Hansard Transcript 1988-Dec-13 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Miller: I would like to take just a moment to indicate that the apples on members’ desks today are grown in Norfolk county, my riding of Norfolk, on the farm of Tom and Joan Haskett near Vittoria. Vittoria was the capital of southern Ontario back in the early 1800s and it is the Garden of Eden of Ontario. This is just to bring a little Christmas spirit to our last week’s sitting in the 1988 season. We would like to make it known that we present them to the members. Merry Christmas to everyone.

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

APARTMENT BUILDING INCINERATORS

Mrs. Grier: Today I will be tabling a petition on behalf of 265 residents in an area of high-density housing in the borough of East York in Metropolitan Toronto. The residents are fed up with the black smoke and horrendous odours from apartment building incinerators at 85 and 95 Gamble Avenue. These are old, poorly maintained incinerators with almost no pollution control equipment. Such incinerators routinely emit serious pollutants such as lead, acid gases, carbon monoxide and dioxins.

The Liberal government, better late than never, will finally require the shutdown of all apartment building incinerators by next May 31, but what are the residents of East York and other areas to do in the meantime? They cannot put their health on hold for six months. The community near the Gamble Avenue buildings has a large population of both senior citizens and young children, the two groups most susceptible to respiratory illnesses from air pollution.

The argument has been advanced that it is not possible to charge the owners of the apartment buildings with violating the Environmental Protection Act because the incinerators will be out of operation by next May anyway, long before the charges would get to court. That argument is sheer nonsense from a legal perspective. If the incinerators are polluting today, then the owners should be charged and brought to trial for an offence that is occurring today. The May 31 deadline for incinerator closure is a complete red herring. The East York petitioners want the incinerators closed down immediately, and so they should be.

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Pollock: I am concerned that the Burgar report, which reviewed conservation authorities, did not give more consideration to their mandate. It is premature to start amalgamating authorities and making drastic changes in the funding formula. Burgar outlined what conservation authorities should not be responsible for instead of saying what they should be doing.

For instance, the report says that authorities should not be responsible for locally or regionally significant parks; they should not be spending so much effort on conservation education; they should not be supplying public information, and they should not be involved in natural area preservation.

Who is going to do this? Burgar said municipalities should take some of the responsibility, but where is the money coming from? Once again this Liberal government is expecting the municipalities to do the job.

Conservation authorities should be the flagship of the province’s goals for sustaining society. They should be viewed as an important link between conservation and natural resources and the responsible economic development outlined in the Brundtland commission. We must be sure that when we implement reforms, they will be the best reforms possible for Ontario citizens, for municipalities and for the environment. The report should be the first step for discussion and negotiation. The government should be bringing this review to the public forum and debate in the Legislature.

TRANSIT SERVICES

Mrs. Stoner: I would like to speak today about a success story, the operation of the government of Ontario’s GO Transit network.

Recently I had the pleasure of joining the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton) at the opening of the new GO stations at Ajax and Whitby and the refurbished facility at Pickering. We were joined by the member for Durham Centre (Mr. Furlong) and the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz) at Whitby.

Since December 5, commuters from Durham region and points east have been able to access this service closer to their homes, reducing their travel time to and from work by up to one hour. Also, the new service allows Metropolitan Toronto residents to more easily visit, shop and work in Durham region. On behalf of my constituents, I would welcome employers to consider Durham as an affordable place to locate.

The addition of this service helps to provide for and to relieve the expanding traffic congestion problems that we see growing in the Metro Toronto area. For instance, one full 10-car train will carry the same number of passengers as would be carried by one lane of freeway traffic moving at 35 kilometres an hour for a one-hour period. We all know it is very difficult sometimes even to move at that rate, given the volume of traffic, so I would encourage those who fume in traffic to consider the GO Transit alternative. The time saved by going to and from work could well be better spent in their homes and communities.

I might add that the GO Transit service to Ajax is so successful that we have already seen the parking lot overloaded. I understand the parking lot can be expanded. I hope that will be done soon.

HOME CARE

Mr. Morin-Strom: For more than two years now, homemaker organizations across Ontario have warned that they cannot continue to provide needed home care services if this Liberal government continues to restrict funding. Now the province’s most important nonprofit agency, the Red Cross homemaker services, has announced that it will be forced to withdraw its services to hundreds of citizens in my community and to nearly 100,000 clients right across Ontario unless there is an indication by January 20 that its program will be adequately funded.

For 63 years, the Red Cross has provided in-home assistance, with essential daily activities for seniors, the disabled and individuals recovering from acute or chronic conditions. Now this outstanding organization faces an unmanageable deficit caused by inadequate funding. The Red Cross has called for a reallocation of funding for health and social programs in order to ensure that the growing needs for in-home support services can be met.

Surely home care services must be a cornerstone of Ontario’s community health social services system, the only alternative to high-cost institutional care. The Premier (Mr. Peterson) and his Liberal government must accept responsibility for the crisis they have caused and take action now to fix this mess. Citizens right across the province are demanding a real commitment of support for the Red Cross and other home care agencies so that those in need can stay in their own homes and get the care that they rightly deserve.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

Mrs. Marland: I rise today to express my dissatisfaction with the leadership from Ontario’s Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley). The minister’s refusal to provide guidance to municipalities has once again resulted in disastrous ramifications.

The St. Lawrence Square housing project in the city of Toronto has turned into an environmental fiasco. The Minister of the Environment exempted this housing project from the Environmental Assessment Act the same day the Liberal Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) announced the plan to expropriate 67 acres of industrial land on the floodplain of the Don River. Not only is this land in a precarious location for flooding, but it is also in an area where the soil was contaminated from years of industrial use.

1340

The ministry exempted this project from the Environmental Assessment Act with little, if any, idea of the environmental implications development would bring. His reason for the exemption was primarily became of the delay it would cause in bringing the housing stock on to the market. Now the city finds the soil is more contaminated than it expected. Surprise, surprise.

He has also exempted 85 other projects from the Environmental Assessment Act since he became minister, and many of these exemptions were became they would cause undue delay and expense. The minister acted irresponsibly in exempting the St. Lawrence Square project. What about the other 85? This minister’s so-called commitment to protecting the environment is an insult to Ontarians.

TALMAGE STONE

Mr. Keyes: On Friday, December 9, Talmage Stone, one of eastern Ontario’s oldest pioneers, died at his home in Forfar at age 92. Mr. Stone was known for several pioneering agricultural initiatives, among them the introduction of artificial insemination to the dairy industry in Ontario, his community leadership, and his success in preventing the Forfar Cheese factory from closing in 1962.

He gained national prominence at the age of 86 when he vowed he would rather go to jail than adopt the metric system of weights and measures. He refused to sell cheese in kilograms. He was also an innovative dairy farmer and community leader, before he assumed the management of the Forfar Cheese factory from 1963 to 1985. Mr. Stone retired just three years ago after putting the factory on the cheese-making map of Ontario, yet visited his staff almost every day.

The agricultural community paid tribute to Mr. Stone last summer when he received the Centennial Award for the Ontario Ministry of Agriculture and Food as one of a hundred residents of Ontario who made a significant contribution to agriculture in this century.

Mr. Stone described himself as the most rabid Liberal in Leeds county. He ran for the Liberal Party in the 1959 provincial election, against the late James Auld of Brockville.

Mr. Speaker, please join with me and all members of this House in paying tribute to Talmage Stone, one of Ontario’s finest pioneers. It may well be said of Talmage, as he has said of a few other outstanding citizens: He was an honourable man.

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

Mr. Harris: In the few seconds available to me, Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to the attention of the government the concerns of the Ontario Tenant Action Coalition representing more than 7,000 tenants, most of them residents of three large Toronto apartment townhouse complexes. These tenants in Bretton Place, High Park, and Cedar Grove have had their rights taken away from them by this government for a period of three years and are calling on the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) to investigate the constitutionality of --

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

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

Hon. Mr. Elston: I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

The Lieutenant Governor transmits supplementary estimates of certain additional sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1989, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I would like to inform members of programs being initiated in several Ontario communities to partially address the problem of homelessness. As members know, this government’s strategy to address homelessness has many elements. My colleague the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has already introduced a number of programs designed to increase the supply of permanent affordable housing. Homes Now is one such example.

In addition to programs such as these, the province has recognized that there is a need for further solutions. As members may remember, several months ago the Minister of Housing and I announced a plan to form local committees to assist their respective communities to help homeless individuals find and remain in permanent housing.

To build on the working partnerships already developed with these communities, communities in Ontario were encouraged to work with my ministry and the Ministry of Housing to develop local access-to-permanent-housing committees.

The province set aside $6 million in ongoing access funding so that community groups could provide staff-oriented services to enable homeless people to find homes.

The province supports local solutions and commends the members of local access-to-permanent-housing committees for their commitment to people in their communities who face the difficult problem of how and where to find permanent homes.

The Minister of Housing and I are pleased to tell members today that in 31 communities across the province, access-to-permanent-housing committees are now in existence. I am also announcing that projects submitted by 12 of these committees are receiving a total of $1,756,000 to help make access to permanent housing a reality for the homeless in their communities. Locations where action will be taken are the Dufferin area, Durham region, Halton, Hamilton-Wentworth, Kenora, London, the Niagara region, North Bay, Perth county, Sudbury, Victoria county and the Windsor-Essex area.

The approved projects I am announcing today are the first group of successful proposals from the access-to-permanent-housing committees. Other committees are also working on proposals which the Minister of Housing and I expect to receive early in 1989.

The projects in 12 communities have one simple focus: To help homeless people find and maintain permanent housing. Let me just give members two examples. In North Bay. a group known as Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing operates both as a self-help group for people with low incomes and as a social action group.

With the funding I am announcing today, this group will assemble and offer information on housing options. It will also provide vital peer support for homeless people and people at risk of becoming homeless, giving them the assistance to obtain permanent homes.

Another example is a project that will begin in Halton region. Halton Women’s Place will now be able to hire a housing co-ordinator to help abused women and their children to find housing. The co-ordinator will advocate on their behalf with landlords, liaise with other housing groups and compile a directory that shows clearly and immediately where accommodation might be available.

Knowledgeable and experienced people in many communities have volunteered to form access-to-permanent-housing committees. They use their time and expertise to find access to housing. Their involvement is a clear indication that their communities, as do our two ministries, care enough about the plight of those who are homeless to take action on their behalf. Among local people who have expressed their concern and determination to make access to permanent housing possible are municipal officials, social service providers, individuals involved in the housing sector and other responsible citizens from all walks of life.

Our provincial and municipal goal is to solve the problem of where and how to find permanent housing. The projects I am announcing today are an important part of that solution.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Hon. Mrs. McLeod: I am pleased to rise today to announce increased funding for Ontario’s colleges and universities.

The government will provide $1,670,600,000 in operating grants to Ontario’s universities and related institutions in 1989-90. This represents an increase of $116.2 million or 7.5 per cent over total operating support provided for 1988-89. This increase brings the cumulative funding increase since this government took office to 34.2 per cent.

A major component is $51.6 million in new funding to recognize enrolment growth in the current fiscal year and to promote accessibility for underrepresented groups. This will bring the total amount of accessibility funding in 1989-90 to $88 million.

We will be providing $3.8 million in increased funding for the ministry’s French-language and bilingual programs and activities at universities. This brings the total for these programs to $24.1 million in 1989-90, an increase of 18.7 per cent.

As well, $4.3 million in increased funding has been allocated for the faculty renewal program, which is supporting the appointment of 500 new faculty members over five years. Seventy more faculty will be appointed in 1989-90, bringing the total number of positions funded by the fourth year of this program to 438. University tuition fees in 1989-90 will rise by 7.5 per cent, in direct proportion to the increases in government funding.

1350

The colleges of applied arts and technology, like our universities, play an integral role in the enhancement of post-secondary education in Ontario. I am pleased to inform the Legislature today that the government will be providing $698.4 million in operating support to our colleges for 1989-90. This is an increase of 5.6 per cent, or $37.1 million, over the last allocation. Since 1985, operating support for colleges has increased by 43.2 per cent.

Included in the base used to determine the 1989-90 grants are special funds introduced last year for northern colleges, special-needs students and French-language programming. I am pleased to confirm that these programs will continue in 1989-90.

This year’s allocation also includes an increase of $8 million to the base to assist the colleges in meeting their financial commitments resulting from the provisions of the academic staff contract signed in May 1986. The base operating grant will rise by four cent in 1989-90. Effective September 1, 1989, tuition fees for college students will increase at the same rate as provincial operating grants, 5.6 per cent.

Hon. Mr. Ward: Following the statement by the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) yesterday, I would like to announce our increased funding to school boards for their budget year of January to December 1989.

Next year, Ontario elementary and secondary schools will receive a total of $4,129,200,000, an increase of $237.5 million over our 1998 allocation. This represents an increase of 6.1 per cent in operating funds for next year.

As the Treasurer announced yesterday, an important component of the 1989 education transfer payments will be a further allocation of $81.5 million towards the implementation of our 1987 throne speech initiatives, including the reduction of class sizes in grades 1 and 2, our revitalized computers-in-education grants program, new textbooks, more learning materials and our intermediate science initiatives. This brings to $145.8 million the amount we are spending in 1989 on these important improvements in elementary education.

In addition to these general legislative grants for operating purposes, members will know that this government has committed for next year an additional $300 million for school capital projects. As well, with the green paper released yesterday, we are examining important new ways of financing school capital.

I am confident that the total 1989 provincial allocations will provide school boards with the means to continue to deliver high-quality education for our children. Specific details of the 1989 general legislative grants will be provided in the new year.

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I indicated yesterday my intention to meet with leaders of visible minority groups, along with my colleague the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Phillips), regarding the death of Michael Wade Lawson. That meeting was held yesterday evening and lasted for well over three hours, during which those present expressed the intense concerns of the community respecting the circumstances surrounding the death of Mr. Lawson.

As members will be aware, the death of Mr. Lawson and the circumstances surrounding it are the subject of an ongoing investigation by the criminal investigation branch of the Ontario Provincial Police. A report of its investigation is expected to be delivered to a crown attorney from outside the regional municipality of Peel very shortly so that a determination can be made as to whether criminal charges should be laid in connection with the death of Mr. Lawson.

However the questions arising from the OPP investigation and the review of the crown attorney based thereon may be resolved, there will still remain unanswered the broader and very serious question of how visible minorities are being treated and are seen to be treated by our police forces. This question, and the realities and perceptions associated with it, remain a very serious concern to me as Solicitor General and to the government of Ontario.

I am announcing today the establishment of a task force to address promptly the very serious concerns of visible minorities respecting the interaction of the police community with their own. I say this while reiterating this government’s unequivocal commitment to respecting and ensuring equal treatment by the police of all minorities in our society. The task force will be chaired by Clare Lewis, the public complaints commissioner respecting complaints against the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force, and will comprise police and community representatives.

The task force will be asked to commence immediately an inquiry into police practices and policies, training and attitudes as they relate to visible minorities within our province. The detailed terms of reference for the task force will be made public very shortly. This task force is viewed by the government as the beginning of an action plan to remove any vestige of discrimination or perception thereof on the part of our police.

Neither the reality, if such there be, nor the perception can be tolerated for one minute longer. I have asked Mr. Lewis to provide me with a comprehensive report and the recommendations of the task force no later than two months from this day. I can assure members of this House that the government will give the most serious consideration possible to those forthcoming recommendations with a view to implementation for the purposes that I have outlined above.

RESPONSES

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. B. Rae: I want to respond to the statement from the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). The floor could be piled high with task forces on this subject going back over the last decade. We do not suffer from a lack of task forces. What we suffer from is a lack of clear leadership on the part of this government.

Yesterday we had the spectacle on this side of the House of having visits from the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) and from the Solicitor General explaining what their policies were. The only problem was that their policies were completely contradictory, the Attorney Central saying he wanted to proceed with his legislation, the Solicitor General saying no, she had her own ideas as to what should happen. They are quite different from that of the Attorney General.

We do not have a clear policy from this government on the question of a civilian review, a nonpolice review of police actions outside Metropolitan Toronto. We do not have a clear commitment to a public inquiry with regard to what happened to Mr. Lawson. We do not have a clear policy from this government on what should be the common procedure when there is an action by a policeman that is potentially criminal in nature.

It is our view that those actions should not be reviewed simply by another police force. They should be reviewed by a person who is truly independent of the police, in whatever jurisdiction. I say with great regret that the government’s establishment of a task force does not begin to address the issues that need to be addressed.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I would like to respond to the statements by the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward) and by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod).

The Liberal fog machine is really at work today. Yesterday we heard about the enormous pass-through of unconditional grants that has been taking place to these institutions, and then today we hear from the Minister of Colleges and Universities that the bottom line, in fact, is a less than cost-of-living increase of four per cent to the basic operating grant. The government has been mixing its apples and oranges this time in terms of specific programs, which are government programs, which are not unconditional programs, at all that it is funding, and the funding for the universities in particular.

Hidden in this announcement is an increase in the amount that students are going to have to pay for tuition of 7.5 per cent, even though that does not equal the unconditional grants that the minister is passing through. She is now expecting to pay even more to go to universities than in the past, therefore disrupting all her attempts to provide greater accessibility.

The Minister of Education has the gall to come in here again, making this sound as if this is a large and generous increase, when in point of fact he is admitting again this year that although this government promised, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) promised, $269 million a year to put into the reduction of class size and other matters, this year he can put in only $80 million. Last year it was only $22 million. When we look at the total, he is spending $145 million when he promised that in excess of almost $600 million would be spent by this time to increase the quality of education in Ontario.

1400

Why is there no mention of the other costs that are included here, around the extension of funding to the Catholic school system, which was 1.5 per cent of the amount of last year? And why is there no indication of what those kinds of costs are this year? The boards of the province are again being hoodwinked, in terms of being given the impression that they have in fact received enough money to meet their real costs.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Allen: I am responding to the announcement of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) on the funding to access-to-permanent-housing committees. In the first instance let me say the minister just barely got these things under the line as far as many municipalities were concerned. In my own, for example, the regional municipality is beginning to question whether it should consider any further allocations on this subject, because the money did not seem to be forthcoming to back up the claims of the local committee that they would, in fact, be doing something in the coming fiscal year.

However, of course, one is always happy to see something being done to help people find housing, but one has to say this is really an exercise in the old proverbial game of finding the needle in the haystack. The problem is not essentially finding access to housing; it is finding the housing itself, as we all know, because the vacancy rates are plummeting down closer and closer to absolute zero, and the people who are in need are, at the very best of times, in a revolving-door situation, moving from one place to another that they cannot afford. If the minister himself were really serious about that question, he would take this issue off the backs of those people in social assistance who cannot find adequate housing because he does not have an appropriate ceiling to cover their expenses in his rates.

