That is an ongoing process.

With respect to the blank drug cards, the auditor is quite correct when he makes that report as staff visit individual municipal offices and find out they are not under the proper control. We agree with them. We have contacted our municipal offices and we have contacted our own program consultants in our area offices to sit down and to work out with them a way in which those blank drug cards can be kept under better control. Both of those are being looked at at present.

Mrs. Cunningham: I am sure the minister and I would both agree that as we look at controls, we do not also look at controls which could result in roadblocks. Both of us should try to keep that in mind as we proceed with the work of this government and the ministry. However, in the response of the deputy minister on September 22, he did indicate that he would take some action and advise the municipalities around this problem.

Given the response of his own deputy, will the minister tell us if he has indeed issued a directive to the municipalities outlining procedures to be put in place to regulate the use and distribution of drug benefit cards; this being a statement in September of this year?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: Our first line is to ask our program consultants from our own offices to go in and meet with their counterparts in the municipal offices, for the very reason the honourable member raised in her opening comments. We do not want to so tighten up the system that the individual income maintenance workers who work with the recipients do not have a certain degree of flexibility in issuing those particular cards.

For example, each one of the workers, whether he or she works in the provincial office or a municipal office, has access to those cards so that he or she can give them out immediately in midmonth. The member will know that those cards are issued on a monthly basis to a recipient who is getting a monthly cheque, but if someone comes in in the middle of the month or some time during the month, that is done by hand and it is done by hand by that income maintenance worker. We need that kind of flexibility. We do not want to keep it overly tight, as the member indicated.

What we are doing is going into our municipal offices asking, “How can we achieve the goal of flexibility and at the same time the goal of maintaining the system in a proper way?” Those things are being done.

I cannot respond specifically to the member’s question: Has a directive gone out that it has to be done this particular way? I do not know the answer to that, but I do know that there are ongoing discussions and negotiations between our officials and municipal officials.

EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

Mr. Matrundola: My question is to the Minister of Education. I have received a number of calls and letters recently concerning the amount of education tax that cottage owners pay on their cottage properties. As well, in my recent householder, I included a questionnaire which asked if owners of cottage properties should be assessed education taxes on both their primary and their cottage properties.

Seventy-two per cent said they should not pay on both, with many adding that education taxes should come out of general income tax revenues or that cottage owners should pay a discounted amount of tax.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Matrundola: One letter I received was from a senior citizen who lives in a condominium in my riding and has a cottage in Parry Sound. She pays education taxes at both locations. The education portion of the tax bill for her cottage increased by 65 per cent from 1987 to 1988, and the education tax makes up 60 per cent of her tax bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Matrundola: Could the minister advise the House as to whether any plans are being considered to make the system fairer for those people who own recreational properties and who cannot even use the school system that they are paying for?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I would like to thank the member for his question and also thank him for giving me notice of his intent to raise this issue today. The honourable member should be aware, of course, that property taxes, whether for municipal or education purposes, are paid by all property owners and tenants in this province, and, in fact, that situation is one that has existed in this province for over 100 years.

It should also be noted that the province shares, in a very fundamental way, in providing funds for the costs of delivering education throughout this province. As a matter of fact, the provincial share of the total costs of delivering elementary and secondary education in this province today is fully 58 per cent of the total. Grants are assigned on a basis that go a great distance in terms of equalizing the impacts from community to community.

I think the question that the member raises really revolves around the issue as to how appropriate it is that all property taxpayers in this province and all of the tax assessment base in this province be utilized to share the impacts of education taxes. I think it is fair to say that the government takes the view that, in fact, it is appropriate that those costs be shared --

Mr. Speaker: Just in case there is a supplementary, maybe we will go on.

Mr. Matrundola: Many people complain when nonresidents purchase recreational properties in Ontario, and the previous government went even so far as to establish in 1974 a 20 per cent land transfer tax on recreational properties that are sold to nonresidents of Canada. My question is, is it fair that we demand that nonresidents pay a 20 per cent land transfer tax so they are discouraged from buying, in order to keep recreational property in the hands of Ontarians, while Ontarians feel they are being double taxed to support our educational system and at the same time they have a considerably restricted market if they want to sell their property?

Hon. Mr. Ward: I think the short answer is that, yes, it is fair that purchasers pay a land transfer tax, but I would want to stress to the member that the issue of a land transfer tax should not be confused with the issue of property taxes for recreational properties. I also want to address the other concern that the member raised in his initial question, that being the impact on seniors. It should be noted that the government, in fact, has appropriately designed a property tax credit system that goes a great distance in easing the property tax burdens of senior citizens in this province.

HOSPITAL SERVICES

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a question to the Premier in the absence of the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan). It is regarding the auditor’s report today. In the auditor’s report he states, and I quote, “We estimated that in 1986 and 1987, the Ministry of Health received in excess of 2,600 public complaints regarding problems encountered” at our public hospitals across this province. One such problem was the following: “In one case, a patient’s appendix was removed to alleviate pain in the abdomen yet the pain persisted after surgery. It was subsequently discovered that the pain was due to an internal infection which was treatable with medication.”