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

Mr. Pope: With respect to the statement by the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod), I note that the minister has announced a 7.5 per cent increase in university tuition fees that the students will be paying next year and an increase in tuition fees for college students in the amount of 5.6 per cent. Clearly the minister is looking to the college and university students to pay for her failure and the failure of this government to adequately support the universities and colleges of this province.

With respect to the faculty renewal program, her announcement of $4.3 million is $36 million short of the target that is needed to implement this program. Therefore, the faculty problems now associated with our university system, which have been presided over by the Liberal government, are now going to be worse.

With respect to our colleges and universities in a time of increased utilization by young people of this province, in times when they have never been more clearly needed in terms of skills development and apprenticeship training and other training programs, the bottom line is a four per cent increase to the base. That is three per cent less than what the minister and this government have been advised is required even to maintain existing services.

What the minister is announcing today will be a reduction in services, in the number of placements for students in the college and university systems next year and in education opportunities, all presided over by a Liberal government that is wandering in a morass of government, that does not have its act together and is not helping the students and the people of this province.

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

Mr. Sterling: I would like to respond briefly to the statement of the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) with regard to the shooting of Michael Wade Lawson. There is a great deal of confusion surrounding this particular case. The counsel for the family accused the Solicitor General this morning of prejudging the issue and whitewashing the whole affair. The announcement today by the Solicitor General gives no more indication to us that the allegations put forward by the counsel are not valid.

The member for Parry Sound (Mr. Eves) put forward a resolution to this House to have this whole general area of discussion put before the standing committee on administration of justice. We can look to our libraries and find all the information that is going to be brought forward to this particular task force. All that information is already there. We could have Clare Lewis in front of that particular committee to give evidence. Then that committee can make some determination of what to do in the sorry state of affairs by this government and by this Solicitor General, who has been sitting on the police complaints bill for over three years without taking any action.

The time for action is now. The time for studying is past. Let us have a Legislative Assembly committee, the standing committee on administration of justice, do something right now.

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

Mr. Harris: I want to respond briefly to the statement by the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) regarding access to permanent housing.

First of all let me say that in this document, Transitions, prepared for the ministry, the report of the Social Assistance Review Committee, from pages 601 to 603 there are some 50 recommendations. I would imagine that the government spent a lot of money getting this document with 50 recommendations dealing with housing and homelessness. The minister has addressed none of those with his statement today.

The statement starts off by saying that it is this government’s strategy to address homelessness, and it has many elements: “My colleague the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) has already introduced a number of programs designed to increase the supply of permanent, affordable housing.”

We know that with every single program that the Minister of Housing has come out with, affordable housing, whether it be for buyers or for renters, has become more and more beyond reach. Perhaps the best thing the government could do is just scrap the whole Ministry of Housing, from the minister right through to every employee on down, and perhaps we would have more affordable housing.

The minister talks about developing local access-to-permanent-housing committees. We agree. We agree with the piddling amount of money the minister is announcing today. The Low Income People Involvement of Nipissing group has done a wonderful job, quite frankly, without the government for the past three or four years. We are delighted that the minister is giving them a little support now. But it is what is not in his statement and what he is not doing that is an absolute disgrace around this province.

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question for the Premier. I would like to take the Premier back to the election of 1985. He was in Sudbury on March 28 when he was outlining his policy on education at Cambrian College in Sudbury. The Premier released a three-page policy statement on that day. On that day, the Premier said in a policy statement which he released to the province, “We will increase provincial subsidies for local schools from the current 47 per cent of total costs to 60 per cent over five years.”

I wonder if the Premier can tell us whether he was telling the truth to the people of Ontario when he made that statement.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It could be put forward to the people who are concerned that our all-in contribution is in the order of 58 per cent. When you look at capital funding and you look at the contributions to pensions and a variety of other things, the percentage of approved costs, I think you can put that view forward.

Mr. B. Rae: I guess the only conclusion we can come to is that the Premier mumbles when he is unhappy with what he has to say. He knows full well that when he was in Sudbury he was comparing 47 per cent to 60 per cent. Now he can just listen to Merlin as much as he likes and he can fiddle with the figures all he wants, but even Merlin the wizard is not going to be able to get him out of this problem.

The Premier said that he was going to increase the budgetary contribution from the people of Ontario’s government from 47 per cent to 60 per cent. Now we find that for public elementary schools, for example, just to mention one comparative figure, in 1975 the government of Ontario was spending 53 per cent of budgets for elementary schools. In 1985, when the Premier took over, it was 37.86 per cent. In 1987 figures, the government is now contributing 35.24 per cent of the budget for elementary schools.

1410

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. B. Rae: In the throne speeches for 1985, 1986 and 1987, the Premier said there was no issue in education more important than what is happening in our elementary schools. He has cut support for our public elementary schools down to 35 per cent. How does he square that?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I just do not agree with my honourable friend’s analysis of the situation. It is just that simple. If you look at the transfers in percentage terms, if you look at them in terms of absolute dollars, if you look at them in terms of the schools for special needs, if you look at the student-teacher ratio improving, if you look at what we are doing in computers, if you look at what we are doing in pensions, if you look at what we are doing in capital, I say to my honourable friend the figures are all there for everyone to see.

My honourable friend would say that perhaps that should be regardless of whatever the school boards spend. As we know, school boards make various decisions on what they are going to spend whether it is authorized or not; but when he looks at the figures he will see real progress being made.

Mr. B. Rae: The Premier has broken a promise which he made to the people of the province. It is as simple as that. He told them one thing when he was asking for their votes. He is now doing exactly and precisely the opposite. There is no other way to describe it.

If he says in his throne speech, in our drive to help our young people reach their full potential we must as a society pay more attention to the “early school years from kindergarten to grade 6,” how is it possible that the provincial share for public elementary schools in this province has fallen from 53 per cent in 1975 to 35.24 per cent in 1987 and is falling in 1988 and projected to fall even more in 1989? How can he continue to hope to get away with this kind of charade, this kind of fraud he is perpetrating on the people of the province when it comes to educational funding?

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would ask the member to withdraw.

Mr. Reville: Is that not fair comment, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perpetrating fraud?

Mr. B. Rae: Mr. Speaker, if I am not allowed, I will withdraw the word in this place.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Once again, I will ask the Leader of the Opposition, will you reconsider and withdraw?

Mr. B. Rae: I said I would and I will.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: The leader is gracious as usual. I thank him very much for that and I appreciate it.

I think he should look at the figures and at what we have committed. We said in the last campaign that we were going to cut the student-teacher ratio in grades 1 and 2. We have made a budgetary allocation on the order of several hundred million dollars to do that. We have said that is where our emphasis is. We have said it in terms of computers and a variety of other programs, and we have done that. We said this in the science areas, and we are doing that.

I think if my honourable friend wants to look at that, he would want to take a different interpretation of it.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. B. Rae: My new question is to the Premier on his commitments with respect to insurance. I would like to ask the Premier what he intends to do about those companies in the province that are withdrawing their offering of insurance to hundreds, indeed thousands, of drivers in the province. Does he intend to take any action in that regard?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: It is a free country and they can offer insurance if they want to or not offer it.

Mr. B. Rae: We have a regulated system now in the province in which, supposedly, rates are being reviewed and the interests of drivers are being protected. If that is true, I wonder if the Premier can explain how, for example, Mr. Urquhart, a driver living at 726 Nelson Street in Fort Frances, hears from his insurance company that whereas in 1988 he is paying $474, in 1989 the notice he receives from his company says, “We’re going to charge you $338 for a six-month premium,” together with this notice: “The provincial government has indicated its intention to amend the automobile insurance classifications with respect to age, sex and marital status. Pending further clarification, we have therefore issued your attached renewal for a term of six months only”?

What is the Premier going to do to protect drivers from this kind of tactic on the part of insurance companies?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I think lots of people are covered for six months, are they not? As the member knows, the board is wrestling with the matter. It will come forward with its recommendations, with his advice. In the meantime, there is a competitive system and there are other people offering insurance.

Mr. B. Rae: It is not a competitive system. The-system has now been skewed totally towards the companies and the Premier’s insurance board is doing nothing on behalf of consumers. He has not appointed his consumer advocate, he broke his promise to appoint a consumer advocate, he is doing nothing to intervene on behalf of consumers.

How does the Premier feel about an individual in Levack, Ontario, who is being told by his insurance company that he will no longer be insured because the Hanover Insurance Co. has simply said, “We are approaching other markets”? However, no other company is interested in taking on this automobile business. This individual gets a letter telling him that he is not going to be insured by the company with which he has been insured for a long time, and in fact it has not been able to find anybody else to insure him either.

Just what kind of game is the Premier playing with his so-called regulated insurance plan? We are going to find the same thing --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. B. Rae: -- as happened in Massachusetts; 40 per cent of the people thrown into the facility plan because the government is not able to provide --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The question has been asked.

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I say with respect, we are not playing any game; the honourable member is playing a game. If there is a problem, it can be referred to the superintendent of insurance. He is there to assist in these matters. There is a facility there for people who are having trouble getting insured. I think if the honourable member wants to help the person mentioned, he can refer it to the minister or to the superintendent.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Other members would like to ask questions.

Mr. Runciman: I have another question about auto insurance, but since we do not get meaningful answers from the Premier, we will try the Minister of Financial Institutions.

It is rapidly becoming apparent that the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board is totally unprepared to receive meaningful public input or to respond to public concerns. In fact, the process has become something of a fiasco, as noted by the board’s manager of communications and research, who said in the paper this morning that the volume of complaints from the public is so heavy, “we cannot get any phone calls out” of the office.

What we have here is a know-nothing Premier and a do-nothing minister. The Premier will not give us any meaningful answers to our questions and the minister will not do anything about the auto insurance problem. Is the minister now prepared to concede that the auto insurance board should be holding hearings outside Metropolitan Toronto and is he prepared to have the board do so?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The congratulatory tone of the preamble as it was directed towards me probably has ensured at least a ceiling for the type of response I will make in reply. The honourable gentleman obviously overemphasizes some of the points he raises, in the sense that obviously there are a number of inquiries being made.

I can tell the honourable gentleman and the public that arrangements have in fact been made to assist in the call volume which has been coming in. I can tell the people of the province as well that the board has said that it is willing to sit extra time to take care of any of the public inquiries that wish to be handled in front of the board.

If one wants to appear, as I know the member does -- and I know the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Kormos) has already appeared -- in front of the board, then it will take the time to hear him. They will, in addition, take time to hear and will expand their time of hearings to accommodate the public interest.

That having been said, it seems to me that means the board has indicated that it wishes to have the broadest possible representation of the public’s point of view. From my point of view, that will ensure a very good and thorough hearing and discussion of this particular issue in front of the board.

Mr. Runciman: Obviously, we do not agree. They have had over 1,000 phone calls and I am sure they were not all from the Metropolitan Toronto area. People can call, but that is not put on the record. They can write, but they cannot travel here. It is a costly exercise. It appears that the minister does not want the public to have its say on auto insurance, he does not want the auto insurance board to visit the major centres of this province to allow for democratic public input on this serious issue and he apparently does not want the people of Cornwall or the people of Ottawa or the people of Thunder Bay to have input.

1420

The public concern over proposed increases in auto insurance premiums is widespread. The phone lines at the board are jammed, yet the minister has not recognized the need for province-wide hearings.

Will the minister tell the House exactly why he is not prepared to have the auto insurance board extend its public hearings to hear from all concerned Ontarians, not just those able to travel to the board offices in Metro Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The public interest is being served by many parts of this hearing process. I think the honourable member would like the people of Ontario to understand as well that their interest is represented through the legislation which was passed in this Legislative Assembly and which set the mandate for the board in the public interest to establish rates that are reasonable. That is one area in which the public is being served.

There are individual people who are putting the public point of view in front of the board as individual interveners. I think he will have read in the newspaper reports of the example of at least a couple of those. The member for Welland-Thorold has been there, along, I think, with a couple of people from the very vast number of people who make up the New Democratic Party research team. The member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), I think, is interested at least in having an attendance in front of the board, but I am not sure whether he has been there yet. I know he intends to be or at least the caucus intends to be. That is another way in which the public is represented.

In addition to that, the public interest is also represented on the part of the Consumers’ Association of Canada, and the government of Ontario has made special finances available to those people with respect to --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Runciman: For the past number of days, the Premier and the minister have been airing platitudes of concern for consumers regarding the proposed rate increases by Mercer. The minister and the Premier have assured us they are very concerned about the possibility of a 35 per cent to 40 per cent average hike in rates. Then there is the broken election promise of the Premier that he would lower insurance rates.

Given the expressions of concern by the Premier and by this minister, will the minister tell the House whether he intends to join with our party and the official opposition and appear before the auto insurance board to present his government’s concerns and those of the Premier; and if not, why not?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The public interest is, as I have said, represented in a broad number of ways in front of the board. I can tell the honourable gentleman that regarding his intervention, although he could not last week read even one of the questions that he put in front of us from the issues that were being raised, the fact is that he is going to be appearing, and l think it is helpful that he will be there.

We have done a couple of things that indicated our interest. In fact, the independent hearing board which is operating will be visited by and attended by the Consumers’ Association of Canada, which is going to have experts who are funded by a grant from the Ministry of Financial Institutions. Those particular types of interventions in the public interest, it seems to me, will help the process extremely well.

The board has been set up on the basis that it be at arm’s length and independent of us, independent of government and independent of the insurance industry, so that the people of the province can be assured that there are very reasonable rates which are established in the public interest.

That having been said, I think the representation in front of the board will be very substantial and, in fact, will be fair representation.

USE OF LOT LEVIES

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the costs of housing in the province. On the basis of her definition of affordability -- that is the one in her document released by her and the Minister of Municipal Affairs (Mr. Eakins) -- taking the average cost of a new home in the Metro Toronto area to be well in excess of $200,000, could the minister tell us what percentage of Ontario residents who do not currently own a home and who may want to purchase a new home can now realistically hope to be able to afford to buy a home on the basis of her ministry definition of affordability?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Our definition of affordability tries to deal, in particular, with two groups of people: people of low income and people of moderate income. It is true that in many parts of the province, and especially in the greater Toronto area, it is increasingly difficult for people of moderate income to afford to buy a new home. That is the reason we have put forward our land use policy. What it is meant to accomplish and what it will accomplish is that in all new building that is being done, in all new development that is being done, 25 per cent of the building will be affordable to people of low and moderate income.

What that means is that from now on, as building gets done and as the official plans of municipalities get laid, we will make sure that people of low income and moderate income have many more choices than they have had before.

What that also means is that the needs of people who have been having particular difficulty in this housing market, people of moderate income, will be much more likely to be met more quickly because the development process, the time scheme for development, the method of using land and the method of using building will all be used to enhance those choices to make sure that people of moderate income have more housing choices than they do right now.

Mr. Harris: Every time the minister does something or the government does something, the cost of housing gets driven up higher and higher and higher. She has all these other ministers, including the Premier (Mr. Peterson) and the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who are working at odds with what she states is her objective.

The question I asked was: What percentage of Ontario people can now afford to buy a home? The minister does not seem to know the answer. Before she adds any new costs, any new lot levies, anything that is going to drive the price of housing higher, surely that would be a basic figure that she would want to know. Surely when she circulates a green paper document, she would want to release the impact of that document on how many more people in Ontario will not be able to afford to buy a home.

I would like to ask the minister: Does she have those numbers? Does she have those impact studies? If she does, why is she not releasing them? If she does not have them, why does she not have them, from her point of view?

Second, can she confirm that there is now in Metropolitan Toronto alone half a billion dollars of lot levy money that has been collected that has never been spent for the purpose it was collected for?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: This government is fully committed to making sure that people have many more choices in finding housing that is affordable and that they can afford to live in. That is my commitment and the commitment of the government.

In the discussion paper that was released yesterday, the need of support services for all the new communities that are being built was addressed. All of us know that people need housing, but they also need schools, roads and sewers. Finding a way to support the intense growth in this community is extremely important.

The paper indicated very clearly, as do I today, that we have two goals to meet. One is the goal of affordable housing for as many people as we can possibly help. I believe that our land use policy, the commitment we have made to 30,000 units under Homes Now and our use of government land in this process are all very significant commitments.

An example on the land policy is the Lakeshore Psychiatric Hospital site, on which an open house was held a little while ago to look at the way in which that project will be built to make sure that there are affordable housing choices on that site. There will be many others; there are many others.

The twin goals are to increase the supply of affordable housing and also to meet the servicing costs of those communities, because I am not going to be party to a situation where people getting new homes in this province will not have adequate levels of service, adequate schooling and adequate --

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Final supplementary.

Mr. Harris: At the same time, the minister is asking -- I do not know why the Liberals applaud all the programs that are not working -- people to comment on a green paper without giving them all the facts.

I asked the minister, does she have the impact statements done from the affordable housing perspective of adding an additional $10,000? The president of the Ontario Home Builders’ Association said it will add another $10,000. Does she have the number of people who could afford to buy homes now? Does she not have -- and I am astounded if she does not, so I assume she is covering them up -- impact statements on what $10,000 more will do? As I asked her in the last supplementary, can she confirm that $480 million, almost half a billion, has already been collected in lot levies and has not been spent for the purpose for which it was to be collected?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The whole question of lot levies has been worked on by the Ministry of Municipal Affairs, together with the Association of Municipalities of Ontario and the building community.

If the member reads the green paper, which it seems to me he has not done very carefully, he will see that one of the things the green paper does is talk very clearly about regularizing the lot levy system that already exists.

There are a significant number of municipalities in this province which collect municipal lot levies for the purposes of providing a variety of services to new residents. One of the things the paper discusses is the way in which the municipalities and the development community have come to some idea about how to make sure that system is regularized and appropriate costs charged.

On the question the member asked, about whether there is or is not a pot of money that has been spent in an inappropriate way, I can tell him that the idea of the work the municipalities, the development community and the Ministry of Municipal Affairs have done is to make sure those resources will be spent for the purposes for which they were collected.

1430

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

Mr. Pouliot: My question is to the Minister of Natural Resources. In February 1986, almost three years ago, the Minister of Natural Resources told this House that the conservation officers of Ontario would be given every opportunity to put forward their case in the negotiations. “We will do the right thing by those conservation officers.” This is what the minister said almost three years ago.

His government has had almost three years to do what is fair, to give those brave people who risk their lives in the bush on a daily basis a salary above the pittance it is paying them now. They now earn $31,500. The minister should compare this outrageous salary, for instance, with an enforcement officer under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) who earns $42,000, with the Ontario Provincial Police after two years on the job, $42,305 --

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

Mr. Pouliot: -- or with Metro Toronto which is chasing the people in Montreal with $42,000.

The minister has a morale problem with the force. Obviously, by any standard, what is being paid now is not sufficient. Will the minister take his responsibilities and attempt to remedy this situation as soon as he possibly can?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: The classification standard is the problem. We are looking at conservation officers who are looking towards policing in the province as some benchmark. There are those who feel, and I think negotiating is going on, that basically we have to talk about the classification before we can talk about the salaries. We are looking more to the conservation officers to do just that, to be part of the ministry and make certain they continue to do the role they are meant to do, and that is be involved in the management of natural resources as opposed to being definitely designated as police officers.

The Ontario Public Service Employees Union and Management Board, which are doing the negotiations, are going to have to agree on the classification before we can get into the realm of appropriate pay. I am rather disappointed, as is the member, that it has not happened up to this point in time, but I think the negotiations on the classification side were ongoing as recently as this past month. I believe we put forward our position and the people who were working, negotiating through OPSEU, were coming back with sort of a different feeling about the classifications.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Yes, I do take into account what he is saying, but that has a two-pronged approach on the classification and --

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. There might be a supplementary. The member for Algoma.

Mr. Wildman: Why is it the government will not accept that these conservation officers should be classified as peace officers when you consider that 75 per cent of the work done by the average CO is related to enforcement activities that involve the CO carrying a weapon, and in many cases dealing with people who are also carrying weapons? Particularly when the ministry does not know how much poaching is going on in the province and needs this kind of enforcement activity carried on, how is it that such an officer, this kind of person doing this kind of work, is paid $10,000 less than an enforcement officer in the Ministry of the Environment who is not involved in any kind of peace officer work?

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: I thought I explained that very thoroughly. That is exactly the problem we have. There are those who would look at this from strictly a peace officer’s involvement. In our ministry, the officers are brought up through the management of natural resources as technicians and are brought into the field of conservation officers. So there is a little bit of difference.

The member knows a presentation was made, and OPSEU and the officers who are attempting to reach that classification have examined it and said they would like to see changes made. It is not as though we have not been negotiating and putting forward a position to have them examine and bring back to us. That has been happening, not in the time frame the member would like it to happen, but as I said before, we do have the difficulty of whether we are managing resources or looking at police officers.

Mr. Villeneuve: Time.

Hon. Mr. Kerrio: Somewhere in between, I guess, lies the classification and the answer.

Until both parties agree to that, we cannot negotiate the financial arrangements.

Some hon. members: Time.

Mr. Speaker: I would like to thank all the members for their assistance.

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a skill-testing question for the Minister of Skills Development. I would like to ask the minister, which is the greater sum of money, $35.9 million or $37 million?

Hon. Mr. Curling: Maybe I should ask the honourable member to repeat her question. If the member is having difficulty with those figures, I could then request a slate or a blackboard or something, so we could see. If she repeats it --

Mrs. Cunningham: I do not blame him.

Hon. Mr. Curling: It is on understanding the question that I would like her to elaborate.

Mrs. Cunningham: I will assume the minister could answer the question, that $37 million is more than $35.9 million. The $35.9 million is the amount the federal government agreed to give Ontario for apprenticeship training in the fiscal year 1987-88.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Cunningham: The $35.9 million is the amount the federal government agreed to give the Ontario government for apprenticeship training in the fiscal year 1987-88, and the $37 million is the amount the federal government agreed to give the province in the fiscal year 1988-89. These figures are contained in the Canada-Ontario agreement on training, signed by the Premier (Mr. Peterson) of this province on March 10, 1986. There is a copy here that anyone can read, perhaps for the first time, if they would like to.

Will the minister admit that the federal government has met and indeed exceeded its fiscal commitment under the Canada-Ontario agreement on training in each and every year, and that he is using the federal government as a scapegoat --

Mr. Speaker: Order. Thank you; minister.

Hon. Mr. Curling: Over the years that the federal government was funding the apprenticeship program itself, the demand had risen to $42 million. Previously, they had funded $37.4 million. This year, they have offered $37 million. If the honourable member follows the figure, that is a reduction in their commitment to fund the apprenticeship program.

In the meantime, this is the same government that is so committed to the trade agreement that in order to make the necessary adjustments in training for workers, it then cuts back the apprenticeship program from $42 million, the demand that is there, to $37 million.

1440

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Adams: My question is for the Minister of Agriculture and Food. As the minister knows, I am very interested in the quality of our environment here in the province, across the country and around the globe. When I am approached on these matters, I try to make the point that on this side at least, the environment is no longer something of concern only to one ministry, even to one government or even to all the members of this House, and that it is a matter of concern to everyone.

A good example of that is the contribution of the Ministry of Culture and Communications to the environment recently through its production of the award-winning video on the greenhouse effect, which is being shown around the western world. Here in Ontario, we are responsible for a huge piece --

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. Adams: -- of the earth’s surface. The minister is responsible for a large part of that land area. This means he can influence the quality of life of millions --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the member does not have a question, I will recognize another member.

Mr. Adams: My question is simply this: What is the ministry doing to meet its responsibility for the environment?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: I can certainly appreciate the honourable member’s strong commitment -- I want to thank him for it -- to a much-improved environment in this great province of ours. I will tell the honourable member that both this government and my ministry consider the environment a high priority. I do not think I need to tell the member, and I want to tell the people of Ontario, that they are very fortunate to have a person like my colleague the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), who firmly believes that the legacy we must pass on to our children --

[Applause]

Mr. Brandt: And then they all applaud.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; minister.

Hon. Mr. Riddell: As I was saying, Ontario is fortunate to have a Minister of the Environment who believes very strongly that the legacy we must pass on to our children and to our children’s children is clean air, clean water and productive soil. At the ministry level, we have taken many new initiatives in the past three and a half years. One of those initiatives is our land stewardship program, which is a program designed --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mrs. Marland: You must look very gracious, Jim, as you listen.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: Way to go, Jack; thanks. That was a very good answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order; supplementary.

Mr. Adams: The braying of the opposition during that question and the answer shows its lack of interest in the environment.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not mind waiting. I have said that once or twice before.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will recognize the member for a supplementary.

Mr. Adams: I think it shows their lack of interest in agriculture.

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

Mr. Philip: I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship. In 1983, Mytrie Prashad provided documentary evidence that she was fired as a result of her condition of epilepsy. The Ontario Human Rights Commission would not investigate, after spending a year and a half on the complaint. After a further year and a half, the commission then agreed there was strong prima facie evidence to hold a board inquiry and ordered the inquiry. It was then dismissed on the grounds that the employer stated there had been such a delay.

Can the minister explain why such a delay of over three years resulted, and does the minister not think this kind of delay creates a tremendous injustice to the complainant?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: All of us are interested in a strong human rights commission, and one of the things all of us must strive for is a process that ensures we move quickly on complaints. That is one reason we have strengthened the Ontario Human Rights Commission. It is the reason we have taken the budget from $4 million to $7.5 million. We have added about 55 staff to the commission. Our new chief commissioner is putting processes in place that will ensure we move complaints more quickly because it is extremely important the commission deal quickly and effectively with complaints. We have taken steps to do that and we are taking further steps.

Mr. Philip: Has the minister investigated this particular complaint to find out why it took over three years, and then the complaint was thrown out because of the delays? Can the minister assure us the Ontario Human Rights Commission now has adequate staff so this kind of fiasco will not happen in the future?

Hon. Mr. Phillips: We want a strong, independent commission. One has to be very careful about this minister investigating complaints personally because we want a commission that is independent. We must ensure I am not asked to investigate complaints personally.

I will do this: I will ensure the commission investigates that complaint. I will ensure it gets back to the member. The commission has already been strengthened. We have added substantially to the budget and to the staff, and we are looking at further improvements.

On the two issues, I think it is important we direct our questions to the commission and that we ask the commission to respond quickly to the member’s request. Second, I repeat, we have taken steps to strengthen the Ontario Human Rights Commission and we are taking further steps.

Mr. Speaker: New question, the member for Durham East.

Mr. Cureatz: I have --

An hon. member: Look at his tie.

Mr. Cureatz: There is a big windstorm outside, but there is a lot of wind from this Liberal rump, I will tell you that.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps the member could wait with that until members’ statements some other time. Now, does he have a question?

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order under the standing orders, on which I will refresh your memory. Of course, I want to point out to you -- I know the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) will bring this to your attention -- that you sit way over there and I sit way up here. Now, for people like the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) and the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Runciman), it does not --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cureatz: Sir, I have a point of order on this.

Mr. Speaker: What is your point of order?

Mr. Cureatz: I want to bring to your attention that under section 52, if you would like to peruse the orders of procedure -- of course, I used to have Erskine May memorized -- it indicates that members are entitled to the privileges of this assembly. I want to point out to you, sir, that sometimes it becomes increasingly difficult for members close to the Liberal rump to make our particular points heard. Now you do not --

1450

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Does the member have a question?

Mr. Cureatz: Mr. Speaker, I am entitled to my point of order and I am addressing that point of order. I have spoken to you about that before.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

YOUNG OFFENDERS

Mr. Cureatz: My question is to the Minister of Correctional Services.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Cureatz: Is the minister aware of the surprising developments that have come to pass with the introduction of the Young Offenders Act? It is my understanding that some judges are giving young offenders longer sentences in an effort to ensure that these young people receive adequate treatment for drug, alcohol and other psychiatric disorders. The judges, to ensure treatment for these young people, are giving sentences of 15 months or more, even if the crime does not warrant this long sentence. Can the minister clarify for us that the treatment is readily available for those young offenders with a minimal sentence?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I must thank the member for Durham East and say that many of us over here have great sympathy for his point of order.

The simple answer to the question by the member for Durham East is yes. We have a very intensive regime of programming for young offenders. We base it on an interdisciplinary model that basically tries to integrate all the different programming we need to try to meet the total needs of the offender.

One of the programs I am most proud of is the high schools we run in our 16 YO facilities across this province. It is possible for young offenders, besides getting psychiatric treatment, drug abuse treatment and recreational programming, to get complete high school education in all our facilities.

Mr. Cureatz: I appreciate the concern the minister has in indicating that there are programs available. Would he provide for us, if not by the end of the week certainly in the new year, statistics that indicate that judges are indeed sentencing properly and are not giving longer sentences just in an effort to make sure that those young people are getting the services they should be getting? Would he provide for us some statistical data on that in the new year?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: It would not be up to me to make a judgement on the judiciary and how it is rendering sentences in this province, but what I can assure the member is that we are providing a very good program for all our young offenders in this province.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

Mr. Daigeler: My question is to the Minister of the Environment. Last Thursday I wrote an open letter --

Interjections.

Mr. Daigeler: If the members of the provincial Conservative Party are interested in this, especially those from eastern Ontario, last week I wrote an open letter to all my federal colleagues in eastern Ontario urging them to lobby for federal help in upgrading our sewage plants. Until 1982, I am sure members are aware, the federal government contributed towards sewer, road and waterworks across the country. As the minister knows, the situation in eastern Ontario is especially dramatic, with some plants being 35 to 40 years old. I am sure he will agree that the job to upgrade these plants is so immense that all levels of government must work together on renewing our sewage infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker: The question?

Mr. Daigeler: How is the minister encouraging the federal government to meet its obligations towards upgrading our sewage system and towards protecting our environment?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I wonder if all members would just remember the point of order of the member for Durham East (Mr. Cureatz). Thank you.

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As members of the House may know, each year on at least one occasion there is an annual meeting of the resource and environment ministers of Canada -- it is largely the environment ministers in this specific case -- at which time we attempt as a group to influence federal policy and to discuss with the federal minister the possibility of renewed federal participation as it was in the early 1980s in the field of providing assistance for sewage treatment plants.

Even though the government of Ontario has vastly increased the amount of money it will provide to regional municipalities such as Ottawa-Carleton, where we now have more than doubled the amount of money that was available under the previous regime, we would welcome some federal participation.

In fact, the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, with my support and the support of other provincial ministers, has lobbied the federal government to pay its fair share in protecting international waterways and indeed protecting waterways across the province. The member may be assured that we will continue to do so.

I was encouraged by the Honourable Don Mazankowski saying that he would at least meet with representatives of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to talk about the possible participation of the federal government, because it would accelerate those programs, make them more comprehensive and expand them if the federal government were to participate.

Mr. Daigeler: I would like to switch gears a little bit for the supplementary and ask the minister about the provincial contributions towards sewage treatment.

Last December, the minister wrote to me saying that consideration was being given to funding storm sewer construction intended to remedy environmental problems. May I ask whether there have been any developments on this matter and what is the status of the proposed policy change?

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As we move into the new year and look at programs that have been in effect for a long period of time, we try to make adjustments to those to face the new realities that are out there. In other words, regional municipalities have often made the case to us that small municipalities within the region, just to use an example, may not be eligible for the same degree of support as ones that would be outside a region. That is one example.

The example the member has brought to my attention is one which our management committee of the Ministry of the Environment is reviewing at this time as we go into the new fiscal year. I am hopeful that we will make the kinds of adjustments that will be beneficial to the municipalities and ultimately to the waterways of this province and services into the province, as we anticipate they should.

RENT REGULATION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the ongoing problems of the rent review system.

How does the minister explain that in this fiscal year she will spend more than $26 million to implement a law that simply will not be implemented? How does she explain that she will spend that kind of money, yet she cannot, for example, answer the question of the tenants at 620 Jarvis Street in Toronto who are seeking a decision on their 1985-86 rent? How does she explain to them that system costs so much money, yet she cannot answer the simple question of what their legal rent was three years ago?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The question the member is asking deals with the work of the rent registry. What the rent registry does is --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: No, no. They haven’t yet determined the rent.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: Oh, sorry, the determination of rent. What we are doing with the question of the rents that need to be determined is that we are working through a backlog, which the member knows very well exists and which all of us in the House know. One of the things we have been doing and the reason the system is so expensive is that we have increased the number of people working on this and we have increased our computer sophistication in working through the backlog.

I believe we have turned the corner, because the results are beginning to come in and we are getting a much quicker turnaround and much quicker answers. I am not happy about the amount of time this takes. I think that is a significant issue and I am not happy about it. I know the uncertainty for tenants is a genuine problem for them, as is the uncertainty in planning for the people who own some of those buildings.

I believe we have put significant resources forward to work through this. I believe we are going in the right direction and I want to see quicker answers and more resolution for more people as soon as possible.

Mr. Breaugh: How does the minister explain to Robert Bernstein and the 473 other families in that one building -- this is Mr. Bernstein’s personal file of information that he has received from the rent review system. He has accumulated all this paper. They have waited three years for a decision. The minister is spending more than 200 per cent more now than she spent when the program was initiated.

How does she explain to them that the problems of interpreting financial loss provisions that are in the bill generate a situation where all that comes out of this system is piles of paper and no answers to simple questions like how much the legal rent should have been three years ago?

Hon. Ms. Hošek: The most important thing in this legislation is to make sure that the tenants are protected from unjustified rent increases. Many members were in the House when this legislation was passed and they know that it came forward as a result of work being done by the tenant community, by the landlord community. I will make no claim that the law is perfect, but it is working. It is giving people answers.

1500

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Ms. Hošek: I also want to say that for the tenants in those buildings, part of what the member is pointing to in the pile of paper is one of the things that the law was meant to do: that is, to make sure that there was significant consultation so that tenants would be able to see the information that their landlords brought forward; so that they would be free to put their own information into the process; so that when decisions were made they would have the full information that tenants want to contribute to that process, as well as the information that landlords gave.

AMBULANCE SERVICES

Mr. Jackson: My question is for the Minister of Health. Less than two weeks ago, a nursing home resident was brought into the emergency department of Joseph Brant Memorial Hospital in Burlington, suffering from severe trauma. The woman is frail, elderly, and she is also a diabetic.

After being treated, the patient was left at the hospital for over two days because a transfer back to her nursing home could not be facilitated. In fact, apparently an argument arose between the dispatchers of the two neighbouring operators of the ambulance service, one of which, as the minister will be aware, has been in a strike position for the last 130 days. It was only after an angry doctor called the ministry to explain how the beds were being tied up inappropriately at Joseph Brant hospital that a transfer was finally arranged.

Is the minister aware of this case, and does she continue to maintain that the level of ambulance services for Halton-Peel is still adequate?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I think it is important for us to state once again in this House that ambulances provide two types of services for communities: One is emergency services and the other is hospital transfers and nonemergency types of services.

We know that for emergency services the strike has not placed the public at risk. I have been assured of that. For nonemergency services, we know that there have been some delays. I want to assure the member of my concern, but also of the fact that the public is not at risk in emergency situations.

Mr. Jackson: The minister has been misinformed because there are greater risks associated with living in Halton and Peel currently. We have documented those cases. We have tabled them here in the Legislature for the minister to examine. She cannot take a whole community which has four ambulances under normal circumstances and reduce that to one and say that that is an adequate level.

There are more than 600,000 people relying on this service. We are moving into Christmas, a busier time of the year. The fire services, which are a backup, are being taxed to their limit. The minister is walking a tightrope, as are the patients and the health care deliverers in Halton region, as a result of this strike.

When will the minister bring her office to bear in terms of helping to find a resolution to this problem so that the strike can end and that Halton and Peel can be relieved of this inappropriate level of risk which they have been subjected to during the strike?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows well, this is a labour dispute between the employer and the employees. When we talk about level of service being provided, since the beginning of the strike there have been some 4,642 ambulance calls responded to in the Halton-Mississauga area. I want to assure the member that the situation is being monitored to ensure that there is no risk to the public, that a contingency plan is in effect and that vehicles from surrounding areas are available to assist.

USE OF LOT LEVIES

Mr. Callahan: I have a question for the Treasurer. He made a statement in the House yesterday about passing legislation to authorize municipalities and school boards to impose levies. That statement and the reports in the press today indicate that that will be effective as of January 1, but legislation itself will not be introduced until March or perhaps finally passed until a bit later.

I would like to find out whether this will apply to homes already built as of January 1 or if in fact the legislation will contain some form of target date to avoid the possibility of speculation taking place before January 1 and increasing the cost of homes.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: The news report that the honourable member refers to is in error. There was nothing in my statement, no intention to impose any new approach to lot levies as of January 1 coming up. The only indication was that while this matter is being considered, we expected the municipalities not to adjust upward any lot levies they presently have.