The Premier will know that there is no system in this province where complaints about hospitals, a patient’s experience, can be adequately dealt with. There is not enough accountability. The auditor has pointed that out today. What does the Premier and his government intend to do to protect patients in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I am sorry. I am not familiar with that part of the report, but I gather the Health estimates are on at the present time and I think it is a very legitimate question to raise with the minister. Certainly I will pass on the member’s concerns to her. I do not have an answer for that particular part of the auditor’s report today.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I have a supplementary. The fact of the matter is that this has been a problem that has existed for a long time and the Premier’s government and the Minister of Health constantly respond to patients who complain, and to members who complain on their behalf, that it is up to the hospital boards to deal with each individual hospital’s complaint.

The Provincial Auditor’s report says on page 101, “Clearly, the Minister of Health has the ultimate responsibility for the operations of hospitals, including the quality of care provided and the cost effectiveness.”

I would like to ask the Premier: Will he assure the public that new systems will be brought in place to ensure accountability and a system that is responsive to patient complaints in this province?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The honourable member, and I guess the auditor, although I have not read his report, raise fundamental questions about the independence of the hospitals. Yes, we fund them, but a lot of them have independent boards. Should we be centralizing those things? Should we have a central complaints bureau?

I do not deny for a moment that there are problems. There are bound to be, with the virtually millions of cases that pass through our hospital system, but there is another line to investigate these matters through -- the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario.

Obviously, if there are substantial complaints and if the system is breaking down, we have to look at new and more creative alternatives to that, but we have to think through very carefully if we want to create a new bureaucracy or a new infrastructure to handle the programs that are not handled in other ways.

This will be an ongoing discussion, I am sure. I hope my honourable friend will raise it with the Minister of Health during the estimates.

FUEL TAXES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Solicitor General dealing with pages 121 and 122 of the Provincial Auditor’s report on the question of fuel, which was alluded to by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. B. Rae) earlier. I would like to follow up on this with the minister.

The auditor says that discussions with the organized crime and racketeering

section of the United States Department of Justice revealed in 1988 the problems with the lack of taxes collected on the fuel crossing the border. It says: “A Petroleum Excise Tax Task Force was set up to investigate organized tax evasion activities in the US and Canada, specifically in the state of New York and the province of Ontario.”

Given that organized crime is being implicated and given that the auditor suggests we are talking in the range of up to $100 million in lost Ontario revenue alone, can the minister tell us what role the Ontario Provincial Police and the racketeering squad of the OPP has had in this co-operative investigation and where they are with that?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: This is a detail of the auditor’s report that I have not yet been able to get a report on. I will report back to the member. We are aware of the very extensive work done by this branch of my ministry, and I am sure that we will have a good response for him.

Mr. Harris: I am surprised that the minister does not know anything about it. We have heard about the problems there for the past six months. Surely, if I hear about it in the lowly third party in this Legislature --

Mr. B. Rae: Don’t feel sorry for yourself.

Mr. Harris: Well, I do.

Is the minister telling me that she has not been informed? We are talking $100 million. We are talking organized crime. We are talking every police agency in Canada, in the United States, in New York concerned about it. We are talking $100 million in lost Ontario revenue.

Spot checks that the Americans have done -- the minister has done none apparently -- suggest at one point that the same tanker of fuel crossed the border 27 times. That means $80,000 in lost revenue to Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: Deregulation will help that.

Mr. Harris: Yes.

It goes on to suggest that in a spot check of six tanker fuel trucks in the US, all six of them contained dye, which means those are also avoiding $10,000 or $15,000 in taxes.

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the question.

Mr. Harris: I am shocked that the minister does not know anything about this. I would like to know from her how we can expect to be detecting contraband, to be detecting drugs at the border when she has no knowledge and we do not seem to be able to control a whole blooming tanker truck full of fuel.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: That was a very dramatic presentation, and I am certainly impressed.

I really feel as if somehow $100 million slipped deliberately through my fingers here. As members know, if we could raise some of the figures related to organized crime or profits made in drugs, we could be talking even more dramatic figures. We are talking, in fact, law enforcement. I certainly will get a report from my people on it.

I think the member knows that whenever I receive any advice from members of the opposition, in letters or in person, I look into it immediately and respond immediately, so if the member had all this inside information that was bothering him for all these months, he was most irresponsible not to have brought it to my attention.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. J. B. Nixon: I have a question for the Chairman of Management Board. I have been approached by a number of constituents who are former employees of this government and are now retired. They have asked me and I have undertaken to raise with the chairman the issue of their retirement pensions. I would like him to update this Legislature on the status of this matter.

Hon. Mr. Elston: With respect to the question of pensions, our discussions with the Ontario Public Service Employees Union and with teachers, dealing particularly with the reports we have received, have developed into a series of ongoing meetings which are being chaired by a representative from Treasury, with support from both the Ministry of Education and Management Board.

Actually, the human resources secretariat, which is my responsibility, is putting forth the material that is needed so that we can talk to OPSEU about the ongoing discussions on pensions, unfunded liability and otherwise. We are at the table at this particular time speaking about a whole series of initiatives and issues with respect to the pensions for those who are already retired and in fact looking at the issues we must address, from a funding point of view and otherwise, for those people who are still actively working to the benefit of the people of Ontario.