Mr. Callahan: Back in 1969, I believe, the former Conservative government introduced a program called OHAP, Ontario housing action program, providing assistance for growing communities such as mine. At the time that they introduced it, it is my recollection that there were no conditions attached to how the funds were spent. As a result of that, much of the growth in my area has occurred. I would like to find out whether or not there will be conditions attached to the spending of these levies by the municipalities for specific purposes, to cover the growth.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: Any lot levies that municipalities might impose in the future, according to the requirements of the policy statement or at least the green paper statement, would have to be directly affecting hard services for the development of the community or the school system.

I think it should be understood that we are quite anxious to give as much flexibility to municipalities and school boards as we possibly can to assist them in financing for the expanding requirements in rapidly growing communities, and that we feel that this particular program, if adopted either in part or in whole, will do just that. It will, however, mean that there will be more uniformity required among the municipalities. In this regard, it is going to meet the best utilization requirements of the province.

TABLING OF INFORMATION

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I rise, not nearly as eloquently as my colleague did earlier today on a point, but on a different point of order. Pursuant to standing order 88(d), “The minister shall answer such written questions within 14 days unless he indicates that he requires more time because the answer will be costly or time-consuming or that he declines to answer, in which case a notation shall be made,” etc.

I have raised this on numerous occasions in previous sessions and not too much in this session, so I read part of it to refresh everybody’s memory. Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact the House will adjourn on December 15 --

Mr. Pope: Maybe, maybe.

Mr. Harris: “Maybe” my colleague for Cochrane South says -- and not resume until January 3, I am wondering if you could raise with the government the fact that the following questions still remain unanswered in Orders and Notices: question 71, Mr. McLean, promised February 29, 1988; question 72, Mr. McLean, promised February 29, 1988 -- the questions are not quite two years old; question 78, Mr. Brandt, promised April 15, 1988.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps with your prodding, the government might show some more respect for the standing orders by which this House operates and could at least afford us an opportunity to see the answers to these questions.

Hon. Mr. Conway: On behalf of my colleagues in the government, I might say that I appreciate the honourable House leader’s point, his concern. I think that any objective analysis of the record would indicate that this government has been exemplary in the way in which it has dealt with the order paper questions.

Interjections.

Mr. Villeneuve: Exemplary in what way?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, through you to the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) and his colleagues, that, particularly in this festive spirit of Christmas, I will redouble the government’s efforts to accommodate the concerns identified by the House leader for the third party. I can assure him that those questions, 71, 72 and 78, standing in the names of the member for Simcoe East (Mr. McLean) and the member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt) will be very carefully examined. I give a commitment to see what we can do to expedite an early return.

Mr. Speaker: I appreciate the point of order and the response. It has certainly taken a load off my shoulders.

1510

PETITIONS

SCHOOL BUSES

Mr. Laughren: I have a petition from students at George Vanier Public School in Lively and their teacher, Mrs. Olafson, who have developed a very keen interest in the political process. It reads as follows:

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

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

“We care about the safety of students on our school buses. We urge the government to implement legislation making it mandatory that all school buses be equipped with seatbelts, to ensure that all necessary precautions are regarding the safety of the students.”

I agree with that petition and I have attached my signature to it as well.

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

Mr. McGuigan: I have a petition addressed to the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward). It has 323 attached letters and 1,850 signatures from Kent county ratepayers.

It is asking that the minister appeal a decision of the Ontario Court of Appeal regarding prayers in school. I would like to table it.

NATUROPATHY

Mr. Beer: I have several petitions. The first reads:

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

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

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

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

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

It is signed by several hundred persons.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Beer: The second set of petitions states:

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

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

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

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

That petition is signed by several hundred people.

APARTMENT BUILDING INCINERATORS

Mrs. Grier: I have a petition addressed to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, reading as follows:

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

“Whereas the residents of Gamble Avenue in the borough of East York are being exposed to noxious and potentially hazardous emissions from the incineration of garbage at 85 and 95 Gamble Avenue,

“We request that the provincial government intervene on behalf of all residents to have this offensive and hazardous practice stopped immediately.”

It is signed by 265 residents, and I have signed it also.

HOME CARE

Mr. Jackson: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It reads:

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

“Whereas the Red Cross Society has incurred a deficit because the government of Ontario has failed to fulfil its promise to adequately fund home care services and therefore the Red Cross may be forced to withdraw their home care services, we petition the Treasurer of Ontario to adequately fund the Red Cross services so that 170,000 citizens of Ontario are not forced to seek more expensive care in an institutional setting.”

That is signed by over 400 constituents from my riding of Burlington South. It has my support and my signature also.

PROVINCIAL PARKS

Mr. Pope: I have a petition addressed to His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“The Gowganda, Elk Lake, Matachewan, Shining Tree Tourist Association is opposed to the new parks policy because:

“1. Our association would be put out of business;

“2. Several others will lose a good percentage of their business because fishing and hunting areas have been eliminated from use by their guests;

“3. Multiple use has worked in this area in the past and we see no reason why it should not continue to do so;

“4. We cannot understand the reasoning of keeping such a huge area, Lady Evelyn-Swoothwater Park, exclusively for a small minority group.

“5. We, the users of the resources, should have a greater say in how they are used.

“We therefore request that the cabinet roll back the provincial parks policy to before May 17, 1988, and not proceed with any changes to the parks policy until consultation has taken place with all user groups.”

This petition is signed by 697 concerned members of the GEMS Tourist Association, and I have affixed my own signature to it.

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

Mr. Pope: Second, another petition signed by 63 employees of the government of Ontario.

“To His Honour the Lieutenant Governor and to the members of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario:

“I am a government employee and I am furious with the government of Ontario because of its treatment of me and my co-workers where pensions are concerned.

“We have never had the right to negotiate our pensions. We have never had any say as to how our pension contributions are handled and now, the Ontario government is threatening to take an additional two per cent out of our take-home pay for pension contributions, again without me having any say in the matter.

“That is incredibly unfair. Our union wants to negotiate an improved arrangement on pensions. The government should be prepared to bargain with us in good faith. After all, it is our money. We would like to ensure influence is used to ensure that we are fairly treated.”

I affix my own signature to this petition as well.

SAFETY IN CHAMBER

Mr. Wildman: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I drew this matter to your attention earlier -- actually, a couple of years ago -- and I do not think anything has really been done about it since. You will notice that in the last couple of days, on at least two occasions, perhaps three, camera equipment has fallen. Luckily, it has landed in the gallery, but I am very concerned that some time that equipment might fall down here and hit either a member or, more likely, one of the pages when the pages are standing right there. If possible, I really wish you would look at how we might secure it -- I am not suggesting we should remove it -- a little better so that we do not risk one of our pages or one of the members being hurt.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I quite agree with the member. Without any suggestion being made that we remove it in anyway, the member’s point about securing it is entirely a good one.

Mr. Speaker: I thank the members for their comments on this matter. I was very much aware of the last two instances and I have checked it out.

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

Ms. Poole from the select committee on education presented the following report and moved the adoption of its recommendations.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member have a brief statement to make concerning the report?

An hon. member: A short statement.

Ms. Poole: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have both a brief statement and a short statement.

As many members are aware, the select committee on education held seven weeks of public hearings this past summer and fall. We are very grateful to the 202 groups and individuals who took the time to present to our committee. Our committee is pleased to release the report today, whereby we reviewed the goals and philosophy of education as they relate to the full development and equal life chances of the student. As well, we studied and commented on several key facets of the organization of education: namely Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions, streaming, semestering and grade promotion.

Pursuant to standing order 32(d), the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to the committee’s report.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I sort of want to get in on this.

Mr. Speaker: That will be allowed at a later time.

On motion by Ms. Poole, the debate was adjourned.

1520

ORDERS OF THE DAY

Hon. Mr. Conway: The first order of business today is the 39th order. Just in calling that order, I was going to indicate to the House that, by agreement among the House leaders, it has been agreed that should the second reading debate on this conclude this afternoon, a vote would be taken at 5:45, or at least the bells would ring for that vote at not later than 5:45. I just wanted to make the House aware that, assuming we conclude second reading debate this afternoon, the bells will ring at 5:45 p.m. for the second reading vote -- if a vote is taken as we expect.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L’IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 193, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: The minister moves second reading of Bill 193. Does the minister have any comments?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This bill, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act, implements amendments arising out of the budget of April 20, 1988, as well as some administrative and technical amendments. The budget increased the personal income tax rate in Ontario to 51 per cent for 1988 and 52 per cent for 1989 and subsequent years. The individual surcharge introduced in 1986 has been increased for 1988 and subsequent years, from three per cent of Ontario tax payable in excess of $5,000 to 10 per cent of Ontario income tax payable in excess of $10,000.

Le budget a sanctionné une augmentation du taux d’imposition des particuliers, qui est passé de 51 pour cent en 1988 à 52 pour cent pour l’année 1989 et les années suivantes. La surtaxe des particuliers, instaurée en 1986, a été majorée pour l’année d’imposition 1988 et les années suivantes, passant de trois pour cent de l’impôt sur le revenu exigible en Ontario en sus de 5000$ à dix pour cent de l’impôt sur le revenu exigible en Ontario en sus de 10 000$.

Ontario’s tax reduction provision for low-income earners was seriously eroded by federal tax reforms since it was based on an individual taxable income which increases with the conversion of personal deductions to nonrefundable tax credits. In response, the budget announced that the Ontario tax reduction will now be based on tax payable.

For 1988, individuals with basic Ontario income tax of $150 or less will pay no income tax. Individuals with basic Ontario income tax of between $150 and $225 will have their Ontario income tax reduced by an amount equal to $450 minus twice Ontario income tax.

New Ontario tax credits were also announced in the 1988 budget. The maximum occupancy cost for the purposes of the property tax credit is increased from $230 to $250, plus 10 per cent unoccupancy cost. The sales tax credit has been changed from one per cent of personal exemptions to $100 per adult and $50 per child. The maximum credit for property and sales tax credits has also been increased to $1,000 from $500, and the income offset is changed to two per cent of combined net income in excess of $4,000.

Le budget de 1988 çait également l’introduction d’un nouveau crédit d’impôt de l’Ontario. Le coût d’habitation maximal aux fins du crédit d’impôt foncier passe de 230$ à 250$ plus dix pour cent du coût d’habitation.

Le crédit pour la taxe de vente, qui correspondait auparavant à un pour cent des exemptions personnelles, passe à 100$ par adulte et à 50$ par enfant.

Le crédit d’impôt foncier maximal et le crédit maximal pour la taxe de vente, qui s’élevaient à 500$, ont également été portés à 1000$. La compensation du revenu correspond maintenant à deux pour cent du revenu net global en sus de 4000$.

This bill also implements the tax credit for the Ontario home ownership savings plan which was enacted earlier in this session and amends the act to allow certain contributions in the year of the marriage, where the spouse owns or previously owned a home. This plan is designed to assist lower- and middle-income individuals and families who are saving for the purchase of a first home, by providing a credit of up to $500 per individual or $1,000 per couple in the taxation year. Administrative and technical amendments are also being made to bring the income tax in line with the Income Tax Act (Canada), in accordance with the tax collection agreement with the federal government.

Ms. Bryden: Every year we expect an amendment to the Income Tax Act in Ontario. Because our income tax is collected by the federal government, it is often necessary to harmonize our Income Tax Act with the federal changes which come through every year. However, this year we are looking at a somewhat different situation. We are being asked by this bill not only to accept some fairly minor changes which come from changes in the federal Income Tax Act, but to accept the harmonization of our tax system with Wilson’s so-called tax reform.

The question before this House is: Are we prepared to accept Wilson’s so-called tax reform, or are we ready to consider our own kind of tax reform and our own kind of income tax amendments?

What I am suggesting is that we do not have to continue to accept the federal income tax form. Sometimes in the past we have rejected amendments that the federal tax officials put forward, because they provided additional concessions to the corporations and to the higher-income groups. We also accept federal tax changes in cases where they would benefit our taxpayers. So, this year, we have to look at whether the changes that we are being asked to adopt are the kind that we want to add to our tax system. If we vote against them, we will then have to consider whether the House may also want to vote against them and consider installing our own income tax act. That is a very important dilemma.

Quebec has its own income tax act. It therefore has more control over its taxation system, and it is able to work towards its own version of a fair tax system. We are prevented from doing that by this arrangement. That is why we have taken a close look at the changes in the Wilson tax reform package.

The tax changes of Wilson’s first stage tax amendment started in July 1988. They benefited all taxpayers to some extent, but benefited the well-off far more, and they did not remove taxation completely from all those below the poverty line. That is a fundamental principle that should be adopted for taxation in this province, because anybody below the poverty line is not able to enjoy the opportunities to have adequate food, housing, clothing and a decent income. They should not be paying tax at that level.

1530

The second stage of Mr. Wilson’s tax reform has yet to come. That is another reason that adopting and harmonizing our system with his first stage is really getting us into a very serious situation. We know from the announcements by Mr. Wilson that the second stage of tax reform, when he drops the other shoe as people say, will include proposals for a national sales tax or a national transaction tax, as it is sometimes called. That will extend taxation at almost every level of economic activity in this country.

It will add a great many services and a great many items that are not covered by present sales taxes to the national transaction tax. It will hit the low-income and middle-income groups much harder than the upper-middle-income groups because they have less disposable income after they have bought their food, clothing and shelter. It will hit the people who buy and build homes because it will cover every stage of the house building and buying process. It will hit people in institutions, hospitals and universities. Any public body will have to pay tax on every transaction that goes on in connection with its activities.

It is a very sweeping kind of tax reform that we are being asked to lock ourselves into. I think this House should oppose this bill at this stage and set up a committee to look at the merits of adopting our own Income Tax Act, to cover both persons and corporations, so that we do have control of our own tax destiny and we can work towards a fairer system.

A study of the first stage of the Wilson tax reform by Allan Maslove, an economist at Carleton University, for the Institute for Research on Public Policy, came to the conclusion that the majority of Canadian families would have an average of $340 less in disposable income after the Wilson tax reform of 1987. They would have that much less than they would have had four years ago when Mr. Mulroney and Mr. Wilson took office. The only groups that would have a net gain from the 1987 Wilson tax reform are families below $13,000 -- and they should not be paying any tax at all -- or families above $117,000. The high-income group would get an average increase in disposable income from that tax reform of $3,750, but those with lower and middle incomes would get much less. That is the situation that affects our judgement on this bill.

The other thing we have to think about is that in the past we have not been making progress towards putting emphasis on progressive taxes and switching emphasis from commodity taxes. We have not been putting any emphasis on switching the percentage of tax paid by personal taxpayers and corporate income taxpayers. For instance, for every dollar that people paid in the early 1950s, corporations paid about the same. But by 1966 people were paying $2 in income tax for every $1 paid by corporations. Today it is nearly $3 for every $1 paid by corporations.

The fact is that in the recent budget of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) there were no increases for the corporations. There is no minimum tax so that literally thousands of corporations in this province are not paying any corporation tax. That is something we could rectify if we had our own personal income tax. We would not have to wait for the federal government to put in a minimum corporation tax, as they have done in the United States, ahead of us. Therefore, another need for having our own income tax is to change the emphasis that is to be placed on personal, corporation and commodity taxes.

This province is certainly going in the opposite direction. By accepting and recommending to this House that we should adopt the Wilson tax reform, they are in effect recommending that we adopt stage two, which is this national sales tax. I am really shocked at the way the Treasurer seems to be looking with glee on this new tax cow and presumably considering very seriously joining in it as an additional source of revenue. He has already taken $1.5 billion in additional revenue out of us in other taxes this year, particularly almost $1 billion with the retail sales tax, but it appears he is also looking forward to joining in the national transaction tax, which will change the entire fairness of our tax system. It will make almost a complete right turn in the distribution of the taxes paid by each group of people.

That is a reason why our party has decided to oppose this bill. However, there are some other changes in the bill that we should look at if the House does not decide to go along with rejecting the whole bill.

One of the three major changes in the bill, besides the harmonization that I mentioned, is an increase in the Ontario personal income tax rate from 50 per cent basic federal tax payable to 51 per cent for 1988 and 52 per cent for 1989 and subsequent years. Usually, our party supports increases in income tax if it means less commodity and gasoline taxes and things of that sort, but we would prefer that such an increase be more progressive and make our tax system bear heavier on the higher incomes and less on the lower incomes.

The income surtax which is included in this bill, equal to 10 per cent of Ontario income tax payable in excess of $10,000, and the repeal of the existing surcharge of three per cent of Ontario income tax payable in excess of $5,000, is a progressive change, but we are not sure whether very many people are going to be affected by the surtax. It is some improvement over the old surtax, but not nearly progressive enough to increase the progressivity of our income tax.

In fact, we think this was put in partly to get back from Ontario taxpayers a piece of the tax cut that Mr. Wilson gave so generously just before the election. It went into effect in July 1988. If the people who got that tax cut ever saw it in their pay envelopes, they hardly saw it before it was snatched up by the Treasurer in his budget.

The bill also includes provision for the payment of the tax credit provided under the Ontario home ownership savings plan. When the bill setting up this plan was before the House, we said that very few people would ever benefit from this plan because the income ceilings at which it cut off were so low that practically nobody in Metropolitan Toronto would be able to benefit from it.

1540

The price of houses keeps rising, and every time it rises, another 50,000 people are cut out of the possibility of getting any grant or any tax credit under the Ontario home ownership savings plan. In spite of that, there may be a few people in the province, in places where house prices are lower, who would qualify, but the fact is, if there are only a few qualifying, it is a very costly program because the government has had to set up a bureaucracy to administer this program across the province. It has had to advertise the program and it has to maintain this bureaucracy for at least five years because that is the duration of the tax credits that can be received from this.

I think it was estimated that it would cost about $500,000 to set up and maintain this bureaucracy. It seems to me there are better ways to give tax relief to home owners or to people wanting to become home owners, because most of them, by present housing policies, have been priced out of the market, particularly in the southern Ontario area.

Of course, the latest proposal by the Treasurer to allow lot levies to be charged by builders is a further attack on the cost of housing for those who are trying to purchase a house. We all know that those lot levies will be passed on to the prospective home owners and therefore he has really pushed the OHOSP scheme further into the limbo that it was almost in from the very beginning.

It is another useless election promise that the Liberals felt they had to implement. They felt they had to implement it even more when the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek) made an announcement prior to the budget that it was coming in, which is not considered a proper way of releasing budget details. Those changes are good as far as they go. We would have liked them to have made the tax system even more progressive.

The minister will tell us, of course, that he is providing improved tax credits under the budget and under this act. There are both sales tax credits and tax credits on property tax. However, if you look at the fine print, you find that seniors get no increase in their sales tax. Families get $100, or $50 more if they have a child, in sales tax rebate. But the definition and the method of calculating the property tax have been carefully changed and the net result is that there will be a cutoff for receiving any property tax credit at a lower level than before.

As a result, many people who used to qualify will not qualify, and the people who may qualify will get a little bit more but not a substantially large amount. For instance, the first property tax credit that came in benefited people at such a low rate that it has been estimated it would cost $400 million to bring that tax credit up to the inflation rate. The original property tax credit has been eroded so badly by inflation that this minor change is not going to bring the people who have lost considerably under that previous credit back even to the position they should be in if we had had an index on it, and the government has resisted putting any sort of an index on any of these tax credits.

In the budget, the government tells us there will be $84 million going into the tax credits, but they do not tell us how much is for the sales tax and how much is for the property tax credit. All of that is not going to compensate people for the big increase in the retail sales tax of 14 per cent. It is one percentage point on the tax, but that is over a 14 per cent increase.

It will not compensate people for the increase of one cent a litre on gasoline, also a regressive tax and a new one this year. In fact, there is no credit for sales tax expenditures.

We know that the gasoline tax hits very unequally. It hits people in the north much harder than it hits people in the south because we do not have as great distances or as high costs of gasoline. It also hits people whose occupation requires a whole lot of driving.

If the government is going to talk about tax credits for excessive, regressive taxation, the minister has to go a lot further than he has gone so far.

The NDP made a proposal before the budget review committee of what it thought a fairer tax system should be. That included an increase in the corporation tax, a return to the succession duties tax, which the Progressive Conservative government took off because it said the capital gains tax was compensating people for their wealth and they were losing a certain amount under that.

We should also have a real estate speculation tax and that would contribute to a fairer tax system.

We should have a minimum corporation tax and we should have a general moving away from sales taxes and commodity taxes and a moving towards a fair corporation tax and a fair income tax.

In other years when the federal government has given concessions to corporations or to individuals in their tax and we have harmonized with them, we have seldom changed those tax concessions, so for years we have been going along with tax concessions and many of them are in the form of tax expenditures, which are credits or reductions that individual taxpayers gain by the way they treat their income and investments. Those are never revealed unless a special study is done of the benefits from tax concessions. That is another loophole in the whole fairness of our tax system. Until we know what is available in the way of tax expenditures, we do not really know how much various corporations are paying.

I am urging this House to reject this bill as not being true tax reform and to bring in a new bill that will include the very minor improvements which are in this bill and get on with real tax reform, which we have not seen in this House for the last 20 or 30 years, including the last three years of a different government.

1550

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

Mr. Pouliot: Spontaneously, if I may, for the short time that is allotted, I will step by step, meticulously prepare and call it like it is.

I see the minister under the guise of Robin Hood. He is on this side now. He has reappeared. No one in this House can stand up and say that the tax system comes close to being fair. What we have are systematic loopholes that are planted by the government. What we have is the acquiescence by the Treasurer not to make the rich pay, or pay their share, but quite the opposite: to make the rest of us pay.

It is regressive indeed, not a progressive tax system. It is filled with inequity, giving blessing to a system of injustice. We have a shift well prepared, well crafted. When I look at the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître), I cannot help but think I am watching an expert working his craft, but he is not fooling anyone. Again, we have the deliberate shift from what should be a progressive tax system to a consumer tax -- hidden, both hands in your pocket, less money left in the economy, sapping the confidence.

This is what our critic has said, and she has gone further by suggesting to the House that we adopt the kind of tax system that is fair. What we are seeing here again is the perfect example of the middle class, the people who are paying the major portion of the taxes, under siege. Well, they have had enough.

I want to congratulate our critic for words of wisdom. It is unfortunate that the audience does not warrant her fine comments this afternoon.

The Deputy Speaker: Other questions and comments? Would the member wish to respond? No. Does any other member want to participate in the debate?

Mr. Pope: I can understand why the member would not want to respond to the comments.

I am pleased to participate in this debate on behalf of the members of our caucus. This is a series of tax measures introduced by this provincial government, including amendments to the Gasoline Tax Act, the Retail Sales Tax Act and now amendments to the Income Tax Act that have as their raison d’être a budget announcement by the Treasurer last spring that was the largest tax grab in the history of this province.

It was never fully justified either in a budget statement or in subsequent statements. When the estimates of the various ministries came down to support this kind of expenditure, we found that rather than put more into basic services for the people, rather than support our institutions and public services that all of us have a right to expect, those needs were not going to be met, even though we had the biggest tax grab in history at a time in which hundreds of millions of dollars in extra revenue was coming in anyway because of increased economic activity. On top of this was the tax increase.

In these good economic times, which this government inherited and has managed to fritter away, as we now see a downturn coming, as we see these good economic times drawing to a conclusion, it is clear that this government is wandering. Its focus is not clear. It is not attending to the basics. It is not honouring its commitments. It is not living up to its promises.

Yet they want us, the members of the Legislative Assembly, given that performance over the last nine months, to support legislation that will take money out of the pockets of people who need it, somewhat because of the actions of this government, to pay the increased tuition fees for their children that the government announced today -- 7.5 per cent for universities and 5.6 per cent for college students -- to pay for the increases that are coming in the cost of living for the people of the province of Ontario created by the policy decisions that this government has made in its own unique blend of initiatives and incentives.

Quite frankly, having listened to the arguments, I am not persuaded that we should be supporting this legislation or any other tax legislation that this government may introduce. Just to make it very clear, what the Minister of Revenue is asking the people of this province to accept and support is a surtax for 1988 and subsequent years equal to 10 per cent of Ontario income tax payable on excess of $10,000 and repealing the existing surcharge of three per cent of income tax payable on excess of $5,000. There is an amendment to subsection 3(5) to implement the budget proposal of the Treasurer levying personal income tax at the rate of 51 per cent of basic federal tax for 1988 and 52 per cent of basic federal tax for subsequent years.

We not only have an increase to 51 per cent and then 52 per cent of basic federal tax, but we also have a surtax on top of it of 10 per cent of Ontario income tax payable on excess of $10,000. What it all adds up to is more money out of taxpayers’ pockets. We are not convinced that this government’s priorities are in the right place. We are not convinced that they have even thought through these priorities. The needs of people in their everyday lives are not being addressed.

We are falling further behind in terms of provincial government support as a percentage of total board of education expenditures. We are falling further behind in our community college system. In northern Ontario it will mean a reduction of student positions; it will mean a reduction of the kinds of courses and the number of courses offered to young people and to those who want to be retrained; it will mean a reduction of teaching positions, and it will mean a foldback or rollback of basic services that we need, not only in northern Ontario but in many other parts of the province.

We have seen, as I have talked about before -- and I will not roll out the numbers again -- how basics are being ignored. They are not being given the priority they deserve, but at the same time the costs of administration are going right through the roof. For instance, when I talked about the Ministry of Labour ministry administrative expenses the other day, the former Minister of Labour said, “That’s because we instituted a policy department.” I presume that means that the Minister of Labour has no idea what his policies are going to be. We do not see the kind of ministerial responsibility of thinking that should be done by the ministers. We do not see the kind of accountability in administrative expenses out of these ministers that we have a right to expect.

We have seen uncontrolled increases, mainly in the administrative side of things. I could have used the example of the Ministry of the Solicitor General: dramatic increases in ministry administrative expenses at the same time that Ontario Provincial Police detachments are being reduced in every single part of rural Ontario. The basics are being ignored, are being turned back, and ministry administration is going right through the roof. No one has a handle on it over there, and the government wants want more money? It wants us to agree to tax increases so it can take this money and use it in that fashion? Of course we are not going to agree to it.

No one -- the Chairman of Management Board (Mr. Elston), the Treasurer or the Minister of Revenue -- has stood up yet and given us an explanation for these staggering increases of 60 per cent, 300 per cent and 400 per cent in administrative budgets at the same time as the basics are being cut back. We have been waiting for that kind of explanation for 10 months now, and it is not forthcoming and, I suspect, will not be forthcoming at all from this government.

The Minister of Revenue knows full well that there have been consultations between this government and the federal government with respect to the federal tax proposals, not only to come but in the first phase, that there have been full consultations on an administrative level. There have been some agreements, otherwise this would not have been put in place. There have been agreements, otherwise the tax-sharing system that we have that binds Ontario and the federal government would not have continued on.

1600

Had Ontario wanted to go it alone, it had that option. It chose not to. It chose to implement the federal tax proposals. So it is all very well for Liberal ministers in the Ontario government to stand up and whisper that they really did not like it or they did not want to go along with it. They have had full consultation over many months and years with respect to these proposed changes. They have known they were coming. They had their options available to them. They chose to proceed in tandem with the federal government, so they should not try to duck it when the members of the opposition New Democratic Party put their concerns with respect to federal tax reform on the table. Never mind ducking it by saying it is a federal government proposal. This government was a part of it. It was part of the negotiations. It was part of the negotiations. It should stop ducking its responsibilities under the federal-provincial tax system in this country by trying to blame someone else when it was totally involved from the beginning.

The other problem I have with this Act to amend the Income Tax Act, Bill 193, is with respect to section 7. We are talking about the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act, 1988, announced in the Treasurer’s budget.

I understand both the history and, perhaps from time to time, the need for the government to step in and address the issue of affordable housing. I just wish the government would do it. We have seen in the housing policy field a failure of virtually every single government program in terms of providing affordable housing.

We have seen Renterprise announced to great fanfare, then collapse in mismanagement and abuse of public funds. We have seen the convert-to-rent program suffer from similar misuse, being piggybacked on Renterprise grants and being, quite frankly, mismanaged and maladministered by this government. We have seen that.

We have seen the rent review program, which has become no more than a bureaucratic nightmare in which tenants are denied their rights under law and in which landlords are totally frustrated, along with tenants, with the paperwork, the legalese in the definitions and the failure of government to react to their needs for clarification. We have seen homelessness in virtually every major city of this province now at a crisis proportion.

If anything, we are further from affordable housing for the average Ontarian today than we have been in decades, in spite of all of the promises.

I remember the tens and tens of thousands of affordable housing units that were promised in the last campaign by the Premier in a great big ad that said, “What we promised, what we did and what we promise for the future.” I remember the 100,000-plus affordable housing units that were going to be provided, and we know that they are not there. We know the targets will never be met. We know there will be substantial delays. We have seen the failure of the promises of this government in this and so many other areas. Auto insurance and affordable housing are two of the most recent ones.

It is not a record that any Liberal administration should be proud of, and now we see, with the presentation of a green paper yesterday, this government contemplating a policy decision that will have a direct impact on affordable housing in this province through a proposal for lot levies, because this government does not want to meet the historic and traditional responsibilities of provincial governments to provide for basic services to people living in new urban centres and new urban communities.

Because this provincial government does not want to honour these traditional and historic obligations to these new home owners to provide for schools, to provide for other services that they have a right to expect in this great province, because of that, we are now going to have a lot levy system that will virtually take away every advantage with respect to the Ontario Home Ownership Savings Plan Act. Every advantage is going to be lost by another decision of the Treasurer of Ontario.

So the government is going to tax new home owners, young families in this province, more, particularly double-income families, who are trying to set aside money to buy new houses. It is going to tax them more with its surtax, it is going to tax them more with its Ontario tax rates and it is not going to give them a real saving under the Ontario home ownership savings plan, because it is really taking it away already with respect to the levies it is now contemplating.

We have seen a dismal failure in housing. It is now the number one crisis in Metropolitan Toronto. It has not been addressed. We have had verbal sparring from the Minister of Housing in the legislative chambers, but we have not had concrete answers. We have not seen a timetable for the construction of those units. We have seen delay, without excuse. And we see young people who now live in this great city, who want to raise a family in their own home, who now are despairing of ever seeing the day when they can afford it, because their salaries are not going up as quickly as the price of housing in this municipality and in many others across the province. They are falling further behind.

Mr. Laughren: I see a call for a speculation tax coming.

Mr. Pope: I do not think you have to look any further than the government of Ontario with respect to speculation. By the mismanagement of housing programs such as Renterprise and convert-to-rent, they have allowed speculation to take place prior to the approval of these programs on a site-by-site basis. They have done nothing to police that; they have done nothing to the land value component of any of these programs and the total project costs when they are submitted for approval. It has been a complete bureaucratic foulup.

Even in the affordable housing sector, the net effect is that the mortgage payments and rent payments that people have to meet are higher because this government has not managed its own programs correctly, let alone what the private sector is doing. I think there is an obligation on the part of this government to be more effective and efficient managers of the public purse.

There are many other aspects of government expenditure that we are obviously not happy with. We do not feel these tax increases are needed or warranted. We do not think the government has earned the support of the opposition parties in the Legislature with respect to this.

I am reminded of the reaction of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley), when faced with the argument that increases to the gasoline tax in this province would have an impact on the motoring public, that this was an environmental bill, the presumption in his mind being that somehow, if we increased the gasoline tax, people would drive less. With the greatest respect, that is a mentality and an attitude based on someone who lives in an urban centre of this province, not someone who lives in eastern Ontario or northern Ontario or even southwestern Ontario, where people need to drive tremendous distances for basics, for needed commodities, for services, and are faced with these costs.

I am reminded of the answer of the Ministry of Revenue and government ministers in this Legislature when we talked about the retail sales tax. They indicated again that there was a deflationary argument to be made for it. Well, the basics of human living in Ontario are pretty important to the people who are faced with these costs on a day-to-day basis. The people see this government wasting their money, I think, on staggering increases in ministry administration, on staggering increases in the operation of their own ministry offices in government, with no response for months on end by this government, no response by the Chairman of Management Board, no action plan to get these matters under control. They see the government, instead of addressing the problem head-on, trying to bring in some reductions in administrative expenses, trying to get the employment of aides to ministers and their salaries under some sort of control, nothing more than what amounts to a coverup by refusing to give information to the members of this Legislative Assembly or anyone else in Ontario as to what these people in the ministers’ offices and in the upper echelons of the ministries are being paid.

In spite of the pledge to be an open government, more accessible, in spite of the promise of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, the opposition members have been reduced to making applications under the freedom of information act to get information that was always provided in estimates books and to the critics of the parties, but now is no longer provided because this government has not got the guts to stand up and say, “Yes, we have got a problem with out-of-control administrative expenses, with out-of-control staff hiring in ministers’ offices, with out-of-control salary increases, and instead of addressing it, we are going to hide it from you.”

1610

Those days have to be gone. If the government wants co-operation in terms of tax policy, if it wants co-operation in terms of budgetary policy, let’s come clean with the problems. We have seen over the last two days, minister after minister stand up and try to sugarcoat the transfer payment announcements to the various institutions of this province.

We all know that the promises and approvals that were given by the line ministries already to many institutions across this province are now not being honoured by the Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue and the Chairman of the Management Board of Cabinet.

The government approved a number of programs in various hospitals of this province. It approved an expansion of the availability of courses in the community college system. It implemented or promised to implement new apprenticeship and skill training programs. What do we have now? We have in the announcement of the transfer payments an effective cutback, a denial of its own promise and an allocation to these very important public institutions of less than the government knows they need to maintain the existing services.

The government can talk about an 8.1 per cent increase in transfers to the hospitals of this province, but when it rolls in the programs approved in the last year and a half but unfunded, what does the percentage become? The government has participated and has known about their wage settlements. How does that roll into the provision of medical care through our hospitals in this province?

There are no answers from the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan), no answers from the Treasurer, no answers from the Chairman of Management Board. Maybe the Minister of Revenue can be the first one in months to stand up in this legislative chamber and tell us exactly what the hospitals are getting for their base budget increases. So far, we have not had that answer from the Minister of Health or anyone else.

We saw today, just as an example, the true story from the Ministry of Colleges and Universities. There was a 5.6 per cent increase announced yesterday by the Treasurer with respect to our community college system, but we see today when the details come out -- and the Minister of Colleges and Universities (Mrs. McLeod) is the only one who did it -- that the base is increasing by four per cent. That is the increase in the base for the transfer payment calculation for our community colleges.

The community college presidents told this cabinet months ago: “If you want us to maintain the basics of what we now have, here are our bucks. If you want us to maintain the basics that we now offer, the number of positions we now allocate, we need seven percent.” Was there any dealing with them? Was there any negotiation of some other sum with them? No. There was an arbitrary, unilateral decision taken by this cabinet to increase their base by four per cent. End of picture.

Look at the municipalities -- something that the Minister of Revenue is aware of -- flat-lining unconditional grants, flat-lining municipal allocations with respect to roads. The effect of that is dramatic with respect to the day-to-day operations of the municipalities. What the government is going to force them to do is offer services that some of them may not offer now. It is going to have conditional allocations and it has set its priorities that it is going to force municipalities to adopt.

The government had a very different attitude when it comes to Sunday shopping and putting that over on the municipalities. When it comes to day-to-day responsibility for the operation of municipal budgets and the municipal services across this province, it is going to dictate, in an area where it has not done to this degree before, what kind of new programs and additional programs it will financially support.

I think there has been a failure of the consultation process that is regrettable. I had not seen it for the previous two years. We are starting to see it now. Yes, it is the provincial government; yes, it has the right to set its economic priorities; yes, it has the right to bring in the implementation legislation, including these tax increases. But I do not think winning the last provincial election has given the government any right to dictate how municipal governments carry on or to dictate how many public institutions in this province will be allowed to operate. There has been a traditional and historic responsibility to allow these institutions to continue.

I can see many areas of the province now where these standard services are not going to be available to the people. They are going to have to go elsewhere to get them. I think that is regrettable. I think it is a failure of this government. Nowhere is it more apparent than in eastern Ontario. I say to the Minister of Revenue, and we will probably argue about this later, nowhere is the failure of this government to acknowledge its commitments more apparent than at the Carleton Board of Education. Nowhere is it more clear than with the broken promises with respect to the Queensway. Nowhere is it more apparent than at the Ontario Centre for Microelectronics in Ottawa. Nowhere is it clearer than in the failure of the government to act with respect to the national space agency, where the government was slow off the mark and did not do anything to ensure that it would go to eastern Ontario.

In my own part of Ontario, I could go on at great length about the failure of this government in meeting the basic needs of the people of northern Ontario. There was the great promise of the northern Ontario heritage fund. As the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot) has said in this House in question period, some two years later not a single dollar has been spent. That was to be the hope of all northerners. That was to be the beacon of regional development. That was to be the new method of collective decision-making in northern Ontario that would lead to new opportunities for industrial development and diversification, new opportunities for employment and skills training.

It was based on the $35 million lost to northern Ontario through the 11 per cent countervail on stumpage. Instead, the Treasurer has kept that money. It is not in northern Ontario. It has not been set aside as an accumulating fund to be used by northerners. It is going to be lost. For the second year in a row, $35 million needed for resource development programs and economic development programs in northern Ontario is going to be lost.