Mr. J. B. Nixon: These former employees of the government, who have served the crown long and well, are extremely concerned that there not be a reduction in the outstanding pension obligations to these presently retired employees. I would like the Chairman of Management Board to address that issue, please.

Hon. Mr. Elston: I think it is fair to say that all of us in this Legislature and in the province are quite aware of the need to provide assurances that the question of the unfunded liability, which is outstanding and indicated in some of the reports to be of a fairly sizeable magnitude, does not get in the way of providing the pension income for those people who have already retired.

The essence of our discussions with these people -- about which it appears a number of people opposite are not interested at the moment, obviously, Mr. Speaker -- is designed to ensure that we have the wherewithal to fund and continue to fund the liability that the government and I, as the nominal and former employer of public servants, civil servants throughout the province, have assumed and must see is maintained.

We are taking the initiative now to deal with issues which have been raised in reports, to ensure that those people who are currently living on retirement incomes and those people expecting to do so will have a funded program in place for them.

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

Mr. Philip: In the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye), I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer about that great corporation, the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, which is supposed to be making money for the Treasury.

Once again the LCBO is cited for gross mismanagement by the Provincial Auditor. Can the Treasurer tell the House why on 10 occasions involving --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: What page?

Mr. Philip: It is in the vicinity of page 145, I believe. I am sure the Treasurer has the page now.

Can the minister explain how on 10 occasions involving errors of $1.2 million, a bank overcharged or doublecharged the LCBO and it was not able to catch those mistakes on its own?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: No, I cannot.

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

Mr. Philip: At least the Chairman of Manage-ment Board (Mr. Elston) says he is doing something about these things and looks concerned. The Treasurer does not even show concern.

Hon. Mr. Nixon: I am concerned; boy, am I concerned.

Mr. Philip: I think I have the Treasurer’s attention.

Since 1983, the LCBO has been repeatedly cited in the auditor’s reports about inadequate inventory controls. A few months ago, the LCBO gave assurances to the standing committee on public accounts that it was getting its house in order.

Can the minister explain why, in this report, once again the LCBO is cited for gross inefficiency in terms of inventory control? For example, “28 errors, totalling $850,000 in approximately 100 domestic goods-in-transit orders. A journal entry for $1.5 million of foreign goods” --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Philip: -- “was entered twice in the records,” and on and on.

Mr. Speaker: That seems like a good question.

Mr. Philip: Why is it that after all this time then the LCBO cannot get its act together?

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Treasurer?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Actually, the answer is no, I cannot. I want to say further that I can assure the member that this publication came into the hands of the cabinet ministers at the same time as it came into the member’s possession. Obviously, we will read it carefully and respond as strictly and efficiently as we possibly can and correct anything that is put forward in this. We understand the strength of these recommendations.

Mr. Pouliot: That has been going on for years. You said the same thing last year.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: That is fine. We are very concerned about the dollars because they come in as revenue, but also we would be concerned about what the member calls inventory control, particularly in the products it deals with.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for London North.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Skills Development. We can see that, in 1986, there were some 3,000 apprentices enrolled in programs and, in 1987, another 3,000 apprentices enrolled in programs at colleges and universities. My question is this: How many of the apprentices who were registered in the apprenticeship program in 1986 or 1987, whichever the minister likes, actually finished the program in which they were enrolled? How many of the 3,000 graduates received jobs in their field?

Hon. Mr. Curling: That is quite a detailed question that my critic has asked. I know we were concerned about the number of apprentices in the programs. At the time that we had put our proposal together there were 40,000 apprentices in the province. We had hoped our program would extend to 60,000 apprentices in five years. In the first year we have seen a growth of 5,000 apprentices, making the number 45,000. I think we are on the road to putting a lot more apprentices into the program.

The second part of the member’s question asks how many apprentices got jobs in their field. That I could not answer in detail. I think the member knows too that it would be difficult for me to say how many apprentices are in what professions.

Mrs. Cunningham: If I had known the answer to the question, I would not have asked it. I think the whole public in this province would like to know the answer to the question. We have apprenticeship programs that are supposed to educate people --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Cunningham: -- so that they finish the course and get the job, and the minister does not even --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The main thing is to be able to hear the question.

Mrs. Cunningham: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. It serves little purpose to brag about the number of students who enter a course, since the really important statistic is the number of students who graduate, who are qualified and who get jobs. I think that was a reasonable question and I am very disappointed that the minister was not able to answer it today. I cannot believe he does not have these statistics. Can he tell us why he has not bothered to obtain these statistics and how he conducts his program review so he can plan for the future?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member knows that apprenticeship programs vary according to the discipline; some would be for five years, some would be for three years and some would be for two years. She is asking me if I could give her precisely how many have been completed and in what program. She knows that although I am quite versed in all the programs that we offer, and in detail, I cannot give her precisely those figures.

I would be happy if we could get together at some time when I could go through our programs, showing her precisely what programs, how many individuals and when they would be completed. That would be very, very helpful to her. Also, I fully agree with the member from the opposition who said that in estimates they should get that in complete detail and we would lay out those figures precisely.

Mr. Speaker: That completes oral questions and responses. Petitions.