Rather than adopting a process of expeditiously organizing the northern development councils, rather than opting for a program of delivering a clear mandate and clear help and direction to these citizens of northern Ontario who want to help the region themselves, we have wandered for a year and a half in studies, memos, organizational charts and every single bureaucratic excuse that could be found for not funding the heritage fund and not getting those funds out into the northern Ontario communities to help people who need it the most.

Rather than giving some advice and direction to the members of the development councils with respect to those areas and industries in northern Ontario that could benefit from a reduction in tariffs for goods exported to the United States, and looking to those areas for new economic development and expansion, this government has sat back. As the Premier (Mr. Peterson) himself articulated in Sault Ste. Marie and Thunder Bay: “We don’t have any answers at all for you. Come up with your own solutions.”

The tariff on zinc alloys is 19 per cent. Zinc alloys being exported to the United States market out of Ontario have a 19 percent tariff. Under the free trade agreement, that tariff will be reduced and eliminated. That opens up a tremendous opportunity for melding plants, for fabrication, molding and stamping plants in the mineral development areas of this province; a tremendous opportunity for Kidd Creek in Timmins and for other zinc producers across this province, an opportunity that should turn this government on to the pressing need right now for decisions and financial support to get these additional industries in place, to get the training programs in so that these additional industries can employ northerners and to develop them in our northern Ontario communities so that we can diversify into manufacturing and fabricating in a way we have never done before.

That is just one example. The elimination of the tariffs on zinc alloys alone opens a tremendous opportunity for northern Ontario that this government has not even recognized, let alone put in place development programs to take advantage of. It is a singular failure among many of this government to address the critical economic issues. But boy, as I said the other day, they can sure take care of themselves in the administering of administrative expenses down here at Queen’s Park in Toronto, while all the basics are not being met in other regions of the province of Ontario. Even here in the city of Toronto with the housing crisis, the basics are not being met.

1620

For all of these reasons my colleagues in the Conservative caucus have looked at these tax bills. We have seen the desire of the government to wrench $1.2 billion out of our pockets as taxpayers and the pockets of working men and women across this province, money that they could use to help supply their families and themselves with the basics and necessities of life. We have seen this government that has already benefited from increased economic activity to the tune of over $800 million, and now it wants the additional $1.2 billion. But we have not seen the track record of this government in using these revenues responsibly.

For all of these reasons I would urge the members of the Liberal caucus who are not part of cabinet -- and I know that they are listening to this -- to vote against this legislation, to send a clear signal that we expect better administration and better management out of our provincial government. We expect them to keep their promises, to honour their commitments and to continue to provide the necessities and basics of life to the people of the province of Ontario.

As the member for Lanark-Renfrew (Mr. Wiseman) has said on a number of occasions, “If you cannot take care of the basics, we don’t think you have the right to govern this province.”

Mr. Laughren: I rise in opposition to this bill. I must say that it would not be unusual for New Democrats to stand in their places and support an increase in the income tax.

Mr. Pouliot: Never.

Mr. Laughren: Well, it would not be unusual for some of us as New Democrats to rise in our places and support an increase in income tax if that increase in income tax were part of a progressive package of tax reform. So it is not thoughtlessly that we stand in our places and oppose this particular Income Tax Amendment Act.

Hon. Mr. Conway: It never is.

Mr. Laughren: It never is when it comes to taxation.

But I want to remind the members just what this bill is about to do. This bill was, I am sure, drafted by Michael Wilson and approved by the Treasurer, and then the two of them put it in a package and put it on the doorstep of the Minister of Revenue while it was still ticking. The Minister of Revenue, as always, had absolutely no choice whatsoever in accepting this bill.

I do not like to refer to the minister as a beast of burden, but I want to say that all that the Minister of Revenue does when it comes to tax bills is simply do the bidding of the Treasurer, and if that is not a very pleasant bidding, that is too bad. That is what the minister has to do. He has to carry the weight of bad bills in this House and with his constituents. I suppose that does not technically make him a beast of burden, but it certainly makes him carry a heavy load for the Treasurer, who simply stands in his place and says, “There is going to be an increase in the income tax, and if you want to talk about it, go see the Minister of Revenue.”

Mr. D. S. Cooke: This year he would not even read the budget.

Mr. Laughren: That is right. This bill is the most blatant example I have ever seen of this government’s toadying to the federal government and its tax policies. How a Liberal government that pretends to be reform-minded can so obviously attach itself to the federal government’s regressive tax reform program is beyond my comprehension.

I heard an interjection when my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden), in her excellent address, commented that the government members were saying they had no choice with this bill. What a ridiculous interjection that was. I am glad to see that the member for Don Mills (Mr. Velshi) agrees with me and is nodding his head. It is too bad that “Pound” Sterling was not in the chamber, because he would agree with me as well. So not all Liberals are united on this bill. I can tell members that right now.

It is really remarkable how this government has aligned itself with the federal Tories. This is not a Liberal bill. You could never even pretend it was. I ask members to listen to what this bill does: “It implements the budget proposal to increase the Ontario tax reduction. With this amendment, individuals with Ontario income tax otherwise payable of $150 or less will pay no income tax for the 1988 taxation year. Individuals with Ontario income tax otherwise payable between $150 and $225 will have a tax reduction equal to $450 less twice the Ontario income tax otherwise payable for 1988.” I am sure everyone understands that clearly.

I can see the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) nodding his head vigorously, indicating that he understands it. He is parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue, of course. That is why he is not in the proper seat.

“This bill will increase the maximum property and sales tax credits allowed from $500 to $1,000 and increase the maximum occupancy cost for the property tax credit from $230 plus 10 per cent of occupancy cost to $250 plus 10 per cent of occupancy cost.

“It will implement a new sales tax credit of $100 for adults and $50 for children to replace the credit of one per cent of personal exemptions.”

If I had a dictionary here, I am sure that everything I have just read could be described under one word: tinkering. That is all this is doing. Those parts of the bill are just tinkering. The parts of the bill that actually give the taxpayer a break simply tinker with the system. But the ones that stick it to the taxpayer, do not just tinker; they really stick it to the taxpayer. There is quite a difference in approach in this bill in the way in which different taxpayers are treated.

Hon. Mr. Conway: One wonders what a socialist minister of finance would sound like.

Mr. Laughren: A socialist Minister of Revenue, which is perhaps more appropriate as we discuss this bill, might increase the income tax from time to time, as I started out by saying, but it would be part of a tax reform proposal that would be fair to ordinary and working Canadians and Ontario citizens.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Beyond that rhetoric, what kind of fiscal transubstantiation would there be?

Mr. Laughren: That is not rhetoric. The government House leader considers that when you make a commitment to working people in the province, you are speaking rhetorically. I can understand why a Liberal would believe that, because we have heard Liberal ministers all across this province talk about their commitment to people in Ontario. As soon as they get their majority, it is gone. They forget it.

Hon. Mr. Conway: I know at least as many working people as you do. I know working people from Quebec.

Mr. Laughren: We are talking about Ontario citizens now. I want the government House leader to leave the Orange Lodge out of this. It is not fair to the Minister of Revenue.

I really do believe this bill treats people totally differently depending on whether or not it is going to raise money for the government or cost the government a little bit of money. For example, it increases the surcharge from three per cent of Ontario income tax payable in excess of $5,000, to 10 per cent of Ontario income tax payable in excess of $10,000.

It sounds a bit like gobbledegook, but as I read the numbers, I think that means that people who earn in excess of roughly $85,000 are going to pay an increased surtax. I think that is roughly what that number means. The government has decided there is a little bit of money to get there.

1630

More important, when we look at what it does to families on different levels of income, that is where we really see the true nature of this Liberal government. I do not know who the Sheriff of Nottingham is, whether it is the Minister of Revenue or the Treasurer, but one of them is: one of them has to be. It does not fit any description I have ever read of Robin Hood, but I think somebody has to stand in this chamber. I am glad Maid Marion did the best she could to talk, and a fine, superb job she did in standing up against the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Under tax reform in Liberal Ontario, and we are talking now about this coming year, a family of four earning $40,000 a year will pay more than it did previously and a family of four earning $90,000 will pay less. The government can forget about all the nonsense that this is going to remove certain taxpayers from the tax rolls; it is going to increase certain tax credits. When you get right down to it, any tax reform that increases the taxes on people at the $40,000 annual income level and decreases the taxes paid by someone at $90,000 a year surely cannot be described as progressive tax reform.

I can see the Speaker has joined a growing list of people who are nodding their heads at my comments.

At the same time this is happening, there are 30,000 Ontario corporations that pay absolutely no tax whatsoever; absolutely none. The estimate, from people who know a lot more than I do about numbers, is that comes to about $4 billion a year in lost tax revenues to the province.

There are a lot of things this government could do to improve the tax system in this province and this bill does none of them. It is disturbing when you see what the government has done since it obtained its majority. They have increased the taxes on purchases, on consumer taxes.

That does seem to be the way to go with this government, although when I was reading some of the Treasurer’s old speeches -- believe me, if members think I am not committed to my job, they can just imagine reading the Treasurer’s old speeches and they would change their mind in that regard -- the Treasurer used to be against taxes on consumption. Suddenly he is for taxes on consumption. That is why he raised the sales tax last spring to the tune of almost $1 billion a year in revenues to the government.

What is bothering me is the trend. We seem to be going increasingly in that direction. I was checking some figures with other countries. In Canada -- I am talking about all of Canada now, not just Ontario -- 35 per cent of Canadian tax revenues come from taxes on goods and services; over a third. In the United States, it is half that; about 17 per cent of US tax revenues are from sales taxes on goods and services.

Mr. Smith: Ten times as many people in that big country.

Mr. Laughren: We are talking about percentages, that 35 per cent of all revenues in Canada are from taxes on goods and services and that in the United States it is 17 percent. Not to compare just Canada and the US, in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development countries, it is 29 per cent on goods and services. So here we have Canada with 35 per cent of all our revenues from regressive sales taxes; in the OECD countries it is 29 per cent, and in the US it is 17 per cent.

My colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine talked in her remarks about the shift between corporate sector taxes and income taxes and how in the 1950s, I think she said, the amounts paid by the two groups were virtually even, that in terms of all revenues collected in Ontario, about half came from the corporate sector and half came from individuals and families. Now, in the 1980s, the ratio is three to one for individuals’ personal taxes over corporate taxes.

It is not because the corporate sector is doing badly. I can remember how the Tories, when we used to debate corporate taxes in here, used to say: “Do not complain about individuals paying more and corporations paying less. That just means the corporations are not very profitable.” That was their twisted logic. You cannot say that now.

Mr. Wiseman: Now, now, Floyd. Don’t you wish you had the facts?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I will withdraw the word “twisted” and change it for “perverse.” That was the perverse logic of the Tories.

But you cannot argue that any more because the private sector has been very profitable in the last few years and is again this year. Now, I would not want the member for Lanark-Renfrew to pay too many taxes because I know he is barely at the survival level now. Nevertheless, I do want him to pay his fair share.

Mr. McCague: What about the member for Nickel Belt?

Mr. Wiseman: Same as the member for Lanark-Renfrew.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, to the member for Nickel Belt. If members here had been sitting with me when I had my interview with the conflict-of-interest commissioner and we were perusing my assets, so to speak, there would be none of these cheap shots about my relative wealth in this chamber.

What is most troublesome about this Income Tax Amendment Act is the way this government has jumped into bed so quickly with the federal Tories on tax reform. It is very, very bad. Why they would want to be associated with the federal Tories on tax reform is beyond my comprehension.

Three quarters of households with income in excess of $100,000 will have tax savings of over $4,000. So if you earn over $100,000, under the federal income tax proposals you are going to end up saving yourself over $4,000 a year in taxes. If, on the other hand, you earn less than $15,000, and there are lots of people in this country who earn less than $15,000, you save $90. Of all the people who needed a break, it surely was the people earning $15,000 a year and less. They save $90. If you earn over $100,000, you save over $4,000.

How is that justice? How does this government feel about attaching itself to that kind of tax reform at the federal level? That is what it is doing. It is jumping into bed to consummate the relationship. That is exactly what it is doing with tax reform.

To be very specific, a family with two earners and two children, if their income is $30,000 a year, will save $263, on average. I want to make sure the minister understands this because I know he will want to respond to it in his concluding remarks. A family with two incomes and two kids, earning $30,000 a year, under this proposed sales tax reform will save $263 in federal income taxes paid. The federal Minister of Finance says that is why it is a good thing and everybody should support it.

But since the federal Tories came to power in 1984, that same family has had tax increases of almost $1,000. So here we have a situation where, under tax reform, we can quite honestly say that as we speak here today, that family of $30,000 a year is going to save $263 in taxes; they will pay $263 less next year in taxes. But -- this is why half-truths are so successful in politics, I suppose -- they do not tell you that since the Tories came to power in Ottawa in 1984, that family has paid almost $1,000 more in taxes to the federal government.

That is what my friends opposite are attaching themselves to. That is what they are embracing, because the purpose of this bill -- Some of the members look a little sceptical; let me tell them what it says.

1640

Under the “Explanatory Notes” of this bill, it says, “The Bill implements the proposals contained in the Treasurer’s budget of April 20, 1988” -- that is true -- “relating to personal income tax and tax credits,” -- this is the part that should convince them if nothing else does -- “and amends the Income Tax Act (the ‘Ontario act’) consequential upon the enactment of amendments to the Income Tax Act (Canada) (the ‘Federal act’).”

Let’s not pretend the government is not embracing the federal tax reform with this bill: of course it is. When the government raises the level of provincial income tax from 50 per cent to 51 per cent this year, and then from 51 per cent to 52 per cent of the federal tax payable next year, it is saying, “Whatever you feds do, we’re going to be part of it.”

Most of us know the federal government has reduced the number of tax brackets down to three and whatever that tax bracket is, Ontario has traditionally taken 50 per cent of it. Now, it is going to be 51 per cent and next year 52 per cent.

If the federal government were to bring in changes to the federal tax reform so that it was even more regressive than it is now, this government would be taking half of it; I am sorry -- 51 per cent and then 52 per cent next year. This government is saying to the federal government: “No matter what you do, go right ahead. We want part of the action.” That is what it is saying.

The government is doing the same thing with the national sales tax. The Treasurer will not stand in his place and reject the federal sales tax. He will not do it and that is the very reason he increased the sales tax from seven per cent to eight per cent in his budget. He is at a higher percentage now. When the national sales tax comes in, he gets a bigger portion of it, because that is what he negotiates from, his base year in Ontario.

That was sneaky politics on the part of the Treasurer; truly sneaky politics. It was not as though the economy of Ontario could not survive. It was not as though that one per cent of sales tax was crucial this year: it was not. The economy has been very strong in Ontario. However, he decided he wanted that one per cent to bring in an extra billion, but more importantly, so that when it came time to negotiate with the feds when they bring in their national sales tax program, he would be dealing from the higher base. That is exactly what he did and that is why he did it.

This I see as step two: The government agrees with the national sales tax, so now it moves ahead and does it with the income tax as well. It is getting very difficult to tell a provincial Liberal from a federal Tory. It is a long time now; the government has been called “Tories in red ties” for a couple of years now. It seems as though once that accord with the New Democrats ended, the government lost its way.

I will not quote the Toronto Star editorial in this particular speech, but this government really has lost its way. When I talked about people on low and average incomes paying too many taxes, it really was perverse what the Treasurer did. In this day and age, as a family you can earn $10,000 under the poverty level as set by Statistics Canada, and as an individual you can earn $4,000 under the poverty level, and still pay provincial income taxes. That is the kind of tax system we have in this province. I do not think most people understand, or they would not be as happy as they seem to be with this Liberal government.

I hear the minister say: “Well, you can’t do everything, you know. There’s a big lineup of services demanded out there, and we know we would like to spend more on education, health, roads and so forth.”

Let me tell the minister what that would cost. Our proposal to eliminate provincial income tax for anybody below the poverty level would cost $100 million a year. I think I am correct in that figure -- the critic for Revenue nods her head and that means I am correct. It would cost $100 million a year to remove people below the poverty level from Ontario’s provincial income tax rolls. That is what it would cost.

Mr. Smith: Where would we get the money from, Floyd?

Mr. Laughren: “Where would the money come from?” asks the member for Lambton. Am I ever happy the member asked me that question, even though he is out of order. Well, let me tell him. There is at this point a $100,000 capital gains exemption from paying taxes. I think the member for Lambton probably more than anyone else in this House knows that. There is a $100,000 exemption.

If the province moved in and filled the vacuum on those capital gains, if the federal government will not do it -- you cannot expect Tories to do anything about capital gains; you really cannot. They do not care. Their friends are making the capital gains.

This province could tax capital gains. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about this province taking up a portion of capital gains. I ask the member for Lambton, through you, of course, Mr. Speaker, how much money would be there if the province took up capital gains. The answer is $200 million a year. Does he know how much would be there if we decided to impose a minimum corporate tax in Ontario? I think it is $300 million a year; once again, the member for Beaches-Woodbine will correct me if I am wrong.

All I am asking is, why could we not have taken $100 million out of that $500 million -- $200 million because of the capital gains exemption and $300 million from the minimum corporate tax -- and removed everybody in Ontario who is below the poverty level from Ontario provincial income tax rolls?

Is there anything radical about that? Is there anything unduly expensive about that? It seems to me that as a province, it would increase our level of civility considerably if we said to those people: “You do not have to pay provincial income tax.” Yet we do not do it.

I say to the member for Lambton that he should not always just swallow, without thinking, everything the ministers hand him about how they cannot spend money and how they do not have money for this or that program. There is money for programs if they want to get it from the right sources. I have just used two examples, the capital gains exemption and the minimum corporate tax.

It is still true in this province we live in that if you have an income of $20,000 a year and it is all from dividends, you would pay no taxes; absolutely none. If you have an income of $20,000 a year and it is from your labour, you pay about $3,400 in federal and provincial taxes combined. I think that is correct.

We have in this province a government that I am not sure supports the work ethic. I know I and my colleagues do. Here we have a case that the government still allows to occur in this province, where somebody who simply sits and clips his or her coupons to the tune of $20,000 a year pays no federal or provincial income taxes, but someone who goes out and works hard every day for the same amount of money pays $3,400 a year in taxes.

That is some kind of just tax system in this province. It has nothing to do with liberalism, I hope, and it certainly has nothing to do with any kind of progressive tax reform.

I must say it is a sad day when you see a government that calls itself Liberal raving on about not having any money, without even being honest enough to say that the money is there but it has decided not to tap that source. That is exactly what they are saying. It is with a certain amount of pride that I stand in my place with my colleague the member for Beaches-Woodbine, who is our Revenue critic, and the former Revenue critic the member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Charlton), who is also opposed to this bill, because we do believe that it is not in the best interest of people in Ontario.