Mr. Harris: I have a petition.

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

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

“We believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether” --

Oh, I did that one already. Wait a second. I will pass till tomorrow and I will do the new one.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I could remind all members that we have other business to do here. Thank you.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

Mr. Furlong from the standing committee on regulations and private bills presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bills, as amended:

Bill Pr6,

An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr9,

An Act respecting the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr32,

An Act to revive LaPlante Lithographing Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 194,

An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces.

Motion agreed to.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to get to speak on this very important tax bill, Bill 122,

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. In this bill, we see the government of Ontario increasing one of the most regressive forms of taxation that is available to this province. Their sales tax increased from seven per cent to eight per cent this year, creating a real hardship for working families, particularly those with low incomes. It would have been far better had this province looked to progressive tax measures that would have created a fairer tax system for people right across this province.

I find it appalling as well that the government imposed tax changes early this year, at the time of the budget address of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), and we are still awaiting the passage of the tax bills that were presented by the Treasurer at that time. We have a series of tax legislation bills that has to be addressed by this Legislature, and perhaps this is the one that deserves the most serious consideration.

The indications from this government are that it views sales taxes as an appropriate and growing source of revenue for the province. This has to be of particular concern to residents when we know that the federal administration, with Michael Wilson as Minister of Finance, is planning to proceed with the second phase of its tax reform measures. They are measures that change it from a system of income taxes, which at least in principle is based on fairness with tax payments based on ability to pay, to increased use of regressive forms of taxation, and in particular sales taxes.

Throughout the federal election campaign, we heard considerable concern expressed about the potential for a national federal sales tax that would be put together primarily as a combination, with the Minister of Finance, Michael Wilson, on the federal scene and the Treasurer of Ontario. The Treasurer has not in the least discounted the possibility of a major federal sales tax on the order of anywhere from 16 per cent to 19 per cent in Ontario.

Having to pay a tax as high as 19 per cent on all consumer items as well as on services in the future -- because this tax is going to have a much broader base than any sales tax we have seen in the past -- will undoubtedly create a severe hardship for people right across the province.

In the work of the committees of this Legislature, I have had the opportunity to sit on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs for more than three years, and first on the select committee on economic affairs which focused primarily on the free trade issue and where our economic future should be in Ontario.

In more recent years, we have spent a considerable amount of time on the standing committee on finance and economic affairs dealing with budget proposals, looking at presentations from various organizations, industries, labour groups and economists in terms of where the province should be going with its spending programs, but most particularly in terms of financial concerns -- where we should be going in terms of tax revenues and the desperate need for tax reform and an improvement of tax fairness throughout Ontario.

The Treasurer has indicated to us his interest in a national sales tax because he sees it as a tremendous revenue grab. The potential for Ontario being hit for a second year in a row with a tremendous tax grab is certainly there for us all to see. The particular increase we are talking about in this bill, the increase in the retail sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent, is one of the largest tax grabs we have ever seen in Ontario.

In the last budget, his first budget after re-election, the Treasurer has taken the cynical approach of gouging the taxpayers of the province, because undoubtedly he feels this is the time he can get away with it without taking a political cost. I certainly am most fearful that we are going to see a similar tax grab from the new federal Conservative government in conjunction with the Treasurer, combining to create for us one of the greatest new sales taxes this province has ever seen.

I would like to see, and I am sure many members of this Legislature and the people of the province would like to see, a real effort by this government to improve tax fairness. This government should be using corporate taxes and personal income taxes to create a system of raising revenues for the province based on the ability of people, corporations and businesses to pay those taxes.

Increases in retail sales taxes, increases the government has proposed on gasoline taxes which we will be voting on as well in the days to come, increases we are seeing on the local scene in terms of municipal property taxes -- education taxes particularly -- can really be laid at the feet of this Treasurer, a Treasurer who has refused to take the responsibility for improving tax fairness in Ontario.

The people of our province have a right to be concerned about the direction this government is taking and have a right to see where we are going to be going in the future, particularly on this issue of a national sales tax. We know the federal government has had a considerable increase in its deficit as a result of the first stage of tax reform. It is left with the need to gouge consumers with a tax increase. Its inclination is to do it with a very regressive, broad-based federal sales tax.

I suggest to the Treasurer that he has to maintain the independence of Ontario, the right of Ontario to determine what is fair and just for Ontario taxpayers, and I suggest he should use all due caution in participating in a federal tax scheme of such a sort.

At this time, though, on the issue of the retail sales tax the actions of this government in this bill speak for themselves. We see the government pursuing a regressive, right-wing tax agenda, one that does not create the fairness we all would like to see, and one I ask the Treasurer to seriously reconsider.

As a result, we in our party are going to have to vote against this tax increase, a tax increase that is not going to be to the benefit of the people of Ontario, a tax increase that is going to do considerable harm to people right across this province, particularly in lower income groups. We ask that this bill be withdrawn from passage in this Legislature.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Questions and Comments?

Mr. Cousens: I would like to know why my honourable friend and colleague from the New Democratic Party, whose charge and challenge it is to keep this government honest, starts bringing in federal politics. He has been elected by the people of Hamilton to come in here and do things for the people --

Mr. Morin-Strom: Sault Ste. Marie.