We also believe that it attaches this government to the federal government’s federal tax reform proposals in a way that we think is unseemly and, if I might say so, it is dishonest, because this government will not stand in its place and say, “We support the federal tax reform and we are doing everything we can to go along with it.” It is like the free trade agreement. They did the same thing on free trade -- pretended to be opposed, all the while embracing it in the back rooms of Ottawa and Toronto.

It is for those reasons that we are opposed to this amendment to the Income Tax Act.

1650

Mr. Pollock: There are a few things, but one in particular, that I would like to put on the record. I received a letter here and the date on this particular letter is December 1, 1988. It comes from the Ministry of Revenue and in it is a form. It is for the Ontario tax rebate and I received it because I operate a farm. I looked over the form and I noticed that the thing was --

Mr. Pope: It’s for 1986-87.

Mr. Pollock: Yes -- the same as the forms I had received in previous years, yet I realized too that this particular government had just put an additional four per cent tax on leaded fuel in May; so I wondered why there was not a form actually recognizing that fact.

Mr. Pope: They are stiffing the farmers again, are they?

Mr. Pollock: Yes. If I got this particular form, I imagine there are a whole lot more out there who got the same kind of form. I question quite strongly why this form is being circulated. It is totally out of date and it is leading a lot of people astray. I wanted to put that on the record. The form should be updated so that it recognizes the budget that came down in May.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: In answer to my honourable friend the member for Hastings-Peterborough, I want to remind him that this government has recognized for at least three and a half years that we have to respect our farmers and provide them with all these good programs, and we will continue to provide them with good programs.

I will be looking at the old forms and I am sure that we can amend them to please the honourable member, but I want to remind him that we will continue to provide class 1 or A-1 programs throughout the province, especially to farmers, because all of us who are not farmers realize what great work they do in this province.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any more questions and comments on the member’s statement? If not, would the member wish to respond?

Mr. Pollock: Yes. I would just like to point out to the Minister of Revenue that this program has been in place for years and years; it is not something new. It is just that he added an extra tax on leaded fuel and his forms do not recognize that fact. He should at least have his forms up to date.

Mr. Smith: You also get back 100 per cent on your property tax, too. Don’t forget that.

Mr. Pollock: Just on the land and the barn, not on the house.

Mr. Smith: That is a pretty good deal.

Mr. Pollock: Oh, it is not as good a deal for some people as the old 60 per cent rebate; but anyway, back to the subject.

Mr. Smith: It depends on how old you are. If you are 65, it hurts.

Mr. Pollock: I just wanted to point out to the minister that this is leading a lot of people astray and these particular forms are a little complicated to fill out. When the forms are not even right, it is just going to make more of a problem. I just wanted to put that on the record.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate. If not, Monsieur le Ministre, vous voulez répondre? Vous voulez finir?

Mr. Pollock: Four per cent on a litre.

Mr. Pope: They are trying to beat the farmers out of four cents a litre.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I am going to wrap up.

The Deputy Speaker: Would you like to wrap up, Mr. Minister?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I could.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Throw it in. Let the Treasurer do it. It is his making.

Mr. Laughren: Get Michael Wilson to do it.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, this government works as a team. I will at least try to answer most of the members’ questions.

First of all, I would like to thank the honourable members who participated in this debate: the member for Beaches-Woodbine, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren), the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) and my good friend the member for Cochrane South (Mr. Pope).

I want to remind the House that most members in the opposition have confused the issues of national sales tax and tax reform. I want to remind them, in the presence of the Treasurer, that this Treasurer has not approved the national sales tax program. Discussions are ongoing and I am sure that whenever the Treasurer is ripe and ready, he will stand in this House and tell us all about the good or bad news. At the present time, we have respected phase 1 of tax reform. As far as the national sales tax is concerned, the Treasurer will carry on with his negotiations and come back to this House and announce the good news.

There is not a member in this House who likes paying income tax or any kind of tax. We recognize this, but our commitment of three and a half years ago when we were first elected was to provide Ontarians with first-class programs and services, and we realized that some tax increases were necessary. This is why, only a few days ago, we were talking about the increase in the retail sales tax.

My honourable friend the member for Cochrane South was talking about the tax grab of this government. I want to remind him that back in 1966 when the retail sales tax was three per cent and was increased to five per cent, that was a 60 per cent tax grab at the time. In 1975, they were not satisfied and increased it from five per cent to seven per cent, a 40 per cent tax grab. So I find it strange that they stand up today and talk about our tax grab.

Also, I would like to remind the honourable members that with the implementation of the first phase of tax reform, this government or this province lost $510 million in revenue. Some compensation had to be made. This is why the income tax is being raised by one per cent in 1988 and an additional one per cent in 1989. With those two increases, we are still faced with a $238-million shortfall.

This government is not only on a tax-grab flight; we recognize that some people have to pay. I will tell members what we are doing for our low-income and middle-income earners in this province.

lnterjections.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Have you ever heard a socialist volunteer to pay?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Never. The day I become a New Democrat, I will want the government to pay for everything.

Let me remind members what we are doing for our low- and middle-income earners. The new property and sales tax credit programs will deliver $444 million in tax credit benefits to over 1.8 million low-income Ontarians. That is a fair property and sales tax burden. I am sure that even the member for Nickel Belt will agree with me that we are doing great things with our tax dollars in Ontario, delivering more services and more programs.

1700

Sales tax credits will be set at $100 per adult and $50 per child, more than doubling the total benefits for low-income households under this program. Under the new $40-million Ontario tax reduction -- and that is for the benefit of my friend the member for Cochrane South -- 350,000 low-income tax filers will pay no Ontario income tax. In 1989, another 30,000 individuals and families will no longer pay any Ontario health insurance plan premiums. Since 1986, 105,000 individuals and families have been exempted from paying OHIP premiums.

We are doing great things. I do not know how we can manage on so few dollars and provide all these great programs and services. I know that my friend the member for Cochrane South was a little upset with the three per cent tax on leaded gasoline, but it was really a deterrent to teach people to use or convert their automobiles to unleaded gasoline. It did work. It was 28 per cent, leaded gasoline users. That percentage was dropped to 16 per cent. So not only did the people learn about the seriousness of pollution, but I think they have responded gracefully and we appreciate their concern for the environment.

The member for Beaches-Woodbine was asking the government to opt out of the federal tax reform program. I want to remind her that is impossible. Under the federal-Ontario tax agreement, we are required --

Mr. Laughren: I do not believe you.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Well, I am telling the member. The member for Nickel Belt may not believe me, but under the federal-Ontario tax agreement, we are required to do so. Most of the amendments to Bill 193 are really administrative moves or amendments which parallel federal government legislation, so we find these amendments to be --

Hon. Mr. Conway: They want to spend it, but they don’t want to tax for it.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Exactly. It is like people who want to go to heaven but they do not want to die, so it is very tough. If you want programs, you have to pay for them.

We do have a few minutes left. Maybe they will want to get back at me, but I want to remind the honourable members that I think we are doing well. Also, I just want to --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: With unanimous consent, we could keep the debate going.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Ben, you can wind it up any time.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Yes, any time. I just want to remind the honourable members what we are doing with our dollars. I think it is very important. Where is it now? Interim supply? I will finish with --

Mr. Laughren: You’ll never find it, Ben.

Mr. Pope: Just say you’re generally wrong, Ben, and sit down.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, no, I am not wrong. There we go. The distribution of our spending in 1988-89: on health, 39 per cent; on education, 18 per cent -- this is where all our dollars are going -- housing, social services, 25 per cent.

I call this good administration and I want to say thank you to the treasurer; I think he has done a terrific job.

Vote stacked.

INTERIM SUPPLY

Hon. Mr. R. F. Nixon moved resolution 19:

That the Treasurer of Ontario be authorized to pay the salaries of the civil servants and other necessary payments pending the voting of supply for the period commencing January 1, 1989, and ending March 31, 1989, such payments to be charged to the proper appropriation following the voting of supply.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I simply point out to the honourable members that it is estimated that in the period considered by the resolution, we expect to spend about $9.7 billion. If you divide it out by three months, 90 days, it comes to, I believe, about $100 million a day. This, of course, is distributed over a wide variety of programs. I would be very glad to hear the honourable members give me their views on this initiative.

Mr. Laughren: This supply motion is to pay the wages of the civil servants and other ancillary matters in the province. This government has better civil servants than it deserves. As a matter of fact, I think they are carrying this government.

It has been over a year now since this government obtained its massive, and very impressive majority I must say.

Hon. Mr. Conway: And the people once again rejected the democratic socialist alternative.

Mr. Laughren: I suppose the government House leader could say the people of Ontario also rejected public auto insurance in 1987. I am glad the House leader raised this matter, because that was the kind of thing that gave them their majority. I did not want to dwell on how the government got its majority -- there are more important things to debate here this afternoon -- but I do recall very clearly that the public auto insurance was a central issue in that campaign. We tried very hard to say to the people of Ontario that we believed that with a public automobile insurance program in this province they would be better served as drivers in this province. They would have better rates and have fairer rates.

Hon. Mr. Conway: And you used Howard Pawley as your sterling example. Where is he now?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: I bet the drivers in Ontario would like to trade automobile insurance rates with the drivers in Manitoba today.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Give us Howard Pawley.

Mr. Laughren: That is the absolute truth. He can say if he likes that in 1987 --

Hon. Mr. Conway: There is nothing like a dissident New Democrat.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. One member at a time and the member shall address his remarks through the Speaker as per the standing orders.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I do think the government House leader had a point when he said that in 1987 the people of Ontario rejected the New Democratic Party’s proposal for government auto insurance. I believe that to be a fair comment.

I would wonder, though, if we were to ask the people of Ontario this very day whether they wanted the Liberals’ idea of auto insurance, which is two no-questions-asked raises already this year and a proposal for a 35 per cent to 40 per cent increase ahead --

Hon. R. F. Nixon: And you are responsible for asking the questions. Where were you?

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, if you asked the people of Ontario what they thought of the Premier’s (Mr. Peterson) promise that he had a plan to lower insurance rates in the province, I am sure they would use very uncomplimentary and unparliamentary language.

I am not allowed in this chamber to say what I think of the Premier’s promise, which I absolutely, firmly believe he knew he could not carry out, because he had no plan. He said: “I’ve got a plan. It’s going to lower insurance rates in the province.” If he had a plan, why have we never seen it and why are insurance rates going through the roof? If he did not have a plan, then he sure misled the people of Ontario. If he did have a plan, where is it?

The government is collectively speechless.

1710

Hon. Mr. Conway: Hardly. We’re abiding by the rules of the House.

Mr. Laughren: The member just broke them.

It is obvious that the people of Ontario must decide in their own minds which is true, whether or not the Premier did have a plan a year or a year and a half ago when he said, “I have a plan that will lower insurance premiums in the province.” Did he have a plan or did he not? If he did have a plan, where is it? If he did not have a plan, what was he doing? Was he misleading the people of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: What about Howard Pawley’s plans?

Mr. Laughren: Howard Pawley’s plan would give us a lot lower premiums than we have in Ontario today.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: That is a different province.

Mr. Laughren: I see, a different province. Oh well, keep changing the ground rules as the debate goes on.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: The government can make all the apologies it wants for its friends in the insurance industry; the fact of the matter is we pay a lot higher insurance rates in Ontario than in any of the three western provinces where they have a public automobile insurance plan. The government cannot deny that, there is no question about that, it is not even debatable. There is no debate at all that in Ontario we pay much higher insurance rates than in the three provinces that have a public auto insurance plan.

That is fine. I accept the fact that this government has a right to its ideology which states that the private sector shall run the insurance program in this province. The Premier is from London, Ontario, do not forget, the heartland of the insurance industry. I understand the lobbying of the Premier must be terribly intense. This government has a right to that ideology that the private sector must run the insurance industry, but then it should not tell the people that it has a better plan that is going to lower rates in Ontario when it has no such plan.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That is unfair.

Mr. Laughren: It is absolutely true. I am glad that when I sit down the government House leader will have an opportunity to engage in the debate.

Hon. Mr. Conway: You’re going to force me into it.

Mr. Laughren: I am not the --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: What about the rates in the Maritimes, Floyd?

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

Mr. Laughren: I do not want to compare rates between two private sector provinces; I want to compare rates between a province like Ontario that --

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Oh.

Mr. Laughren: Those are different provinces. The Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Wrye) just tried to use that argument on me on the west, then he tries to turn it around on the east. That is absolutely ridiculous. I think the former Minister of Labour is feeling out of sorts these days because he has nobody to stick it to any more since he left the Labour portfolio.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Not as much as labour is feeling out of sorts with the NDP over its failure in the election, speaking about friends.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: We will see who ends up being friends with whom before this administration is through with labour. Given the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara) the member has in his cabinet, I want to tell him that he is in for some rough time with the labour movement himself.

Hon. Mr. Conway: But what about Bob White?

Hon. Mr. Wrye: I’ve got Bob White’s letter.

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

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that I am eliciting a response from the government members. It is the first time some of them have said anything in here for a while. It is very good to hear them.

Hon. Mr. Conway: That’s good. We try to help.

Hon. Mr. Wrye: Are you going to talk about Bob White’s letter?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Yes, I know. I must keep my eye on the clock.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Don’t be so provocative.

Mr. Laughren: I am not trying to be provocative, but when I started my remarks the opening shot from across the way was about insurance rates in Ontario or some such thing. It provoked me.

In the last year there has been a sad series of events and policy decisions that must make the people in this province wonder what in the world they did on September 10, 1987. They really must wonder because I look at some of the very key issues that face us in this province, the very severe problems, and I do not see this government doing much about it.

For example, there are now over 20,000 homeless people in Ontario. The term “homeless” has become just a word, but if you think of what that word means, it means people without any place to live. That is a hard thing to accept in our minds, when we go home to an apartment, or a condominium, or a house or, in the case of certain members, a mansion. For someone to be homeless -- it really is a terrifying thought that there are 20,000 people like that in Ontario. I understand that in Metropolitan Toronto alone there are about 10,000. The waiting list for people to live in government-assisted housing has gone up by at least 50 per cent since this government took power.

There is a backlog of rent review cases of over 20,000 in Ontario. Despite this, and despite these very serious housing problems, the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hošek), for two consecutive years, has underspent her housing budget. How does one explain that? I do not know how one explains that.

Would one not think the Minister of Housing would be banging on the door of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) saying: “I need more money. There are 20,000 homeless people. The waiting list is outrageous for assisted housing. It has gone up 50 per cent”? Would one not think that the Minister of Housing would be out there just clamouring and banging on the door of the Treasurer? No; she did not even spend the money that had been allocated to her by this assembly, all three parties. What kind of nonsense is that? What kind of Minister of Housing? What kind of commitment?

As a matter of fact, we are not talking about underspending by $1 million or so. Oh, no -- this Minister of Housing thinks big. In 1986-87 she underspent by $52 million and in 1987-88 by $40 million. We are not talking a few units; we are talking a massive betrayal for people who have housing problems in this province. It was $52 million the previous year and $40 million in 1987-88. Those are very big dollars.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You would give them money no matter what.

Mr. Laughren: I would assume that when there is a backlog out there for assisted housing, you build the bloody houses. I know the member for Kitchener (Mr. D. R. Cooke) might find that hard to comprehend, but if you have a housing shortage you build the bloody houses.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: You have got to have room for both.

Mr. Laughren: If you have problems in your own caucus with members opposing subsidized housing in your riding, you sort that out. You have 94 members now; sort it out among yourselves. That is the problem.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Are you suggesting we should spend that money?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: Yes. I am suggesting that the Minister of Housing was allocated that money. She has an obligation to spend it on housing. That is what I am suggesting. When you have a 50 per cent increase in the backlog for assisted housing, and you have 20,000 people homeless in the province, I do believe she has an obligation to spend that money. Why does that sound so surprising to members of the government? Why would she not have an obligation to spend that money? It was passed in the estimates and the member knows that around this place when the estimates are passed that means this assembly has given approval for that money to be spent. Yet the minister, two years in a row, has not spent it. That is some commitment to people with housing problems in this province.

I look at people who are simply trying to get into the housing market to buy their first, second or third house, whatever, and I look at the price of houses. In this community, it is truly perverse what has happened with housing. I have my own house and I suspect most members do, but imagine the despair one would feel if one was trying to buy a house in Metropolitan Toronto today. One could not save enough in a year to make up for the increase of perhaps a couple of months. One cannot do it.

Mr. Miller: Come to Jarvis.

1720

Mr. Laughren: That is fine. If the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) wants to provide the jobs to move elsewhere, perhaps he could tell us how he is going to do that. In the middle of all this, the Treasurer sits back and, despite all sorts of reasoning, will not bring in a speculation tax to take the heat out of the housing market. It worked a few years ago when a speculation tax was brought in and I have repeated these numbers a hundred times to the Treasurer -- and he will not move in and do anything about speculation in homes.

I am not talking about an increase in the value of a house, a principal dwelling, when someone moves and has to sell their house; I understand that. What I do not understand is the way in which the Treasurer sits back, and this government sits back and allows somebody to flip houses. They could flip them once a week, once a month -- never live in them. There are all sorts of tales out there about people not even taking legal ownership before it is flipped again.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: How does it work? Does it raise money?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Laughren: The purpose of a speculation tax would not be to raise money, I hasten to add; the purpose of a speculation tax is to prevent speculation. That is the purpose. This is a housing policy, not a tax revenue proposal. That is what I am saying. We are not just totally preoccupied as the member for Kitchener is with how much money a proposal raises. We are saying, we want to take the heat out of the housing market.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I never hear you say where you would get the money from.

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

Mr. Laughren: The member for Kitchener obviously was not here to hear my remarks on the Income Tax Amendment Act, or he would know my proposals for raising money. I talked about them in our budget proposal. We have never yet in this party, that I can recall, responded to a provincial budget without laying out where we would get our money -- substantial money -- every single time. I think the member is being unfair to say that this party has not laid out where we would get the money from.

We know that there is no free lunch. We know the government cannot go out and demand increased services without paying for them. We understand that. And that is why every time we criticize or respond to the provincial budget, regardless of whether it is this party in power or the Tories in power, we have laid out our proposals for revenue.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: Well, how much money is --

Mr. Laughren: I am not going to repeat my budget speech but it was all there, and if the member from Kitchener does not choose to attend when budget debates are on, that is his problem.

My point is that the Treasurer will not do a thing about the speculation in land, particularly in Metro, and then as though that was not enough, he now wants to introduce a lot levy on the sale of new homes.