Mr. Cousens: Well, the member could come from Hamilton, he is such a handsome person.

The fact is he comes in here and starts bringing federal politics into a provincial issue. I am surprised the Speaker did not put him out of order for bringing in those references. I would like to know just why the member could not concentrate all his remarks on the Ministry of Revenue and its failure to do the right things for the people of the province.

Hon. Mr. Conway: If I might be helpful to my friends in the opposition, the member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Morin-Strom) was following the example of the members of the third party in the days and weeks running up to November 21.

Mr. Morin-Strom: In response to the comments of the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens), I point out that our concerns are not just with where we are going with this province, but that the federal government may well have undue influence on where this province is going, because the right-wing agenda of the federal government is quite obviously becoming the right-wing agenda of the current provincial Liberal government. We want to see both of those agendas stopped in their tracks right now.

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to have this opportunity to participate in this important debate, a debate that is very late in being scheduled in the Legislature. We are speaking on November 30, and if I am correct, the Treasurer had the pleasure of reading his budget on April 20. At that point the House was not sitting and he had to do it outside the House, and a bit of a scurry went on here.

The fact of the matter is that the people of Ontario have been paying this regressive tax for the last six and a half to seven months and this is the first opportunity the government has given this House to debate it in detail. We have had a chance to do something on the budget, but not on this bill. It seems like a simple bill, but it is not simple. The fact is it is a bill that is going to generate billions of dollars in Ontario.

I am going to cover a range of subjects that have to do with this bill. It seems so simple. All they are doing is saying it is one percentage point, from seven per cent to eight per cent. They go and give it a nice bill; it looks so clean that the taxpayers of Ontario just think, “Well, it is a given that the province is going to come along and do what it wants to do.”

What we have here is

An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. The key line is in

section 2 where it says it is “further amended by striking out ‘seven’ in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘eight.’” That is all we are talking about.

But we are talking about an awful lot more than just that -- why they are bringing in this tax, how they are spending the money and what is going to be done with the people of Ontario and for the people of Ontario because of the kinds of decisions that are being made by this government.

I have never before felt as angry at what the government has been doing. I have never felt as cynical as I feel now. It is almost as if the Liberals went into hiding here in Ontario during the time of the federal election. Since my friend the member for Sault Ste. Marie was talking about federal politics, the Ontario Liberals almost wanted to keep hidden and quiet, silent as little mice, the fact that they were going to be increasing taxes by one more point.

Why would we not be discussing this during the federal election campaign time period? Because then the people of Ontario would be reminded that Liberals tell you one thing when they are trying to get elected, and once they are there, they increase the taxes. That is exactly what those guys have done. Why did they not have the honour to stand up during the federal election campaign, some 50 days when we could have been debating this bill? It would have reminded all the people of Ontario that those guys are the thieves.

Interjections.

Mr. Cousens: I apologize, Mr. Speaker. I would not want in any way --

Mr. Hampton: Campaign from the left and govern from the right.

Mr. Cousens: I am not exactly sure what they are doing.

It was wrong for them to have been secretive during the period of the federal election campaign and then, as soon as the campaign was over, as soon as the recounts were done so they could not even influence that, to have brought into the House the Ontario retail sales tax.

Mr. Faubert: Note the member is smiling when he says it.

Mr. Cousens: I am not smiling. When you are in this place, you can almost go a little loony, and what they have been doing to the province of Ontario is enough to drive the people further into debt. That is what I am fighting. This very tax is punitive. It is something that is going to set the people of Ontario back $1 billion, because what would have been in their pockets is now going to be in the government’s pockets.

If the minister is brave enough and has a good enough answer, I would be delighted if he would come forward in the House and answer in his remarks. Why did he not bring it for debate in this House six months ago? Why is it he waited until now? They control the agenda of this province and they control the agenda of this House, yet they deliberately postponed bringing it forward for us to debate and to consider, which is our just and due responsibility, but it is not done.

I think the people of Ontario are not only mad, angry and incensed at having to pay one per cent more, but as a representative of the people of Ontario, I am incensed to think the government would delay bringing forward this bill for debate until now. I have never had to wait as long to go after them. That is half the fun. They come along with the bill. Part of the secret is there is a psychology --

Mr. Faubert: The honourable member knows much better. It was to go to the 407.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Faubert, you are not even in your seat and you are making interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: If you are going to do that, you should be sitting over here where no one can see you.

Mr. Hampton: Go to your chair.

Mr. Cousens: Yes, go to your chair. Just go and sit there and have your water.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I suggest the honourable member is out of place to be making comments. As you know, according to the customs of this House, a member should be in his own seat. The fact is he did not lift his chair to over there.

The Deputy Speaker: That is right, and the member speaking should address his remarks through the Speaker.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that there is something being done here that you should not like. I do not like having this tax bill either, and this is something I would like to spend some few moments discussing.

Our party has tried to find out how the people of Ontario really feel about it. The fact is that when you increase the taxes, it hurts at the beginning. That is when people begin to say --

Mr. Hampton: It hurts everywhere.

Mr. Cousens: This one hurts everywhere because it just covers everybody. It is an indiscriminate tax-stealing effort by this government. What happens is that once you start paying it, you get kind of used to it. It is almost as if you are on some kind of medicine or on some kind of morphine. You are doped up for a while. You get used to paying the tax. I will never get used to paying it.

That is the psychology of it all. The government introduces a tax like this at the very early stage when it has just been elected. They will not do it three years from now when they are getting ready to go to the people. I am not going to suggest they do it either, because I think the smart thing is to get the money for the next two or three years and then withdraw the tax. That would be progressive government, but that party does not have “progressive” in its name or in its thinking or in its being.

I would like to touch on this pamphlet our party has put together. There are thousands of people who now have this. The fact is we have reminded the people of Ontario --

Mr. Ballinger: Handed those out in the subway station, didn’t you?

Mr. Cousens: Yes, I was handing these out in the subway station yesterday, as were many other members of our party.

The Deputy Speaker: Order; one person at a time.

Mr. Ballinger: Whose picture is it?

Mr. Cousens: Quite candidly, I believe the people are not well served necessarily by what they get in the media. The media do an excellent job when it all comes about, and then they go to sleep and say: “Okay, what’s the latest issue today?” It might be something that comes from the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong), that he is having a fund-raising party; or it might be the Provincial Auditor today or it might be something else. They look for the headlines. This is a headline that will not go away.

Mr. Hampton: It’s a headache, you mean.

Mr. Cousens: Hey, I really like this member. Not only is it a headline, it is a headache. I am getting very excellent help from my honourable friend the member for Rainy River. I just hope that when he has a chance to speak he will touch on some of the salient points of this act.

Part of what we are saying is that “the government which governs best is the government that reaches out to the greatest number of people.” That is a quote from the Liberal throne speech of April 28, 1987.

On April 20 of this year, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) reached out and into our pockets. I would like to share this brochure with the people who were not lucky enough to be at one of the subway stops in Toronto to pick up a copy:

“David Peterson’s 1988 budget is the biggest single tax grab in the history of our province -- taking $1.3 billion in new taxes out of your pocket!

“Here’s the bill David Peterson handed to you on April 20.

“Retail sales tax up!

“Gasoline taxes up!

“Provincial income tax up!

“Tax on alcohol up!

“Tax on tobacco up!

“In fact, during the last four years, you have paid an additional $20 billion in taxes to David Peterson.”

That is really what we are going to talk about this afternoon and for as long as this bill is in this House for consideration. The fact of the matter is that one of the biggest tax grabs that this province has ever seen is in this budget. It is regressive, bad and ill-timed. There are many aspects to this bill that I would like to just begin to touch on.

When we start talking about good government, we really have to understand how the government uses the money that is collected through its taxes. If I had a sense that the money were being invested wisely, paying down the deficit and touching upon the services this government received a mandate to do something about on September 10, 1987, then I think many of us would have a feeling that the right things were being done.

But the fact of the matter is that we are dealing with a province that very fortunately is having a buoyant economy. We have virtually no unemployment by virtue of the unemployment rate in Toronto and some of the major centres. Certainly it is not that way in eastern Ontario or northern Ontario. There are pockets within our province that are suffering and need help.

The fact of the matter is that here is a government that is getting more and more money. What are they doing with it? What we are really talking about is the financial requirements that are currently projected at $482 million, up $9 million relative to their budget plan. What we are seeing, then, is the whole fact that the government is spending more and more money.

I guess what we are really saying is that when we have passed all the bills that come out of this budget, next year the government is going to do more of the same, because its spending habits have just not changed at all. We have a group of spendthrifts here who call themselves the government. All they can do is just keep on filling the pockets of more civil servants instead of meeting the needs of the people who elected them to serve us.

Let’s just touch on some of the problems that go into revenue and the whole status of the financial state of Ontario. When we start comparing 1988-89 to the previous year, I think members should note that the total provincial tax revenues will increase by 14.9 per cent, largely because of a projected 23.8 per cent, or $1.5 million, increase in the retail sales tax. This bill alone will generate that kind of money. What we will then have is tax revenues that are up by a staggering 72.2 per cent as the government collects $10.8 billion more in tax revenues this year than were collected in 1984-85.

That was just a few years ago. But that is probably the reason this government made a deliberate decision not to bring this bill up during the federal election campaign and remind the people of Ontario that if they elected a Liberal, they would say one thing and then tax the life right out of you. That is what has happened since 1984-85: a staggering 72.2 per cent increase in what the government has taken from the people of Ontario since that time. To repeat the number, we are talking about $10.8 billion more in tax revenues this year over 1984-85. That is a lot of money.

If I were satisfied that that money was being spent on important things, then I would feel a lot better. But it is being spent on the wrong things. Revenue inflows --

Mr. Furlong: Education.

Mr. Cousens: I am going to come to education. I am glad the member raised that, because I have an important series of letters I have received from our own York Region Board of Education which show that we are not getting a fair shake from this government on education costs.

Revenue inflows from all major tax sources have increased dramatically over this four-year period. Proceeds from personal income tax have jumped by 69.9 per cent. Retail sales tax revenues have increased by 76.5 per cent. Since it assumed office, the Liberal government has enjoyed revenue windfalls of $390 million in 1985-86, $1 .275 billion in 1986-87 and $327 million in 1987-88, for a total windfall -- unexpected gifts from the success and buoyant economy of this province -- of almost $2 billion, $1.9 billion.

I see this government as one that has one great thing going for it: public relations. On the one side, they know how to swing it out there so that people think, “Aren’t they doing a fine job?” Unfortunately, most of the nine million people in Ontario have forgotten that they are now paying eight cents on the dollar rather than seven cents. Maybe they have given up. Maybe the people of the province have just given up and said, “Well, hey, they are going to do it to us anyway,” so they take their wallets out and just pay it. But it has an impact, and I will share that with members in a moment so that they will have a better insight as to what that impact is.

If we look at a typical taxpayer -- and I do not think there is a typical taxpayer in Ontario. I think right now we are all out of the box when it comes to paying taxes. We are all paying far more than we should, and the villains are sitting right across from me, except that I wish we had the Treasurer here.

Mr. Ballinger: You just got up and asked where Highway 407 was. How are we going to pay for 407?

Mr. Cousens: If we do not get Highway 407 -- and the member is not in favour of Highway 407 -- then I think there is the person who should begin to understand where the priorities are for this region.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: He comes along and has all the growth, he gets all the people up there and the member for Durham-York (Mr. Ballinger) thinks it is not important. I happen to think that if we are going to be building new communities and having new people establishing themselves in the greater Metro area, then we should also provide the services for them. That is not inconsistent with anything I have ever said.

Mr. Ballinger: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I did not say to the honourable member that I did not care. I said if he is talking about raising taxes on one end and then speaking about money for Highway 407, he cannot have it both ways.

The Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order. The member for Markham may proceed.

Mr. Cousens: I can see why you have a very difficult job, Mr. Speaker. It is the kind of innuendo that we deal with in this place. The fact of the matter is that I will fight for Highway 407. I will fight for the services these people deserve.

Mr. Ballinger: We have to raise the taxes to pay for it.

Mr. Cousens: I really have to take exception to what the member for Durham-York is saying. If we are going to have new communities being built, we are going to need new schools, new roads and new services. This government has to remember that it does not just happen; we have to plan for it. One of the reasons we are having problems up in that area is that there has not been the planning coincident with the growth. We have to have the two working together.

Right now we are strangulating with the traffic problems we have on the highways, because the dollars are not being put out there for those highways -- Highway 7, Highway 408, Highway 404. Why did the government delay Highway 404? The member for Durham-York does not seem to care about it. I do care and I am going to continue to fight for it.

When we start looking at Bill 122, a taxpayer with a spouse and two children who is earning $40,000 a year will pay an additional $126 a year in retail sales taxes. If the couple smokes, drinks, has a case of beer a week and drives an average amount, they will be paying an additional $250 in taxes. A two-income family of four who own their own home, with one spouse earning $35,000 and the other $18,000, will pay an additional $59 this year in provincial income tax and an additional $153 in retail sales tax. Everybody is hit by these taxes.

Couples looking to buy a new home will no doubt be thrilled to learn that, as a result of the budget, the cost of a new house in the Metropolitan Toronto area can be expected to increase by between $1,000 and $2,000 because of sales taxes now being levied on the goods that go into that house. When they buy a home and they want to furnish it, they can look forward to paying an additional $150 in sales tax on the $15,000 they are spending on furniture, appliances and fixtures.

It is a hidden tax grab that is not so hidden; you just get used to it. It is there; you know you have to pay it. You are going to buy your home, you are going to buy your furniture, but this is a government that has done it to the people of Ontario. In the current fiscal year, tax and revenue measures in the 1985-86 and 1988-89 Liberal budgets will take $1 billion out of the pockets of Ontario investors and consumers.

That is why I am upset. I am upset because, although things are going well right now, if they were using that money and getting rid of the deficit and doing some of the proper building of an infrastructure --

Mr. Ballinger: They puff and blow at the same time. You can’t puff and blow.

Mr. Cousens: -- which the member for Durham-York seems to be criticizing, and getting the roads and getting the services, then we would begin to think we were getting value for our dollar. The fact of the matter is that we are not.

I want to just touch on something, and it has to do with what the Premier had to say in his ad that appeared in all the major papers in Ontario during the summer of 1987. Here is what it begins with. It says: “We have done what we said we would do. Under the strong leadership of Premier David Peterson, the Liberal government of Ontario has achieved a solid record of success.”

I wish we had our town crier from Markham here. He could really shout it from the rooftops. The good thing about it is that no one would hear it, and the other thing is that no one would believe it, especially when they start seeing what they are doing to us here.

This ad has three columns: “We said. We did. We will.” When it comes down to what they have described, at least what the Premier and the Liberal government did, they do not say anything about taxes. They make all kinds of assurances on free trade and, “We will do something on free trade.” The New Democratic Party is not too thrilled with the Premier’s performance on free trade, and I am just delighted that he did not succeed in what he was trying to do, because I think it was wrong.

Mr. Hampton: You are giving too much credit, Don.

Mr. Cousens: I am giving him credit that he deserves. He certainly failed to do what he said he would do when it came to free trade.

On health care, he said he was going to increase funding to provide 4,000 new chronic and acute care hospital beds. I tell you, ladies and gentlemen of Ontario, I am seeing beds close down in Wellesley Hospital; I am seeing beds not opened in other hospitals; I am seeing problems right across Ontario with health care, and yet he was making all kinds of commitments back in August 1987.

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: On education, he says, “We will significantly reduce class size, to one teacher for every 20 children in the early school years.” Hey, it is great to say that when it comes from the government, but the fact of the matter is that there has been no money for the school boards to achieve that.

On the environment, he talks about what we will do to double the number of environment enforcement officers. I wonder if that has been done? “We will double the funding for beach cleanup.” I suppose the fact is that maybe there has been something happening there, but you begin to wonder what they are doing in long-term sewage programs. I mean, these were promises.

The one where this government fails totally is the failure to fulfil this promise to complete 102,000 affordable rental units by 1989. What part of 1989? We are just a month and a bit away from the New Year, and we are not going to see it by January 1. If they are going to have 102,000 affordable units, are we going to see them by the end of 1989? I venture to say, not a chance.

Then he goes on to make some promises about seniors. The first thing he did was get rid of Mr. Van Horne, who was beginning to do something about it, but certainly there has been no money spent and no drawing together of a program to protect and develop our seniors’ programs.

Jobs? “We will give people over 45 up to $5,000 for retraining.” I will tell members what they have done with jobs. They have just closed down the innovation centres, and those were just classic places where we were beginning to see the generation and creation of jobs.

Day care -- Well, the point is, here is an advertisement that was placed in papers across Ontario by the present Premier of this province saying what they were going to do. I just wish it had the courage to say in that, “We’re going to put a tax on the people of Ontario like they have never seen before,” because that is what the government has done and that is what this Minister of Revenue is having to do. He is the Zacchaeus of the government. He is the tax collector who is coming out and is taking this away from the people of our province.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: What are these obscure biblical references all about?

Mr. Cousens: I was doing a little bit of research on it, and when you start understanding where these retail sales taxes started, they did start back as far as 300 BC with Ptolemy.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That was 1961.

Mr. Cousens: Ptolemy. I am talking before Christ, and that is even before you had some kind of --

Mr. Ballinger: The year Don was born. BC: before Cousens.

Interjections

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: The fact of the matter is that it has been happening ever since, but I will come back and show members how Ontario compares to the other provinces.

When we get the bulletins from the province, and these are circulated to retailers and people who are interested in knowing just how to collect the tax and what we are to do with it -- and I reiterate that here we are talking about increasing the tax of Ontario from seven percent to eight per cent, and you think that is just one cent in a dollar; it amounts to a 15 per cent increase.

No wonder inflation is starting to get fuelled again in the province. This government is again helping that whole problem of forcing things to cost more, and it has to have some impact on inflation. This budget is certainly an inflationary budget.

What we have are the budget highlights that come out of the Ministry of Revenue. I wish the minister would change his brochures on this and call them budget lowlights, because what he is really talking about --

Mr. R. F. Johnston: But they’re blue.

Mr. Cousens: Well, they have not changed the blue. Everything else is red around here, and so are people’s pocketbooks. There is more red ink there than there is black ink. You just have to talk to the people of Ontario. Most people are one or two paycheques away from bankruptcy anyway, and this province just puts them closer and closer to the edge of that very problem.

This tax increase on Ontario retail sales tax affects just about everything: goods, rentals, repairs, telephone service. People do not realize it. You just pay the telephone bill or for your cable TV. That is also being covered by the retail sales tax.

Sheet metal manufacturers, telecommunications services, advertising supplements and advertising inserts -- again, that costs your retailer all that much more to advertise and to do what he is doing.

Ready-mix and asphalt producers -- now that is a hurtful one when you start wanting more roads in Ontario and all you are doing is just saying, “Hey, we are going to just tax it and tax it.” You are taxing the taxpayers’ money when you start doing that one.

Relief for contractors -- you go on and you get all the details.

One of the problems I have is the worry for the poor retailers who have to collect this. They do not have an easy time. They have their tables, and the ministry is right down their throat if they do not get the money in there right on time. I found this minister to be somewhat fair in helping resolve some of the problems I have had with my constituents in that matter, and it has only been his goodwill that has come along and broken through. But I will tell him, it is a good thing no one knows what he is doing or they probably would not let him carry on trying to be the good guy that he wants to be some of the time.

As we are concerned with this tax grab, it becomes a matter that the people of Ontario should stop and think about. Unfortunately, we are here to do their thinking for them, and that is not what you would call the best of opportunities for the people of Ontario, because most of them have forgotten that they are now going to be paying this extra cent in sales tax.

But this massive tax grab allows this government to continue to increase its expenditures. They have already hit $38.4 billion, up 8.6 per cent from the 1987-88 interim level. I just wish I knew what they are doing with all that money, because if it were doing good things, then I would have a sense of satisfaction. It is not.

Revenues? They continue to increase. Already they are increasing by 11 per cent, to $37.9 billion.

This government does not really know what it is doing with the money. They are a