Talk about sticking it to people. He is sticking it to the people who want to buy a house and he is sticking it to the taxpayers who want to educate their children because he is allowing the school boards to assess a lot levy as well.

We know that the national sales tax the federal government is talking about and which this government seems to be in love with could add another $10,000 to the price of a house. So, you are talking $15,000, combining the $10,000 from the federal people with $5,000 for a lot levy. That is $15,000 added on to the price of a house with one stroke of the pen; excuse me, two strokes of the pen, one federal and one provincial.

How many people out there can save $15,000 a year just to pay for that with what this government is doing to them? That is some kind of government and it only took a year for the people of Ontario to see that.

Look at health care. The health care system in this province is under siege and I do not see this government doing anything to make it a preventive community-based health care system. The health care on some of the Indian reserves is a disgrace. At some point, this government is going to have to deal with that -- the health care for our first citizens on Indian reserves.

I was at a ceremony on Saturday to celebrate the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations. I said at that ceremony that what Canada needs to do is address itself to the problems of our first citizens. There was a token attempt to redress the evils done to our Japanese Canadians in the Second World War, and the next major attempt should be federal-provincial, to redress the problems with our first citizens.

I know there are members who care very much about that and who have visited native communities in northern Ontario and they know whereof I speak, and I am not exaggerating one iota. If this government wanted to do something very real, it would take an initiative to do that.

I believe there was an agreement on sharing of time, so I do not want to talk much longer. I did just want to conclude by saying that we are going to support this supply motion, because we think the province is well served by its civil servants. But I want to tell members that this government has performed very badly in the last year and that I think it is sinking in out there in Ontario that a lot of promises were made simply to get a majority government a year ago and that those promises have been broken, they really and truly have.

We have seen what has happened with educational costs and the lack of commitment by this government. We have seen what has happened with the environment; I could have wept in my place as I watched the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley) sit there silently while other members of cabinet talked about the Temagami issue and the building of that road.

I think of problems with auto insurance, which I talked about, absolutely, clearly a broken promise. That is putting it generously, to say it was a broken promise, because I could use much stronger words than that to describe exactly what the Premier did on that issue.

Mr. Harris: Ah, go ahead and use them.

Mr. Smith: Go ahead, Floyd.

Mr. Laughren: No, I will not say that the Treasurer deliberately misled the people of Ontario, because the Speaker would throw me out on my ear. I will not say it, but I want to tell members that there is a litany of broken promises by this government and it looks as though it is going to continue for a while yet.

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

Mr. Harris: Good speech.

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I would like to refer to something the honourable member raised when he indicated his concern about the state of health services on Indian reserves, because I think everybody is very sensitive to our responsibilities in this regard. It is much too simple to say that the federal contracts with the establishment of the reserves designates the primary responsibility, because obviously, through our medicare requirements, it is essential that the province does play a role.

I thought it would be appropriate for me to say that the Six Nations Indian Reserve and the residents there whom I have the honour to represent are, I believe, quite well served. The honourable member, if he wants to make some extensive review, might find that the services are not as uniform as they should be. Mind you, there is a very competent elected council in the Six Nations, and it has been successful in persuading the government of Canada over the years to provide a good deal of assistance by way of modern facilities.

From my own experience in the constituency, I cannot agree with the honourable member. On the other hand, my researches have not been as broad as his may have been. I just do not want to leave the impression in the House that somehow or another the provincial responsibilities are not being fulfilled. In the areas of inadequacy, I appreciate the honourable member’s comments, because we have to be aware of where we are falling short.

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

Mr. Cureatz: Are we carrying on now, Mr. Speaker?

The Deputy Speaker: Did the member wish to respond, please?

Mr. Cureatz: Wonderful. Swell.

The Deputy Speaker: Hold on, please. The member has the right to respond.

Mr. Laughren: I do not want to cut into the time, but I will just say to the Treasurer that if he were to visit the reserves up in the far north of Ontario his comments would be different.

The Deputy Speaker: Do other members wish to participate in the debate? The member for Durham East.

Mr. Cureatz: As we wind down this session and make our way back into the new year, I am pleased to have the opportunity of touching on a couple of items of interest that affect my own constituency and I will ensure that they make their way into the appropriate discussion of interim supply, which we are speaking of today.

I had the opportunity, a couple days ago, to speak in opening statements about the GO rail system. Knowing how tight the Treasurer is with his money, I know only too well that if the present government had been in charge of the extension east of the present Pickering station, by no stretch of the imagination would it have done that. We were still in power then and my good friend and colleague the member for Simcoe West was Minister of Transportation and Communications. He decided to continue with the extension and actually reversed a policy that I will restrain some frustration about. That policy was the ALRT or advanced light rail transit system, I think it was called, from Oshawa-Whitby to Pickering, change trains, then on to the GO train.

1730

The member for Simcoe West indicated it should be one full system from Pickering to, hopefully, Oshawa eventually. I think that actually made much more sense. I see my friend and colleague the member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) here. He would confirm with me that for the number of years we have been representing the Durham region, the volume of traffic has become horrendous and the GO rail system extension, now out to Whitby, was none too soon.

I have now made my own little survey of what has taken place. As I said in my opening statement, and I commend to the Treasurer that he should review this with the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), as in all things with government, it ain’t enough. The parking lots already at Whitby, Highway 401 and Brock Street to Highway 12 are full to capacity. They are located beside the Ontario Provincial Police station and the institution owned by the Ministry of Correctional Services. I have been tempted myself to park at the OPP station or the institution and walk over to the train station, fearing with trepidation, however, that I might be asked to remove my vehicle from thence.

Alas, there is no place to put the cars because the 1,200-odd spaces are already full. I find it most frustrating under the circumstances with the volume of traffic that everybody seems to be complaining about. If you tune in to the radio stations, everybody is talking about the traffic around Toronto and the greater Toronto region, while the minister --

Interjection.

Mr. Cureatz: I do not know what is happening out in the west end. I will leave that problem for the other few Liberal backbenchers who represent that area. Surely, they must be encountering the same problem. As a matter of fact, I remember someone yelled out, “Let’s get the GO train extended to Guelph,” so there are some frustrations over there.

Over on the east side of Metropolitan Toronto, if we are going to try, as I said in my statement, to encourage people to get off the highways and park their cars at a station so that they can get on a pretty good commuter rail system, we are going to have to provide parking spaces.

I say it to the people at home because I can see how interested all the members here are in this great debate. The people at home listen to us politicians and get frustrated as the dickens, I am sure. But this is a nice, practical little problem. We can solve this one. We do not have to talk about percentages, increases, decreases, the gross national product and the inflation index. We do not have to mention any of that. All we have to do is get the Minister of Transportation and take him down to the Whitby GO rail station at about nine o’clock in the morning.

He came out at two o’clock Sunday afternoon. There were a few cars around and we had a band. There was great fun and he took all the credit on behalf of the Liberal government. He did not mention the Conservative administration whatsoever, or for that matter, my colleague the member for Oshawa, who has been talking for a long time about the extension of the GO rail system. He did not do any of that.

Notwithstanding that, we should get him back out there during a weekday and show him that the lots are full, and let him make provision. There are some spots all along there, some vacant land to extend the parking lots. Then, lo and behold, we would be able to encourage people to drive to the GO rail station, for which I know the Treasurer would gladly give some more money, especially with the adoption of interim supply. He will give the money to the Minister of Transportation and next spring I am confident that, lo and behold, the bulldozers will be in the ground pushing the dirt around and getting ready for the extension of parking facilities.

Today, in the snowstorm, I made a survey of the other stations, since I was bogged down in traffic anyway. I went into the Pickering station. Strangely enough and happily enough, there were some spots there. Maybe that is because people could not get to the station because of the snowfall. I somehow doubt it. I think there has been some relief of pressure, but all that has happened is those people out in Ajax and Whitby who had been going to Pickering are now going to those locations.

Mark my words, the Pickering spots are going to be full pretty soon, because if they cannot park at the GO train station -- I think I have a quote. How could I forget it? “Parking tickets no way to GO.” I have a little notice here from the Toronto Sun of Thursday, November 3: “Clarkson isn’t the only station battling a lack of adequate parking. GO spokesman Edmund Shea” -- good old Edmund -- “says stations in Pickering, Port Credit and Richmond Hill all face the same problem.

“‘We recognize there is a problem,’ said Shea.” Great. “‘But we’re dreaming if we think we can provide a parking spot for every person riding public transit.”

I do not understand this. Are we not trying to encourage people to ride public transit? So what is he saying? “If you don’t have a parking spot, get in your car and start driving downtown.” If you come down the Allen expressway, there are great big signs over the expressway: “Have you bought your TTC pass yet? Wouldn’t it be better to be riding the subway? Wouldn’t it be much more pleasurable and convenient?” And here is the representative of the GO rail system saying, “We’re not going to provide parking for those people who want to use the system.”

To me, it is fundamental. If the Treasurer wants to try to get the people off the highways and using the commuter rail system, he is going to have to spend the bucks to provide parking. I wish I had about five hours. I can remember the Treasurer, when he was in opposition, right on the front bench, complaining about all those wonderful Conservative cabinet ministers and the fancy limousines with the yellow lights. He was always worried he would get zapped by the yellow lights.

Time and time again, I tune in to CBC Radio 740, the morning show, and once a week there is the Treasurer talking on the radio station. Do members know where he is talking from? Do they think he is talking from his office? Do they think he is talking from Earl’s Shell Service? Do they think he is talking from St. George and his lovely 100-acre farm? No, he is talking from the back seat of the limousine with the earphone and the yellow lights. You can hear the static.

Time and time again, I think back to all those speeches. I have often been moved to bring them to the Legislature and read them for his benefit so he could realize how boring they were. Now, lo and behold, he is in government.

The other great speech he used to have was being impressed that in the Sutton Place Hotel, when he went to the washroom, there was a phone in the washroom. I heard that speech time and time again. Now that he is in the big time, phones in washrooms are part of the deal. He goes to all the fancy hotels around the world: “I’m the Treasurer. I get the bathroom with the phone in the washroom.” I guess that is the attitude now that he has made the big time.

I could also refresh his memory about an interesting little trip we had to Newfoundland with his lovely wife, Dorothy -- that is the only reason he keeps getting elected here -- and with my wife, Catherine. We had a little sojourn to that wonderful province. We can talk about the time we shared a chocolate éclair, the four of us, at Gatsby’s Dessert Salon. I will never share a dessert with him again, however, not because I am particularly worried about acquired immune deficiency syndrome but about consuming some of the Liberal policies I have seen coming forward from this huge Liberal majority government.

Mr. Speaker, if you have not noticed, I have got side-tracked just slightly. We will move along from parking spots at GO rail stations to Ontario Hydro, a pet concern of the then Liberal opposition when we were in government for years and years.

I heard the Treasurer talk about it all the time: “How are we going to get in charge of Ontario Hydro? It’s a mammoth unto itself. It’s out of control.” Happily enough -- I give credit to the administration -- they have adopted the continuation of some kind of committee investigation into the policies of Ontario Hydro. Presently, there is the select committee on energy.

I will not refresh everybody’s memory, with five minutes left, but this administration and the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong) are going to have to make a very serious decision in the next year. I know the Treasurer’s hand is going to quake when he is summoned to New York by Bradley, Poor and Rich, or whatever that stockbrokerage firm is down there. He is going to have to sign the endorsement to borrow money for the Darlington B generating station. It is coming down the tubes, I say to the Treasurer, because he is not going to have enough electricity in Ontario. We know where the New Democratic Party stands on nuclear power: It is against it.

1740

I can remember when the Treasurer and I sat on those committees a long time ago. We had so much work to do they brought in sandwiches and he was worried the sandwiches were carcinogenic. Does the Treasurer remember those days? Boy, he has come a long way. I only had eight weeks in cabinet before I got the hook, and the Treasurer has had a lovely three years and at least three to go.

I could get into the details about the concern of the Minister of the Environment about acid rain. He does not want to go into oil-burning or coal-burning plants. Even last year, with the drop in water levels, we did not have enough water to produce electricity from hydro plants, so what are we going to do?

The official opposition -- did members know that we are the third party now? I say to my colleagues, count us: one, two, three. For all the people across Ontario who hated us in the last election, I thought I would refresh their memory to make them feel good. But there will be another time. As Harry Worton used to yell at the Treasurer: “Do not worry, Bob. It is a long road.” Now here I am saying it. Can members believe it?

Hon. R. F. Nixon: I remember getting a lot of comfort from that.

Mr. Cureatz: A lot of years of comfort; I saw him for a long time. Back to Ontario Hydro: Members are going to have to make a decision on where they are going to get enough electricity. They thought they were going to buy it from Quebec. But they are saying: “We know about the Liberal rump and where the wind comes from all the time. We will refresh their memory on that one.”

They cannot buy it from Quebec. It is short of electricity. Manitoba: We do not have transmission lines. So what are we going to do? We are going to have to get it from Ontario and we are going to have to construct -- mark my words -- Darlington B. I know we have concerns about nuclear energy, etc., but the people of the province will not stand for it, I say to the Treasurer. We might get away with it this winter. We might have enough power. But I say that next year, next winter we are not going to. It is going to be at breaking point.

We had to have a phase-out of power in the summertime. We are not going to be able to get away with it in the wintertime. The people of Ontario are going to demand that this do-nothing government -- we have seen it on Sunday shopping, pass the buck; municipal housing, pass the dollar; car insurance, send it to the board.

They are going to have to make a decision about electricity, and there have been more sage members in these chambers -- I can think of one, Osie Villeneuve, the predecessor to my learned colleague here, the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve), who used to say that nasty Liberal regime under Mitch Hepburn never made a positive decision about electricity for the people of Ontario and that is what really defeated it. It just might all come to pass again, because the government is not going to make a decision about how Ontario is going to be provided with more electricity.

While I have a moment, I want to say the production of electricity notwithstanding, strangely enough -- I have not had the chance to do this in question period. My colleagues on the very front bench of my party somehow restrain themselves in allowing me to get on, so I am going to bring it up right at this moment, in the last two minutes.

At the Darlington generating station, of which the first two units are to come into power next year, lo and behold, they have a tritium removal facility. I have to say that on the various select committees, we indicated in an all-party report that we cannot have a nuclear accident anywhere in any of our plants in Ontario, unlike Chernobyl. We can talk about it and look at all the possibilities, but we just cannot afford to have it.

Lo and behold, in my old riding of Durham East, what do they have? They crank up the tritium plant, and I am supportive of that. There have been some groups that say they should have tritium removal plants at each station. Well, okay, let’s put it in one station. Now we have had some benefits from the Darlington station’s being constructed in my riding, so let’s take on some further responsibility.

Do members know what happened? They started up the tritium plant and they had a gas release of tritium. I say to members and to Ontario Hydro, as supportive as I have been from time to time, it has been a little disconcerting for me, as a provincial representative for that area, when suddenly they crank up the plant and they have a gas leak. I just feel a little uncomfortable about that. I am going to be pursuing that with the Minister of Energy during question period.

Notwithstanding that, Ontario Hydro has itself in a heck of a mess in my riding of Durham East in an area called Wilmot Creek with a hydro corridor and all kinds of leases, and it has yet to move on resolving that problem.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Is the House ready to vote on this resolution now?

Motion agreed to.

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

The Acting Speaker: By earlier agreement between the House leaders, it was decided that there would be a vote at this time on second reading of Bill 193.

The House divided on Mr. Grandmaître’s motion for second reading of Bill 193, which was agreed to on the following vote.

Ayes

Adams, Ballinger, Beer, Bossy, Callahan, Campbell, Caplan, Carrothers, Chiarelli, Cleary, Conway, Cooke, D. R., Cordiano, Curling, Daigeler, Eakins, Elliot, Elston, Epp, Faubert, Fawcett, Fleet, Fontaine, Fulton, Grandmaître, Haggerty, Hart, Henderson, Hošek, Kanter, Kerrio, Keyes, Kozyra, Kwinter, LeBourdais, Leone, Lipsett;

Lupusella, MacDonald, Mahoney, Mancini, McGuigan, McGuinty, McLeod, Miclash, Miller, Morin, Neumann, Nixon, J. B., Nixon, R. F., Offer, O’Neil, O’Neill, Patten, Phillips, Poole, Ramsay, Ray, M. C., Reycraft, Riddell, Ruprecht, Smith, D. W., Smith, E. J., Sola, South, Sweeney, Tatham, Velshi, Ward, Wong, Wrye.

Nays

Allen, Breaugh, Bryden, Charlton, Cooke, D. S., Cousens, Cunningham, Cureatz, Eves, Farnan, Grier, Hampton, Harris, Johnson, J. M., Johnston, R. F., Kormos, Laughren, Mackenzie, Marland, Martel, McCague, McLean, Morin-Strom, Philip, Pollock, Pope, Pouliot, Reville, Runciman, Villeneuve, Wildman, Wiseman.

Ayes 71; nays 32.

Bill ordered for third reading.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I have a brief business statement for tomorrow. I know my friends would want me to do this.

Tomorrow we will proceed with third reading of Bill 193, after which we will do second reading of Bill 196, the Psychologists Registration Amendment Act, and then into second reading of a number of justice bills: Bill 9, Bill 150 and Bill 174. We will not be dealing with Bill 169, An Act to amend the District Municipality of Muskoka Act, tomorrow.

The House adjourned at 6:04 p.m.

December 13, 1988

APPLES

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

APARTMENT BUILDING INCINERATORS

CONSERVATION AUTHORITIES

TRANSIT SERVICES

HOME CARE

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT

TALMAGE STONE

CONVERSION OF RENTAL ACCOMMODATION

SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

RESPONSES

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

TRANSFER PAYMENTS

POLICE TREATMENT OF VISIBLE MINORITIES

ASSISTANCE FOR THE HOMELESS

ORAL QUESTIONS

EDUCATION FUNDING

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

USE OF LOT LEVIES

CONSERVATION OFFICERS

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

ONTARIO HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

YOUNG OFFENDERS

SEWAGE TREATMENT

RENT REGULATION

AMBULANCE SERVICES

USE OF LOT LEVIES

TABLING OF INFORMATION

PETITIONS

SCHOOL BUSES

SCHOOL OPENING EXERCISES

NATUROPATHY

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

APARTMENT BUILDING INCINERATORS

HOME CARE

PROVINCIAL PARKS

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

SAFETY IN CHAMBER

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

SELECT COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION

ORDERS OF THE DAY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI DE L’IMPÔT SUR LE REVENU

INTERIM SUPPLY

INCOME TAX AMENDMENT ACT

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE