Hansard Transcript 1988-Nov-30 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

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

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

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

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

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

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

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

BARBADIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

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

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

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

NATIONAL STUDENT CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN STUDIES

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

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

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

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

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

CORONER’S INQUEST

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

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

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

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

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

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

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

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

1340

PROTECTION OF OZONE LAYER

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

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

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

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

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

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

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

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

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

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

Agreed to.

JANE MAHER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

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

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

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

The sequence of events is as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

1350

CONTROL OF SMOKING / RÉGLEMENTATION DU TABAGISME

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

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

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

In this area, government has two responsibilities:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefore, I am pleased to announce today that as of March 31, 1989, smoking will no longer be permitted in Ontario public service and schedule 1 agency workplaces. The policy will apply equally to our employees and to those who visit our workplaces.

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

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

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

RESPONSES

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

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

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

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

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

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

CONTROL OF SMOKING

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

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

1400

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

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

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

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

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

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

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

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

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

CONTROL OF SMOKING

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

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

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

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1410

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Pope: Finally, the true answer.

Hon. Mr. Scott: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. New question.

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

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

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

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

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

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

“Estimates and invoices were not supported with adequate detail.

“Excessive costs were incurred.

“Questionable expenditures were made” on advertising.

Mr. Speaker: Question?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1420

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

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

SEWAGE TREATMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Bradley: As I understand it, there are general water quality guidelines for the discharges from sewage treatment plants. What we have done in the reports that have gone by is measured those against those general guidelines. I think what the auditor is making reference to is that in specific plants we have required, even on a specific basis, a greater guideline -- in other words, a better performance than the general guidelines would suggest. What we have in fact incorporated into our 1988 report is the suggestion of the Provincial Auditor that it be measured against the individual guidelines for the individual plant as opposed to the general guidelines. I think the member will see that reflected very well.

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

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

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

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

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

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

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

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

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

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

1430

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From time to time, the member will know, there is a need to make information available to the public in the broadest possible way and sometimes on a very urgent basis; from time to time, we are asked by opposition people to put that information out. We do the best we can in managing our budgets. Having gone through this particular year, sort of the first full year, I can tell the member that we have had great co-operation from all the ministers involved and the people in each of the ministries in assessing what they are delivering through their advertising budgets and through their information services and looking at those in a manner which would allow them to be much more specific with the placement of advertising.

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

SEWAGE TREATMENT

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

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

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

1440

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

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

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

Mr. Speaker: The question?

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

Mr. Speaker: Do you have a question?

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

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

It should also be noted that the province shares, in a very fundamental way, in providing funds for the costs of delivering education throughout this province. As a matter of fact, the provincial share of the total costs of delivering elementary and secondary education in this province today is fully 58 per cent of the total. Grants are assigned on a basis that go a great distance in terms of equalizing the impacts from community to community. I think the question that the member raises really revolves around the issue as to how appropriate it is that all property taxpayers in this province and all of the tax assessment base in this province be utilized to share the impacts of education taxes. I think it is fair to say that the government takes the view that, in fact, it is appropriate that those costs be shared --

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

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

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

HOSPITAL SERVICES

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

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

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

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

1450

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

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

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

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

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

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

FUEL TAXES

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Harris: Well, I do.

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Question.

Mr. B. Rae: Deregulation will help that.

Mr. Harris: Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker: I am waiting for the question.

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

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

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

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

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

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

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

Hon. R. F. Nixon: What page?

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

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

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

1500

Mr. Speaker: Supplementary?

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

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

Mr. Speaker: That seems like a good question.

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

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. Treasurer?

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Harris: I have a petition.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

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

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

Bill Pr6, An Act respecting the City of Ottawa;

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Charlotte Eleanor Englehart Hospital.

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill Pr32, An Act to revive LaPlante Lithographing Company Limited.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

Hon. Mr. Sorbara moved first reading of Bill 194, An Act to restrict Smoking in Workplaces.

Motion agreed to.

1510

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the motion for second reading of Bill 122, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I appreciate the opportunity to get to speak on this very important tax bill, Bill 122, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. In this bill, we see the government of Ontario increasing one of the most regressive forms of taxation that is available to this province. Their sales tax increased from seven per cent to eight per cent this year, creating a real hardship for working families, particularly those with low incomes. It would have been far better had this province looked to progressive tax measures that would have created a fairer tax system for people right across this province.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you. Questions and Comments?

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

Mr. Morin-Strom: Sault Ste. Marie.

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

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

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

1520

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

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

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

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

What we have here is An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act. The key line is in section 2 where it says it is “further amended by striking out ‘seven’ in the third line and inserting in lieu thereof ‘eight.’” That is all we are talking about.

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

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

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

Interjections.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

Mr. Hampton: Go to your chair.

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

Mr. Hampton: It hurts everywhere.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Ballinger: Whose picture is it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Retail sales tax up!

“Gasoline taxes up!

“Provincial income tax up!

“Tax on alcohol up!

“Tax on tobacco up!

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

1530

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Furlong: Education.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1540

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: That was 1961.

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

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

Interjections

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

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

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

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

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

Mr. R. F. Johnston: But they’re blue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This government does not really know what it is doing with the money. They are adding more civil servants. They are making --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Oh, come on.

Mr. Faubert: That’s unfair.

Mr. Cousens: I will tell members one of the areas, and they are not civil servants: the staff around the ministers has never been larger with the number of people that they have there who back them up.

This is the largest tax grab in Ontario’s history, and the fact is, why should they do it when everything else is so rosy and going so well? Why is it that this government should come along and say, “We’re going to be greedy; we want more in order to proceed with our own agenda”?

1550

I really appreciated one of the statements that came out from our own member for Sarnia (Mr. Brandt), the interim leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. If I could, I would like to just put on the record what he said on April 20.

“‘The Liberal government has engineered the largest tax grab in Ontario’s history,’ charges Andy Brandt, leader of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party. Brandt says the tax hike is unwarranted. ‘Without one tax increase, the government’s total revenues for the next fiscal year would increase by 8.2 per cent.’”

In other words, they did not even have to raise the taxes and they were going to get 8.2 per cent more.

“Pointing out that the current inflation rate is 4.3 per cent, Mr. Brandt says, ‘Surely any government should be able to live within a ceiling of increased spending that is almost double the rate of inflation.’ Brandt also finds it ironic that the bulk of the tax grab relates to a one per cent increase in the retail sales tax.

“In 1973, Mr. Nixon, as leader of the Liberal Party, called any increase in the retail sales tax regressive and inflationary. In 1988, the same person now calls this increase democratic and upfront. The question becomes, as Mr. Brandt so eloquently raised it, ‘Which Nixon do you believe?’”

I think I have trouble believing in anyone who has got that kind of approach to running a government.

As we look down the road, the people of Ontario are the ones who are paying the shot. Unless we begin to understand that there is just no bottomless pit, this government should begin to accept responsibility for running the ship so that it does not have all kinds of extra people on it, all kinds of extra services, and is correctly doing the things it should. It is in that direction that I would like to come back and discuss what the Retail Sales Tax Act is all about and how it fits into the whole scheme of things.

The first Retail Sales Tax Act came into effect on September 1, 1961, when this tax was imposed on the purchaser of tangible personal property consumed or used within the province. While the form of taxation has remained unchanged, the rate of taxation and the retail sales tax base have undergone many changes in the past 27 years. You can go through the progression and, I guess, what you really see is that steady state where the province continues to take more and more from people who have less and less.

Originally, it was just on things that were sold. We are now seeing the tax applying to entertainment costs; more and more we are seeing it on railway rolling stock. The people of Ontario assume now that everything they buy and everything they get is going to be taxed.

There are taxes on telecommunication services, accommodation and labour charges. This sales tax applies to meals. Fortunately, last year the government said any meal or prepared food under $4 is exempt. It is a huge pile of money that this government takes on taxes on beer and wine sold under the authority of the Liquor Control Board of Ontario. We are talking about taxes upon taxes and what you end up having is a huge bureaucracy that helps administer these taxes, and anyone who is running a retail outlet and wants to know it would really have to understand regulations 903 and 904.

I really do not want to take the time to go through what those regulations are all about, but there is a tremendous amount of power in the ministry to administer these taxes, to collect them and to have a large bureaucracy to make sure that those moneys come in. There is a whole other process in regulation 904 where, through orders in council, there are different kinds of ways in which the government can become involved in getting certain exemptions or going after certain people for their money.

Look at what the Ministry of Revenue has become. People outside of this building would find it hard to believe that in 1893, when this building was constructed, all the offices and administration for the province were housed in this one building, and now we are the greatest and largest landlord in downtown Metropolitan Toronto. This houses, largely, the people who are working for the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) and who are out there collecting the money from the people of this province.

There is a huge ministry there. As I look at the organization charts, the retail sales tax branch is a huge part of that ministry. I guess the people of the province just have to understand that it is a costly exercise to run government, but it is more costly when you have a Liberal government than if you have a Tory government.

I was looking for my notes on The Retail Sales Tax in Canada -- I was doing some research on it -- a book that was written by a man by the name of A. J. Robinson. That is Canadian Tax Paper 77, which comes out of the Canadian Tax Foundation. I found his background very insightful and helpful in understanding how we got into this provincial retail sales tax. So few people have stopped, as I had not until I realized that I had an opportunity today, to get into the subject in greater detail as to just how much has gone on that leads us to this.

In his historical perspective, he begins with this statement, “The retail sales tax is a recent addition to the battery of revenue sources of the Canadian public sector.” He gives two main reasons for the introduction of the retail sales tax.

The first, of course, has always been the threat of expenditures rising to exceed revenues. This is a government that really knows how to exceed revenues. Their expenditures exceed them and will continue to exceed them, because there is no commitment to live within their budget guidelines, no commitment at all. Also, rather than cutting expenditures, they keep on finding new sources of revenue. That is what this government is good at; finding another way of getting the money from the people of Ontario.

This was something that was maybe a temporary tax. We are quite aware that in some provinces in Canada, especially in 1917 when the war income tax became an interim levy, it was a way in which the government was able to get money in a time of emergency. I wonder what kind of emergency we are in now. It is purely one of poor fiscal planning on the part of the Premier, the Treasurer and all the 30 or so cabinet ministers. All they can do is think, “We’re going to take and we’re going to spend.”

The provincial retail sales tax initially followed the second pattern, which was really that it would be something that would solve that problem and then it would be abolished. This was the case in Alberta. Maybe this would be the best news that the Minister of Revenue could give us, that he put a window on this tax, that he started it on May 2 and he will abolish it on December 25 or January 1 as a present for the people of Ontario. Put a deadline on it; bring it to an end.

What happened in the past with a retail sales tax act is it was not always something that would go on for ever and ever. The tax that I am talking about in Alberta was introduced in 1936 and was abolished on August 4, 1937. The fact is this could have an end to it if the government decided it did. The retail sales tax is something that could be abolished.

Hon. Mr. Conway: Remember how it was abolished and why.

Mr. Cousens: That is right. It was a change of government. I am glad my honourable, good friend raises that. This government will have to campaign in the next election as one that raised taxes as soon as it took power, in spite of all the promises, which I went gone through earlier, where it had all the good things and there was no reference there of increasing the taxes. The fact is the people of Ontario are going to remember and I am going to remind them. I think that is true, too. I intend to remind them every chance I get. In fact, tonight I have my riding association’s annual meeting. I will be telling them again how this government has put its hand into our pockets and taken the money away.

In the past, the retail sales tax has been an emergency tax and the emergency here is that this government does not know how to control its spending habits. It does not know how to establish priorities. It keeps on adding more and more servants to the bureaucracy, but it is not able to do it within some sense of fiscal restraint, some sense of rationalization that says, “We are going to be fiscally responsible.”

1600

I am looking at Robinson’s comments in the retail sales tax in Canada. He points out how in British Columbia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland in the late 1940s they began to introduce the retail sales tax, but no longer was this thought of at that time as a tax of last resort. It was seen as an attractive tax and it was related more to the expanding horizons that could begin to help the province provide certain services.

Why is it that the one province that was able to resist for so long was Alberta? The fact of the matter is, now we are all into it and we all have to pay these taxes. It becomes a big dollar. Ontario is at eight per cent. If you look around the country, every province seems to be in it, but Manitoba is at six per cent. Why is that?

Mr. Ballinger: Where is Quebec?

Mr. Cousens: Quebec is at nine per cent. Saskatchewan is at five per cent. I guess what you really have to look at are the total revenues that come in as a percentage of revenue. Let me just share that one with the honourable minister. He probably does not have all of these figures at his disposal the way I do, because I have been researching this. He is just sitting back there, driving around in his limousine with the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) sitting beside him and telling him where to go.

The retail sales tax in Canada has been analysed by the different provinces and in 1985 -- this is the last year in which these figures have been accumulated -- we see that Ontario has collected more revenue from the retail sales tax, as a percentage, than any other province. Now, there is a statistic. In other words, this province is going out for the money more than any other province. The numbers are right there. I will send this over to the minister following my presentation.

Newfoundland comes closest to it, with 16.3 per cent of its total revenues coming from the retail sales tax. Prince Edward Island gets 11.7 per cent, but in 1985, Ontario -- that is the one I am talking about -- collected 16.5 per cent of its total revenue through the retail sales tax, and that is the highest of any province in Canada. We were the highest then, and by increasing the sales tax on May 2 to eight per cent, that makes us even higher.

I am saying it has gone out of control. I liked what Donald Creighton said when he talked about Canadian government assuming responsibility for no more than the three accepted and traditional functions of government. If only we could go back to the traditional forms of government. People are expecting government to do everything for them. It is high time people did more for themselves, and high time we helped them help themselves. Instead, there is this philosophy here: “We’re going to throw it out to them. We’re going to do more and more.” What we have to do is find a way in which we can have that balance, and this government does not have that balance.

When Donald Creighton was writing about Canadian government, he said that, really, what you want to do is have “the three accepted and traditional functions of government; namely, the administration of justice, the support of civil government and the provision of defence, plus expenditures intended to reduce consumer costs and increase labour productivity, which in Canada at the time meant transportation.”

If we saw the money going into transportation, into services and into schools in the way in which it should -- and I am going to come to that, because I have a section of my presentation in which I am going to be touching on the failure of this government to finance education in a sound and realistic way. The fact of the matter is this government is all over the map. It just goes and spreads a bit here and a bit there. Yet when it comes to the real important things, it has a marvellous way of closing one eye.

What we are talking about here is a system of taxation that is putting a burden on everyone. What we have to do is find ways of taking that burden off the people of Ontario. We are one of the most heavily taxed jurisdictions in the country. I do not know how we compare with the United States. I hear different figures, but I am given to believe that on a per capita basis we are taxed more. It is hard to work out an equation that says how we compare to Michigan, a neighbouring state, or New York, but the fact is we have to find ways of relieving the people who are making the economy go, who are concerned about going out in the morning and working during the day. We cannot just take so much out of their pockets by taxation that we discourage them from wanting to be free-enterprisers, that we remove that expectation and goal that when they are finished working they are going to have something left over for themselves.

Why doesn’t the government, if it is going to be responsible in coming forward with more taxes, do something to relieve the burden of property taxes on seniors? I am concerned about the way seniors are having to carry the load. They continue to carry the load in this province. They have given of themselves. They have worked. They have generated wealth. Now, when their pensions are not indexed and they are on a fixed income, they are continuing to pay education taxes. They are continuing to pay this tax. We continue to tax them on their properties.

I thought yesterday that one of the best questions I have heard asked in the House was asked by my friend the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague) when he was saying that the government just sent back the property tax credit to the people of Ontario -- a cheque for $50. Why did the government not increase that by 15 per cent because of the money it took from them with the Ontario retail sales tax?

There had to be some way in which you would have a quid pro quo. The government comes along with a great big public relations scam to say to the seniors, “Here is your $50,” which is a program that our government introduced back several years ago. But I am glad the government continued it. It cancelled so many of the other programs that we had, like the innovation centres, the enterprise centres, the computer-aided design/computer-aided manufacturing centres and businesses that were going to help build and grow -- the engine for Ontario. Yet this government comes along and continues to tax its seniors very, very highly.

Let’s do something to take the burden off the property holder. What about having some fair and proper grants for local governments and regional governments? I am looking forward to the day in which we come along in this House and see the announcement of the transfer payments. But the likelihood of those transfer payments keeping pace with inflation, keeping pace with growth, keeping pace with the needs of those people is such --

Mr. Faubert: Keeping pace with diminishment by the federal government.

Mr. Cousens: I will tell the member this much: this province is failing to do what it should be doing in the fast-growing areas. As one who comes from the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, there has to be a balancing act. A per capita comparison, when it is made, begins to prove that this province is not showing that kind of equity.

This government should also do other things. If we saw the gasoline tax that the government collects go back into roads and into services for commuters, then I think we would have one of the best road systems you would ever see. But where does it go? It goes into the coffers of this government, hidden for ever. It certainly does not come out in the form of asphalt and cement.

Mr. Haggerty: Highway 407 is not on the list.

Mr. Cousens: This government has to proceed with 407. At the rate it is doing it, it is going to be 25 years before we have that highway.

Mr. Haggerty: How about a toll on the superhighways?

Mr. Cousens: And who wonders? Would that be a way of working? Is that a recommendation the government is going to present? My honourable friend the member for Niagara South (Mr. Haggerty), may have the agenda of the government. I am now given a sight. The member for Niagara South has just said that maybe the government should have some kind of toll on the highways. If that is really the suggesting he is making, I would like to see that come forward. That will give us another debate in this House. I can guarantee it.

The fact is that we are not getting the services. The member for Niagara South, who has been here far longer than I have, knows that things are not getting any better.

I see the whole problem where we have taxes upon taxes. Who ends up carrying them? This tax, especially, is carried by low-income families. They are the ones who have to carry the weight. Rather than give them a break, what this government did was just come along and say: “We have a surprise for you. You elect us and we will do all the things we are saying we will do.” By the way, they are not doing too many of them. The other thing they will do is levy a tax.

Regarding the retail sales tax, I am quoting from The Retail Sales Tax in Canada, by A. J. Robinson. I would like to quote from him when talks about services. He says:

“The retail sales tax is essentially a tax on expenditures by consumers to satisfy household wants, and household wants may be satisfied by the purchase of services as well as by the purchase of tangible property.

“Consumers purchase not only an appliance, but also the services of installing it, maintaining it, repairing it and finally, disposing of it.”

1610

I guess the fact is that the government has us coming and going. It has us when we are paid, from our paycheques, and then it goes and takes some of that cheque we have worked hard for when we go and spend it on anything except food and certain clothes for children, and we are taxed.

I think that when people came to this country in the first place, they came with the expectation that there was going to be an opportunity to build a nation that would begin to offer new advantages and new opportunity. Instead of having that, all they have to do is turn around and realize that we have a government now that is more interested in adding to its coffers than it is in providing those services.

I have a few notes I would like to refer to from some of the people who have commented on this tax grab. Mary Gooderham of the Globe and Mail made a comment on November 30. She said: “None of the six pieces of legislation required to bring in the $1.3 billion in tax increases has been passed yet” -- I wonder why that is? – “even though the measures -- including a one percentage point increase in the provincial sales tax -- have been in effect since the spring budget.”

I have said it before, but I have to review: Was the government trying to hide it? Was the government just trying to sort of skate past it? Did the government hope that it would not have to come into the House and listen to the opposition on the consequences of this tax?

I am concerned, as Mary Gooderham also says, that: “The Tories complain that the extra money is being used to expand an already bloated civil service and to increase the size of ministerial office staff, and they have vowed to try to stall the legislation.” If we can stall the legislation, I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, we will.

“Roll back the taxes, Bob.” The Bob I am talking about is our Treasurer and Minister of Economics. This was Garth Turner in his days when he was not a federal member of Parliament and when he was able to see this far more objectively as a person sitting down there looking at what was going on.

He says there are now almost 90,000 provincial employees, which is an increase of about 7,000 people since the government came to power. There is where the money goes, or a good part of it. Not all of it, because large parts of it go to just the irresponsible spending, window-dressing and advertising. This Provincial Auditor’s report will tell us --

Mr. Ballinger: Ten years ago you had 90,000.

Mr. Cousens: Wrong, absolutely wrong.

Mr. Ballinger: Not wrong, not wrong at all.

Mr. Cousens: In fact, during the years from 1981 to 1985, I was present when I saw what the Conservative government of that time did to trim the civil service down by 4,000 employees. It was a tremendous effort of this government to control costs and control spending, and people were not let go. Yet this group has come along and added to the numbers of the civil service rolls and will continue to add to them, because that is its way of solving the problems.

A few people, before the sales tax came in, said, “You know, it might happen.” It was not something that people speculated about when we saw an election coming in the summer of 1987. No. At that point, all they could think about were the halcyon, good days of what a Liberal government would do for Ontario. They did not think about what a Liberal government would do to Ontarians by setting this tax and ripping them off.

Stephen Brunt of the Globe and Mail says, “A retail sales tax increase would have a direct effect on the consumer price index and could prove to be an inflationary flash-point.” I am sure he is right at that, because when you realize that so much is affected by the cost added to anything you are buying with the retail sales tax, that is in fact an inflationary effect.

This is something David Perry, the senior researcher at the Canadian Tax Foundation, commented on. He said, “It would indirectly influence wage and salary demands and increase business costs, thereby increasing the cost to consumers by more than the tax rise itself.”

Mr. Faubert: That was last May and it hasn’t happened.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, it does happen; it has happened. Mr. Speaker, do you see who is talking from someplace other than his own seat? I love to hear him, but I would rather hear him from down here, where I do not have to look at him. That is just the way the House is designed.

Mr. Smith: There are a few things we do agree with you on.

Mr. Cousens: I have a lot of support for the sarcastic comment I just made about my very good friend the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere. In spite of the fact that he is wrong in most of what he says, I am pleased that he is still very attendant. He attends the House, and I know he is a good assistant to the Minister of Revenue. I wish he would influence the Minister of Revenue to withdraw this bill and have some impact on the government to keep from increasing the taxes.

We had a tax increase like this in 1973, when it was increased from five per cent to seven per cent.

Interjections.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): The government members will be reminded that they get an opportunity to respond after the speaker has made his presentation.

Mr. Cousens: I think it is worth while going back to May 1973, when the increase was last made. I realize that was a Conservative government. It was not a happy day in the House, I am sure, for the Conservatives of the day to have to listen to the then critic for the Treasury, who happened to be the member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. R. F. Nixon). I would like to quote from some of the things he said back in the Legislature on May 1, 1973, when the Conservative government of the day had to increase the tax from five per cent to seven per cent. Let’s just see how relevant the remarks he made then are to what is going on here now. He said:

“When he set the May 1 deadline, it appeared that he was attempting to do what is very justifiable indeed: that is, to give the Legislature at least an opportunity to debate and vote against or perhaps even approve his tax measures before the people had to start digging into their pockets for that $4 million a day which is associated with the sales tax.”

How much does the Treasurer get a day now? That is my good friend the member for Brant-Haldimand talking at that time. He went on to say:

“The imposition of the tax was based on an argument that is very similar to the one put to us by this Treasurer -- that in the face of intransigence at the federal level it is necessary for him, much against his will, to impose these substantially unpopular taxes.”

In fact, this government has used the same old argument: “It’s because of the federal transfers. They’re not up to what they used to be, so we are therefore going to have to increase the revenues through a sales tax.” That is the same argument the member was using at the time. He said:

“I thought this sidelight to history showed that things have not changed too much over the progress of years. It doesn’t seem to matter whether there is a Conservative or a Liberal government in Ottawa -- the Treasurer of Ontario always has trouble getting along with them.”

I have seen that from the remarks that are made by my honourable friends in this House who are members of other parties and not of the Progressive Conservative Party. The member goes on to say on that day of May 1, 1973 -- the issue really was the sales tax issue -- then he says:

“We have heard the argument about regressivity and I look forward to hearing the Treasurer compensate for the criticisms that have been levelled at the tax because of its terribly regressive nature.... Not being an economist...”

Hey, isn’t that something? I would like to say to the ladies and gentlemen of Ontario and the honourable Speaker of the House that the man who is now the Treasurer of Ontario and Minister of Economics begins this paragraph by saying, “Not being an economist...”

1620

Mr. Faubert: That is why he is a good Treasurer.

Mr. Cousens: I tell you, we are in bad shape.

Anyway, that is the way he began. There he is. He is not an economist, and now he is the Minister of Economics for the province. That shows what we have done to ourselves. Who does not like the Treasurer? If you do not like the Treasurer -- what I like especially is what he said on that day, May 1, 1973. First of all, he says:

“Not being an economist, I would say it is the kind of cost-push inflation which simply means that the citizens of this province, whatever their income happens to be, are going to pay a minimum of two per cent more on their regular cost of living. This simply means that the inflationary pressures are going to be extreme.”

Obviously, the inflationary pressures with his one per cent are not as extreme as the two per cent, but they are extreme, because we are living in an age in which we have gone through inflation. We have seen the price of inflation, we know what it does to jobs, we know what it does to the economy. This tax that the government is bringing out now, this one per cent on the retail sales tax, is inflationary. It is a 15 per cent surcharge on everything we go to buy, an increase over what we had before. Increasing it from seven to eight per cent is a 15 per cent increase.

I would also like to read further from the member for Brant-Haldimand, who is presently the Minister of Economics and who said, “Not being an economist...” He says, “I sense that the inflationary pressures from this tax increase are going to be considerable.”

I wish he were here, because that is the message that our party is trying to pass on to the honourable minister and to the Minister of Revenue, who, with his parliamentary assistant and with a few other members around, is the representative of the Premier in the House at this time. Unfortunately, there are no other ministers here except for himself. The fact of the matter is that it is inflationary; it is adding to the cost of doing business in Ontario.

I would like to read further from some of the remarks that were made on that fateful day of May 1, 1973, when the present Minister of Economics was talking.

Mr. Faubert: He’s the Treasurer.

Mr. Cousens: He is that, along with the Minister of Revenue.

“I simply put it to the Treasurer that by his decision to make the sales tax, as I have said, the queen of the revenue producers, he has set loose a pressure on the economy of this province and this nation which is going to have ramifications much more far-reaching than apparently he understands or presently envisages.”

I wonder if he has ever read his own words. Mr. Speaker, would you do me a favour next time you talk to the Treasurer when you are in caucus -- because you go to caucus and the regular Speaker does not -- and ask him whether he has ever had a chance to go back and look at the words that he said back in the early 1970s and whether he still believes what he said then?

He goes on to say: “I would like to say something further. It is my contention and the contention of our party and others in the NPD” -- I do not know what that is; is that what they called the New Democratic Party in those days? – “put forward most notably by the member for York South, that the tax, in fact, is unnecessary.”

That is the point. If the Liberals ran a good government, if they went and trimmed some of the fat off the government, if they went and did not hire the number of servants that they now have to serve them and their cabinet members and the staff and the Premier’s office and did not waste the money that the auditor talked about, then they would not need to increase the taxes of the people of Ontario in this way or in any way. I go on to read from the member, who was the member for Brant in those days, again. He really went on and on. He is speaking here of the Treasurer. He says:

“Surely if the Treasurer had followed his political instincts, if not his personal instincts, and left things well enough alone; if he could, in fact, Mr. Speaker, have made some readjustment to show that a new hand was at the wheel, he would have found himself in the same position that certain reeves are now finding themselves in their own budgetary situation.”

There is no one who is responsible for a budget who does not know that you have to be able to say: “No, there isn’t any money to spend on that program. We’re going to have to be more careful and more prudent.” There is not a business person who did not learn that lesson in the recession of the early 1980s, and yet this government has forgotten that lesson. It has come along and said: “No, we can solve any problem we’ve got with money.” In order to get that money, they go back and increase the taxes of each one of us. Fortunately, he is a cabinet minister and making a lot more money, so he does not feel the pinch the way people who are living on marginal incomes or seniors or students who do not have that kind of money do.

I would like to read further from the same speech by the then critic for Treasury and Economics, who is now the minister for that portfolio. At that time, he was the Liberal sitting over in the general direction that I am. Now he is the Treasurer who is responsible for the budget. As he was talking about the then Treasurer, he said:

“He would have found that revenues from the present base, even though there had been some judicious adjustment without the large increases in tax, would have been sufficient to pay for the large share of the cost of our governmental programs, and that his deficit position would have been far less than that which the figures he gives us at the present time would indicate.”

That is what we are trying to tell the Treasurer. In fact, we would not have to be making this speech if in fact the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer and Minister of Economics, who says he is not an economist, would sit down and read some of the Treasurer’s old speeches. Anyway, I get thrilled by what Treasurer had to say about the way that budget was going.

I go on. He had a question on May 3, 1973, about the increase in the Ontario retail sales tax. He said:

“I have a question of the Treasurer, Mr. Speaker.

“Does he agree with the legal opinion expressed in the last two days that the $2 million that has come in to the consolidated revenue fund as a result of the two per cent increase in sales tax has been collected illegally, and that the residents of Ontario have no legal requirements to pay this additional two per cent?”

That probably pertains to the same problem I have. Since May 2, people in Ontario have been paying an extra one per cent.

I get a thrill out of my friend the member for Durham-York. He comes and goes, but I hope he will come back for more, because I would like to just have a few more comments. I know he cannot comment, because he is out of his chair.

One of the concerns that I have is, how legal has this tax been for the last six and half or seven months? Why did the government not bring forward legislation earlier so we could debate it? Why did it not sort of allow the due process? Instead: “Levy the tax. We know we’ve got the majority. We’ve got the 94 seats. We’ll jam that through the House and we’ll take the money one way or the other.”

The fact is that it is legal. He was asking the question and he should have known better in 1973 that the government has the power to come along and do what it wants when it wants, especially when it has such a huge majority.

He went on and he had another question, on May 4. He was really up and down out of his seat in those days, concerned about the retail sales tax increase. That was the member for Brant-Haldimand at his best. Mind you, he was 15 years younger than he is today. He had a question for the Honourable Mr. White. He said:

“I have a further question of the Treasurer. Since the House rose yesterday, has he had any further legal advice as to the status of the citizens of the province who would agree with the strongly held contention that the increase in the sales tax is so far not their responsibility to pay and may not be their responsibility to pay? What is their legal status if they continue to refuse to pay this tax?”

I would not counsel anyone not to pay a sales tax in this province. They have such a bureaucracy that goes out there. Even if a retailer fails to collect the tax on time, they come in with machine guns blasting and ready to knock him right off, saying, “Look, you’ve got to pay and you pay this quickly.” They have put people out of business in this province if they are just short of time and the moneys just are not flowing as quickly as the province wants them to.

There was the member for Brant-Haldimand pressing on the minister of the day, saying: “Well, come on now. Is it legal for you to come along and levy this tax without having it duly passed in the Legislature?” What we are seeing now is that instead of just having it a few weeks before it was passed in the Legislature, we are talking about months of delay from this government.

On May 8, the now honourable Treasurer was out of his chair again --

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: At least he wasn’t out of his mind.

1630

Mr. Cousens: I would never even think such a terrible thought of the minister. I think it is the lack of things in that part of him that concerns me, and the inconsistency. He is a man whom we all respect and admire, but we dislike the way he is increasing the taxes for the people of Ontario.

He and I would have that as a major bone of contention, and that is why we are going to be here debating this for a little longer. Maybe there is a chance that the honourable minister will go back to the Premier and to his government colleagues and say: “Look, I think we’ve finally seen the light. We are going to put an end to this regressive tax, this inflationary tax, and we are going to do something for the people of Ontario, not something to them,” which is what this tax does.

I want to read further from the comments made by the then Treasury critic who is now our Treasurer. He said: “By which government policy,” -- it is in the middle of a context – “I don’t know whether you want to deal with the three subsections separately -- but subsection (1) of section 2 is the iniquitous aspect of the bill before us, by which government policy would increase the sales tax from five per cent to seven per cent.” “Iniquitous,” is the word he used. I had not thought of that word, with my background. That is one that really starts to show that there is something sinful about it.

He goes on to say: “We...believe this to be an iniquitous tax, one that is not necessary in the present budgetary and fiscal stance of the province. It is a change in the tax of the province which is a serious fiscal error and, I would predict to you, Mr. Chairman, also is a political error.”

I have to tell the House I have never agreed with the Treasurer more than I have while reading some of his old speeches when he was critic of Treasury and Economics. Now that he is sitting over there he has forgotten everything that he said in the good old days when he was in opposition. The only thing is I hear that he is probably not going to be around for the next election. There are rumours that he might accept some appointment, go somewhere or go back to the farm. I am not just sure. I know that whenever he leaves we will miss him, but we will not miss the legacy he has left us with: the whole series of extra taxes that we are concerned about today.

Then he goes on to say, “It is not my intention to discuss the principle of the tax, of course -- and such would not be in order -- other than to tell you, sir, that we intend to vote against either the section or the subsection, whichever way you want to put it, and that we also intend to divide the House in this connection.”

For the people who are watching this on TV, “to divide the House” means that the bells are going to be ringing, then the members will come in and there is going to be a vote. You could almost take that as another kind of division, the division of the rich and the poor, the separation of the haves and the have-nots. In those days he was prepared to have a division, to make sure that everyone who really wanted to push through that bill would stand in his place and show his intention of fighting for it by being in the Legislature to do so.

I just gave you notice, Mr. Speaker: There will be a division in this House on this bill by our party, to make sure that those Liberals who are standing across from us, who think that it is just something easy and fun to do, go down on the record as having voted for this increase from seven to eight per cent.

But the Treasurer goes on. I just cannot believe that it is the same member I meet today in the Legislature, whom we smile at and who is so gregarious and so much fun, but he was angry.

Mr. Haggerty: I have never seen Bob Nixon angry.

Mr. Cousens: He starts using words like “iniquitous” and he says the government at the time is “politically unwise.” He really had so much to say on this that I do not know whether the House wants me to read in all of his remarks. I would just like to say that we could. I guess the best part of it was that when he closed off, he just really made it clear that he was going to vote against it.

“Before the Treasurer came into this House and while he was absent -- ” No, that is not totally relevant.

There was our friend the Treasurer back on May 8, 1973. On May 11, he had not changed his mind. He was still in there fighting for it. He begins by saying, “It has been improper and has been a tax imposed without legal effect by jurisdictions in Canada.” He goes on to criticize this government for the way in which it went and levied that tax.

I do not know what I can do to stop this government from taking this tax money away from the people of Ontario. I do not know what I can do to get the government to change its mind and its spending habit so it could reduce the deficit and do the kinds of things people voted it in for. In fact, what I see happening here is a government that says: “We really don’t care what the people of Ontario want. We’re going to do our own thing.” I guess that is the disadvantage for the people of Ontario in having such a huge majority. The government then has total freedom.

Kenneth Kidd in the Toronto Star made some comments. He said, “The hike in the Ontario sales tax will dampen consumer confidence and could hurt retail sales.” He took that quote from the Retail Council of Canada.

We are living in a consumer-driven economy. It was not that long ago that I had a meeting with the president of American Express, which is really one of the largest financial institutions in North America and the world. We were talking about the potential problems of some kind of recession or a dip in the economy in the future. He was concerned that the election of a new President of the United States might cause some change in confidence, but he felt there was enough consumer confidence that that would not become a major concern.

Consumer confidence is a very fragile thing. It is not something that even economists or sociologists or anyone can perfectly define. It has to do with the ability people have to use their money for present and future expenditures, yet to save enough for a future emergency.

I know we are a country in which many people spend far more than they earn and that their debt load is high, not unlike the Liberal government here which is continuing to carry a deficit and should not, especially when times are good. But consumer confidence is something so sensitive that we want to make sure we continue to instil in the consumers of this province that we are running a province that has an environment and a climate in which everybody can prosper; that if there are people who are not going to prosper, we as a responsible group of legislators are going to provide the services and the care and deliver the kind of money to them that allows them to maintain a reasonable standard of living.

Consumer confidence is something you can measure by the activity that goes on in retail institutions and retail outlets during this month of December coming up, because if people feel good about themselves, they feel good about the future and are inclined to buy a little more during the month of December for sharing gifts, food and other things. It is also a time of celebrating life in itself, and they will take the chance of trying to pay it off in the first quarter or the first half of the following year.

Consumer confidence is a delicate thing. Why then does this government play around with it as it has by increasing the retail sales tax, which comes along and just adds that much more of a burden on to every citizen of this province? It is an indiscriminate tax because it touches every consumer. It is not selective in that it just affects the rich. It touches the poor; it touches the seniors; it touches all people.

That becomes one of the concerns of the experts. Certainly when someone from the Retail Council of Canada would spend his time looking at the effect on the consumer and on the impact that any kind of retail sales tax would have, he would be concerned with this. He was concerned about it.

This is something else said by Gerald Doucet, who is special adviser to the Retail Council of Canada. He said: “I’m disturbed that it’s the first sales tax increase in 15 years.” I think that it is probably one of the hardest things for a government’s past, to say, “Look, we will not bring down an additional burden on the retail sales tax.” It is probably the easiest tax that the Treasurer has to bring in, because as I said earlier in my presentation, people forget that they are paying it after a while.

They have almost forgotten now that it was seven per cent before May 2 and that it is now eight per cent. They will just pay it. They know that there is nothing they can do about it. It is part of that weight of government on the shoulders of every one of us in Ontario. It is part of that load that we all have to carry, that exceedingly heavy weight of this massive, ever-growing government that continues to spend and throw money all over the place.

“In budget assumptions, the Ontario government is certainly banking on another strong year for retailers.” I think that assumption is valid. Certainly as I see the economy now, it continues to be buoyant and we continue to look forward to the future with optimism. But what happens when the future is not as optimistic as it is right now? What happens when there is a recession or a dip?

I would be pleased if the minister could give us some assurance that he will remove this tax in the future, if things change.

Mr. Haggerty: They used to have a tax on automobiles.

Mr. Cousens: That is a possibility. I think there could be ways in which the government could give tax holidays. That might be a way that you have people involved, rather than, as we see with the auditor, having many people in this province escaping the proper payment of taxes. I would think that has to be a major concern to all of us.

If the Treasurer is the tax collector for the province and the Provincial Auditor is challenging his ability to collect taxes that are due, that becomes another problem. The fact that his ministry is showing that it is not collecting all those taxes may be one of the reasons the Treasurer has to increase taxes, to make up for inefficiencies in other places. That is the bottom line that came out of the statement by the auditor today.

“Tax hikes called blow to the average guy.” I think that is really why I would like to take some time, so that this government will understand just exactly the impact of its tax on the average person in Canada, and especially here in Ontario.

Tom Delaney, the economic spokesman for the Consumers’ Association of Canada, says: “It is a regressive budget, and middle- and low-income earners are going to be crucified.” “Crucified” is a very strong word to describe what I would call economic strangulation. It is called economic suicide. This whole business of balancing the budget and controlling finances is probably one of the major causes of marital breakdown and one of the greatest problems to households. The fact that this government just adds to the problems of these households is a further proof of its lack of caring and lack of concern for the needs of real people.

Mr. Faubert: What else can the government do?

Mr. Cousens: Maybe the government should go back to its constituency offices and hear what people are really suffering. Maybe it is so busy running this huge superministry, adding more people to do more work, that it is not understanding that there are people out there who are having to work hard to pay the bill of this government. It is the average person who is especially hurt. Those who are making their millions and billions in Ontario do not begin to see the consequences of this kind of suffering.

This is another statement by the Treasurer: “He refused to exempt school boards from the retail sales tax.” Here you have groups within our province that are having to collect their money from the property tax owners, and then they have to come along and pay all the taxes as well. Really it is a double form of taxation. The school boards are spending taxes that they have got through property taxes of ratepayers, and then those very same school boards are taxed again by this level of government.

I like this title, and maybe members opposite can see it from all the way over here.

Mr. Faubert: What year was that?

Mr. Cousens: The member for Scarborough-Ellesmere is still not in his seat and is still talking out of place. It is a pleasure to see him, but I would rather not.

“We Have Been Nixed” is the title. That begins to describe what Mr. Nixon has done to the people of Ontario.

I could go on and on. There are many statements by people who have commented in a negative way about this sales tax. The fact of the matter is that they are all right.

I would like to comment on some of the things that come out of another statement in A. J. Robinson’s book, The Retail Sales Tax in Canada. He talks, first of all, about the impact the retail sales tax has on production and any excess burden on consumers. The problem we have is that people generally do not have time to consider the effect of taxes. We are used to paying them, but there is the ripple effect of that tax increase on production and consumer confidence. The point I wanted to touch on is the effect it could have on Ontario’s competitive position compared to other provinces and to the United States as we open up the free trade pact.

I think what we want to do is try to keep the cost of our services, the cost of our machinery, the cost of everything we are doing down as low as we can so that we will be even more competitive when we are dealing with our potential partners in trade and business south of the border. What the government is doing here is adding to the level of that taxation and therefore, increasing the cost and therefore, eventually moving us out of a competitive position that we are going to need and really want to have.

I could go on. If I could just take part of the second paragraph of chapter 5 on page 66 of A. J. Robinson’s book: “At the same time, in order to be effective, taxes must be enforceable, administratively feasible and subject to at least a grudging acceptance by those on whom they are imposed. In other words, tax burdens must accord with generally accepted notions of social justice.”

That really touches on what this tax is not. This tax is socially unjust. This tax does not even have the smallest modicum of acceptance, grudgingly or otherwise, from this side of the House, except for the rump that is over to my left.

“Failure to satisfy popular notions of social justice in a commodity tax system may not always result in a popular uprising to sweep away the taxes, as happened with the arbitrary and discriminatory system at the time of the French Revolution. But a commodity tax system could become unproductive and even unworkable if it were considered so unfair that evasion became widespread.”

I want to touch upon that aspect of evasion of taxes. How many people in this province now are trading and bartering services, one with another, without there being receipts, without there being a formalized transaction taking place so that the accountant can catch it? I do not know. But I am worried. I think that becomes a major --

Mr. Furlong: Should we hire more inspectors to look after it?

Mr. Cousens: Well, one of the reasons we have people trying to evade the tax system is that in order to save that eight per cent there and then the other cost, they can save money. We have to do something about turning people off. This kind of continued taxation is a harassment of the people of Ontario and has a way of telling them: “We, as a government, really don’t care. We are going to continue to take our share, like it or not.”

I would like to touch now on the failure of this government to deal with proper spending of these tax dollars in one particular area. To me, some of this spending that goes on, if it has to do with Highway 407, will be a tremendous boon to me.

If it has to do with doing something about the hospital in Markham -- and I have to tell the honourable member, I was in the cabinet when the hospital in Markham was approved and it was my pleasure to be able to persuade fellow members of cabinet that it was a worthwhile project because we were a fast-growing community. It serves the towns of Markham and Stouffville. The fact of the matter is the community raised $6 million towards this huge project and the government now in power has continued to support and maintain that whole startup project of the Markham Stouffville Hospital.

1650

I will stop and give a compliment because to me it would have been a real travesty if our community did not have that hospital. We wanted to get it. We, as a community, are one of the few communities in Ontario that has raised locally the kinds of moneys necessary for that. Over $6 million has been raised now by the community at large. There is no other community I know of that has succeeded in raising that kind of funding at the local level.

Mr. Miller: We’ve done it in Simcoe.

Mr. Cousens: Okay; that is an isolated example.

At the same time, we know there are beds being closed down in Centenary Hospital (Scarborough) and other hospitals across the province. We know it has happened in Cambridge Memorial Hospital. We know the difficulties these hospitals are having in balancing their budgets and then being forced to make up the deficits in the future.

Here is the balance we are talking about. I am able to support the spending of moneys in certain areas. I think that we, as citizens of Ontario, appreciate the fact that we are not going to have new areas, boom towns, open up unless we are going to provide those services.

The problem we have is that this government has picked up the land transfer taxes. It has picked up everybody else’s property taxes. It picks up all the retail sales tax we are talking about now. It picks up the gasoline tax, the alcohol tax and every other tax we have. But this government has not done anything about providing the infrastructure for the growth of these new communities.

We see that infrastructure around Metropolitan Toronto grinding to a halt. In fact, last week when I was at the standing committee on public accounts, we were talking to the president of the domed stadium. Charles Magwood, president of the Stadium Corp. of Ontario, was talking about the wonderful things that are going on there and the $30 million investment the province has made. I asked: “What are you doing about the parking and the traffic problems around there? Something like 15,000 to 20,000 people are going to come to the SkyDome using their cars. Not everybody is going to come by public transit, so how are you going to solve the problem?”

He was very kind and admitted it is a serious problem we are going to have around the domed stadium. There are 17,000 or so parking spots, but the one thing he agreed on by the time he was finished is there is no way to get to them. Here the province has built the domed stadium right in the heart of Toronto and there is no way of accessing it. It is going to be chaos. There is going to be massive chaos once that dome opens.

It is part of the infrastructure that has to go into a large world centre. It is no accident that Toronto is successful. Toronto is a beautiful city. But the government has to put the money out there where it counts. It has to build the roads where they are needed. It has to serve the people who are coming in and out of this important economic centre. They are coming in from all around Metropolitan Toronto. They are coming in from Durham, York and Peel. They come from within the city itself.

All they do is continue to increase the price on the Toronto Transit Commission. They continue to have a barrier around this city. There is no real concerted effort to build the road systems or the transit systems to get the people in and out of this metropolis. That could be done. That would be an investment the people of Ontario would appreciate, instead of adding more civil servants.

I will go further. Highway 407 begins to be an important part of that whole ring around Metro. Highway 401 is congested totally right now. When Highway 407 is built, which runs north of Highway 401, that will relieve some of the traffic from Highway 401. It becomes a new east-west corridor across the South York region. It will connect with the Scarborough expressway that will come north of the zoo. It will connect over with Highway 410 and some of those other highways.

We need it. There are ways they could spend money and I would give them applause. I just gave them a compliment for spending money on the Markham Stouffville Hospital. Put the money where it counts and if the Treasurer --

Mr. Ballinger: It is about time you gave us that one. It is $100 million.

Mr. Cousens: There are places where they have not put the money where it counts.

We are talking about the infrastructure that goes into making this whole centre of Ontario work. We are there to serve the rest of the province as well. I know I have a parochial sense when I talk about the needs around Metropolitan Toronto, but I have to say there is a sense of urgency.

I would like to touch upon one of the urgent needs I have had the good pleasure --

Mr. Ballinger: Two hours later and you are talking in circles.

Mr. Cousens: I really take exception, Mr. Speaker, that the member for Durham-York --

Mr. Mackenzie: He gets paid by volume. It’s okay; don’t worry. That’s why he’s paid so little.

Mr. Cousens: I have to bow to my very good friend the member for Hamilton East when he says the member for Durham-York gets paid by volume. That has to be absolutely correct and I thank him for that interjection.

I would like to just ask, why is this government not putting more money into education in fast-growing areas? I have a concern. They come along with the sales tax. If this sales tax were to go back into schools and portables -- I have schools in my area that are 100 per cent portables. I have a high school where half the students were until recently housed in portables.

Mr. Furlong: You should have been more forceful in your cabinet. You could have got a lot more.

Mr. Cousens: The honourable member has to realize that if this government is going to speak out of both sides of its mouth, it will keep on doing what it is doing right now. On the one hand it will say, “Hey, we need your taxes,” and on the other hand it does not flow those funds back into the communities that need them.

I have a letter here that comes from the --

Mr. Furlong: What was the capital allocation last year for your board?

Mr. Cousens: If I have the time, and I guess I have a few more moments, I would like to talk somewhat about the York Region Board of Education and the problems it has been having just to balance the budget. There is a trail of correspondence between the board and the Minister of Education (Mr. Ward).

I guess what they should be doing is copying to the Treasurer on this so that he begins to understand it, because what we are seeing is a shortfall in the funding of the education system. The government is raising the taxes and yet it is reducing the amount of allocations to school boards.

That is the point that comes out in a letter from the chairman of the York region board. Charles Cooper has had a series of letters in which he has tabled these concerns with the Minister of Education. The member for York Centre (Mr. Sorbara) has also had copies. What happens is that the only losers are the people of York region. The change in the funding formula this government brought about this past year has resulted in a shortfall.

I would like to read from this letter, just to put it into the record:

“The important thing for the York Region Board of Education is that, based on the 1987 grant formula, we expected an increase of $13 million in our operating grants but only received $4 million.” There is a $9-million shortfall. “The difference,” as he says, “is the $9-million shortfall alluded to in my letter.” He goes back to the shortfall, “As you can see from our exchange of correspondence, the ministry acknowledges a $2-million difference arising from the equalization factor assessment, but denies that we have been disadvantaged in any way.”

The people who have been disadvantaged are all the taxpayers of York region, because once they have elected people to public office, those people are not allowed to create and build a deficit. They are the kind of people who would not want to operate with a deficit, so what they end up having to do is pay it out of the taxpayers’ pockets this year.

I would like to touch on some of the problems the government is creating, because what we are talking about is bad government, a government that says: “Okay, York region is a growing new area, but we are not going to give you any benefit for that. In fact, we are going to penalize you harshly.”

Here are some of the points that come out. The York Region Board of Education this year suffers a $9-million shortfall just because of other policies that affect the one board, and it affects it in a way I would like to touch on.

1700

“In 1988, this board will purchase and equip $5.5 million in portables and will receive approximately $1 million in grants.” There you have it: $5.5 million in portables and you get $1 million in grants. The remainder of that comes from the seniors and the people who have property investments.

“In 1988, we will spend $200,000 net to relocate portables to accommodate enrolment shifts as new schools are opened.” No consideration by the province; another $200,000 from that board.

“In 1988, debenture payments increased by $1,100,000 or 27.81 per cent over 1987,” another cost picked up by the local ratepayers and not picked up by the government.

“In 1988, short-term borrowing costs for capital purposes increased by $300,000 or 63.82 per cent,” another bill not picked up by this government which was picked up previously.

“Additional net transportation costs are incurred because of transportation required to holding schools,” another $300,000 the local ratepayer picks up that the government does not pick up.

Mr. Faubert: What is the date of that letter you are reading?

Mr. Cousens: It is very current. I thank the honourable member who is speaking out of place again. The letter is November 3, 1988. I am not talking about history that is anything more than current history. Local taxpayers are paying over 60 per cent of their local taxes on education costs when this government made a commitment to reduce that ratio and allow the government to pick up more of those costs rather than the local ratepayers, and that is a crime.

That makes us mad. There is no reason for that. That is why they are going to sit and listen to more of this stuff about what they are doing wrong. The people of Ontario are the ones who are suffering. Here the government is raising taxes, but it is not doing anything to keep them balanced. The people who have property are the ones who are paying the brunt of it.

Mr. Callahan: You are losing your cool, Don.

Mr. Cousens: These interruptions really are upsetting, Mr. Speaker.

Another issue where this government is throwing the responsibility on the local ratepayer and not carrying its costs has to do with the administrative costs. Every time you start having the growth that goes on in a growing school board in a growing situation, it takes more administration, yet this government does nothing to help them with that.

The startup costs of new schools: Many people do not realize the kind of growth that is going on in and around Metropolitan Toronto. It is not just York region. The problems I am talking about are true in Ottawa, they are true in Waterloo, they are true in Durham and they are true in Peel. Our York region public board is presently building and has under construction 11 schools. That is an awful lot of schools. The costs of providing new textbooks for students arriving during the year --

Mr. Ballinger: You were talking about schools.

Mr. Cousens: Hey, this is all part of the cost. You have formulas under which the board has to operate and if we end up having students come into the school system after that deadline of September 30, then the local ratepayers pick it up, not the government.

If it went and sent some of the taxes it is collecting back into the communities where it counts, then we would be in a position to say, “Well, you’re spending some of it wisely.” Then they would have a proper, fair tax distribution system. As it is right now, the local taxpayer is paying on his property over 60 per cent for his local school board and local services, and this government promised it would reduce that to 40 per cent.

That is what I am talking about. I am talking about irresponsibility on the part of this government for not standing up and being honest and having the integrity to live up to the promise it gave several years ago when it said, “When we’re in government, we’re going to change that around.” It has not, and this local school board is suffering because of it, and so is every taxpayer in York region and every taxpayer across the province.

The costs of an opening inventory in new schools scheduled to open in 1988: The board goes through it and explains the costs it has to throw on the burden on the backs of the local taxpayers who are paying their property tax. Here the government is adding another $1.5 billion and it does not give a cent towards the textbooks. They are going to spend $119,000 on textbooks which is not covered by the ministry. Another $377,000 --

Mr. Faubert: Is that $119,000 on textbooks?

Mr. Cousens: Yes. I will send this to you so you can read it with both eyes with your mouth shut so you will have a chance to understand what it is really saying.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: They are talking about an additional $50,000 for caretaking supplies that are not provided. Again, the local ratepayers have to pay through their local taxes something this government is not covering. We are talking about furniture and equipment in excess of approvals. The approvals are so rigid that this board, the York region public board, must spend an extra $335,000 this year on excess equipment and an extra $103,000 on caretaking, for which they are receiving no assistance from the government, again adding to the burden of the local property owner.

Mr. Faubert: Who is responsible for the school boards?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere.

Mr. Cousens: I will go on. The cost of running the system is being borne wrongly by the local ratepayers who own property and not by the government.

An hon. member: Give ‘em hell, Don.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to, but they do not even listen. How can they listen when their mouths are working?

Mr. Ballinger: Don’t bother Don so he will get his speech over with.

Mr. Cousens: I am just getting warmed up. I really feel it is time we laid it on the table. It is a good thing Hansard writes it down, because it did on the member for Brant-Haldimand back in 1973 when he said all the things about the iniquitous bill, and there it is to read now. I can read some more into the record if members would like.

In the meantime, let me deal with the York region public board. Here we have, as I have just described, 11 schools under construction. The burden of the costs of these schools on the local ratepayers amounts to an incredible amount of money that is not picked up --

Mr. Faubert: Who is paying for it.

Mr. Cousens: The interjections from this member, who is not sitting in his own seat -- that can be for another day, some of the comments he is making there.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Cousens: I would like to touch on it because people say, “Well, a school is just going to happen.” I am very fortunate that within our local area, both in the York region public school system and the York region separate school board, we have a very close and good working relationship and work well with the town councils and with the regional council in trying to make our case to government.

Probably the one case we have not succeeded in making is the absolute unfairness of the government pushing so much of the costs of education on to the local property owners rather than assuming a larger percentage itself. Inasmuch as that was a commitment made by them when they were in opposition, I question their integrity for not doing it sooner so we can reverse the ratio, so the local ratepayers are somehow protected and somehow have that promise fulfilled that they elected them on.

Just in an ordinary new school -- I said how many we have going -- the extra cost on each new school, because you have to bring the principal on eight months ahead of time, is $50,000 per school. A secretary comes in for two months ahead of time; that is $3,000 per school. You need your caretakers in there in advance, the head caretaker for a few months and the other three people for another two months, and that becomes $12,000.

There you are with each new school, over and above anything the province allocates. For an elementary school, you end up having $69,500. That is times 11; it builds. This is not something they are paying out of this inordinate tax, the retail sales tax -- it goes back to the local property owners. When you build a high school, you are talking about significant extra costs because the principals are more expensive and the staff is more, and we have a couple of high schools under way right now in York region.

These are costs that should be covered by their regressive increase in taxes, but instead it is going into things we do not know, into the big pot, into the additional staff they are hiring and into some of the programs they think are so good.

Our board has to spend money based on decisions made not by itself but by the province. All the costs I am talking about are costs that should be shared and covered by the province, but instead have to be covered totally by the York Region public school board. There is the requirement through Bill 82 to provide in 1988 facilities for the handicapped. Our board has to cover the $238,000 cost of that. Why did the province not help with that? Why did it not get involved in that? Instead, it is so easy to say, “We are going to do something,” and not give the money to help make it happen.

This board, the York region public board, lost a grant because of a change in formula for calculating eligible sums for French as a second language. This board lost $310,000 because of that small, little calculation. I would like to see how much French-language services are costing in the province. I asked the honourable minister during estimates. I would just like to see. To me, the fact is that they are moving so rapidly to make this province something different from what people thought it would be --

1710

Mr. Pouliot: What’s that? Have the courage of your convictions. What are you talking about?

Mr. Cousens: I do not want to see Ontario made officially bilingual.

Mr. Pouliot: I have heard that tone for 400 years. Call it what it is, buddy.

The Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cousens: The next point I want to make is on the kind of dollars the board spends on textbooks. The total cost of that is about $470,000 for Ontario academic course textbooks. The fact that they are not given the grants for it means that the local board has to spend that.

Textbooks for Ontario Schools, Intermediate and Senior Divisions: The board is responding to the province’s demand to come in with OSIS, another $200,000 the local ratepayers have to spend.

The net costs for instructional computers: The board is below budget on what it has to spend by $500,000. Again, no money from the province. It is spent totally at the cost of the local taxpayers.

These are factors affecting the cost of education, and this government is not fulfilling its share. More and more budget requirements are needed each year for which no grant assistance is received from the province of Ontario to implement initiatives of provincial ministries and departments other than the Ministry of Education. Those include the day care centres. This has an impact on growing boards, and that is not picked up by the province necessarily, not all the costs. The local board picks it up.

The closing of centres for the developmentally handicapped: Many students are not being accepted back into their homes in other regions. Therefore, our board is providing alternative facilities. Section 16 facilities: The York region is an attractive area for Metropolitan children’s aids societies to place emotionally disturbed children. Therefore, this board is picking up those costs.

The Ministry of Health has identified projects requiring funds. At the Ministry of Labour, the board has to respond to WHMIS, the new workplace hazardous materials information system. Again, that costs money.

The Attorney General (Mr. Scott) has come out with new regulations on pay equity and for fire marshal requirements. The Ministry of the Environment has come out with new regulations on polychlorinated biphenyl oil leaks and contaminated soil. We do not even begin to have enough money in the budget for the York region public board to cover those things.

The point I am trying to make is that if this government is going to collect money, then it should be responsible in the way it spends that money. That money should somehow live up to the kind of commitments they made when they took office. The first thing they said was that they would change the ratio of the amount of money that a local property holder would spend on education taxes. The fact is that they have done nothing but make it worse, because the property owner is now paying more toward education and the province is paying less. It has increased to the horrible level in York region of about 73 per cent paid for by the local property holder when it should be about 40 per cent. That is a difference that should be challenged.

In raising that today I am putting it on the record. The facts and figures I have are ones that have been tabled with the Minister of Education, and I now have them in the record so that the Minister of Revenue and other responsible people in this government can have a chance to try to do something about it. If they do not, I will continue to call them irresponsible, and I think that is the bottom line.

What we see here is a tax increase that is, as my good friend the Treasurer said back in the 1970s when he talked about it then, improper, and it is still improper. He called it iniquitous. It is still iniquitous.

The moment that the government members come along and come to their senses, they will realize the people of Ontario do not want to spend their money on the things the government is spending it on. The government should put it into the things that are going to count. They should start running the shop as if they really are responsible rather than just drunken sailors throwing it all over the place. They should invest money in the future, reduce the deficit and get on with running this place in a fiscally responsible way. They are not doing it. They have not begun to do it. I do not think there is much hope they will do it.

The Deputy Speaker: Questions and comments. Le deputé de lac Nipigon? Someone?

Mr. Pouliot: It is not my intention to spend too much time on the renowned tax grab by the Treasurer, which was indeed ill-timed and, just as important, zapped a full one per cent away from consumers, mostly the middle class.

I want to talk briefly about the timing, because it does relate to what is systematic and deliberate and represents what is the worst in political endeavour and in this government.

If we can go back to 1982, when the third party --

Interjections.

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Pouliot: It is not easy being interrupted and to interrupt, Mr. Speaker, and I do not envy your job as the caterer to what is becoming more and more a day care centre as opposed to a House where honourable members have a chance to voice the legitimate grievances of their constituents.

If we go back to the year of our Lord 1982, when members of the third party increased the sales tax in Ontario from seven per cent to eight per cent, we can readily acquiesce that those times were not good times economically, that it was the eve of an economic recovery, but if we go back again to 1982, the government needed the revenues. But that is not the case with the budget of April 1988.

The facts will show that it was immediately after the election of September 10, 1987, and that during the course of the campaign leading to the September 10 majority government with the Liberals, not one word was said about the possibility of increasing the sales tax. We were reminded that the times were indeed good times, that revenues were up and there was no need to hit the public purse.

It was shortly thereafter, in the first year of a majority government, that cynicism struck. It was that member who is the culprit, who literally, at a time when revenues were up by a full $3 billion, saw fit to generate an additional $1 billion from the taxpayers, the average consumers in Ontario.

We know the kind of style, method and approach that characterize the Treasurer: in the fourth year of the same majority government, regardless of the revenue base, the likelihood of the sales tax’s being dropped by one per cent was indeed a reality, or would become a reality. It borders on cynicism. The reasoning, the rationale behind the intent and the spirit of the Treasurer was that we needed the revenue to enhance services, to provide more essential services in northern Ontario, for instance.

The tax grab is real. There is one per cent less in the economy; we are one per cent closer to climbing the proverbial wall, because the middle class is taxed to death. The poor people are not getting the benefits and the rich are getting away with concentration and not paying their share. In lieu of a transfer of payments, we got a promise of $30 million, which was to be the heritage fund.

1720

We are not talking about the partnership for the domed stadium where, when times are bad, the taxpayer is left holding the bag, but when times are good for “consortiums,” then you forget about partnership and you revert the profits to shareholders.

You are now paying eight per cent in northern Ontario for almost any services, goods or commodities that you need to live. It means more because our families are somewhat larger. We do not earn the same money, on average, as people in southern Ontario. We do not have the same family income. We do not have job opportunities for spouses that are as lucrative or as numerous as they are in southern Ontario. We travel greater distances. We need more fuel oil. It costs us more for about every item at the marketplace. So the consequence of that one per cent additional sales tax is a lot harder.

What makes it more cynical is that we have the hand that gives an additional one per cent, and yet we do not receive services that other people take for granted. The reality is of having what are really two Ontarios: one for the most fortunate and one where the degree of unemployment is the lowest in the land -- one, on the other hand, where in some northern communities you still have 30 and, at times during the winter months, 35 to 38 per cent unemployment, to say nothing of the northern reserves, where unemployment is the order of the day, where 80 to 85 per cent of a potential workforce does not have jobs.

Yet they too, like all Ontarians, have to make a supplementary contribution when, again, there was absolutely no need, except that the Treasurer could not resist the temptation: the temptation to sin -- deliberately, systematically, with vengeance; an attack, picking the pockets of the people of Ontario on their other endeavours -- because we know that what is being done is morally wrong and should never be allowed to take place.

People would be arrested for soliciting. It is as simple as that. Read the new statutes. We were lured.

This is the kind of confrontation, when you are picking people’s pockets, that will take a generation or, in the government’s case, a political term, to heal.

I have searched long and hard. I, for one, am not a very partisan politician. I am here to represent the people of the riding of Lake Nipigon, and they have given me a mandate to look issue by issue, regardless of political affiliation, and I have tried to adhere religiously to that philosophy: that you will look at every bill that is being presented and give your support or not, depending on the substance of the bill. And yes, I have searched long and hard for qualities, searched for the need associated with this tax grab, and truly, I was unable to find any.

The Treasurer of Ontario had a perhaps unique opportunity, by virtue and reason of a supplementary $3 billion coming in, to give, yes, a supplemental exposure to benefits for the people of the north. The tragedy is that the opportunity passed and the Treasurer missed it. That is really the sad part of it.

I have just received a note by way of a page, “Right on, Gilles.” The respect I have for members of this House does not allow me to divulge the name of the sender, but I want to thank my distinguished colleague for his support. I know that when I stand to talk about the legitimate grievances, the needs of the people of the north, I do not indeed stand alone. This will attest to that.

The note is right. It was a callous move, nothing short of that. The words are not too strong, and I choose them very, very carefully. The note also mentions that the Treasurer indeed will be judged very harshly. Seldom in Ontario, when it comes to tax reforms or tax measures, has the uproar of opposition been so unanimous. That opposition was spontaneous. It was not solicited by people from the third party, by newspapers or by television ads. People spontaneously, the men and women who have been subjected to this injustice, stood up like soldiers at their posts and said: “Nixon, my man, you’ve gone too far. Enough is enough. We aren’t going to take it any more.”

I am truly disappointed. It was a sad day for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. In conclusion, more important is the missed opportunity, the moments you never get back. I am very disappointed indeed. But the opportunity will be there one more time, and I hope the Treasurer will listen to the voices of wisdom, to the voice of reason, and finally address what is right and what should have been done in the first place.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to rise for a brief couple of moments and to associate myself with the remarks that have been put forward by the member for Lake Nipigon (Mr. Pouliot). I want to say that the member indicated that when he speaks on behalf of his constituents and when he speaks on behalf of northern Ontario and that region of the province -- admittedly a less fortunate region than southern Ontario, the area of the province where the Premier and the Treasurer and those people who make these despicable decisions come from -- he does not speak alone.

Indeed, I tell members that he does not speak alone, that I am pleased to stand in my place in this Legislature, as I am pleased to do it outside the Legislature with the member for Lake Nipigon, in his riding, in my riding, in regions of northern Ontario and particularly in the other regions of this province as well, areas less fortunate than the big, rich metropolitan areas. I am pleased to do that and to stand with him and to associate myself with the remarks that he makes.

I also want to say that I have found, over the period of time that I have known the member -- he followed in the footsteps of a very capable member for Lake Nipigon, a former Speaker of this chamber; somebody I was pleased to associate myself with as well -- that he has filled big shoes. I want to say to the member that I believe he has, over the period of years, filled those shoes. That is a great compliment.

I say to members that when he speaks on behalf of his constituents he speaks from the heart, and those who mock him in silly mockery from across the floor or in the rump to my left do so at great peril.

The Deputy Speaker: Time is up. Thank you.

1730

Mr. Kormos: I am pleased to be able to discuss this particular bill because it is a sad bill. Why I say that is because what it has done is forced government members to compromise their intellectual integrity because it remains --

Mr. Faubert: It is all your campaign.

Mr. Kormos: The campaign is not over until the next general election.

It remains that every Liberal in this Legislature knows that this is a regressive form of taxation.

The Liberals knew that in the 1970s when they criticized the Tory government’s -- because, after all, retail sales tax, we should not forget, is a creature and a creation of the Tories -- retail sales tax system. They recognized it was unfair because it was regressive. They recognized it was unfair because it taxed the wrong people in our society and province.

As I say, just as the Tories today speak in those sorts of terms and, indeed, quote the Liberal critic of the day to attack the Liberals’ legislation now, the Liberals who are advocating this legislation know now, as they did in the 1970s, that the legislation is unfair, regressive and improper.

That is why I say the legislation is sad because it makes those people who advocate it compromise their intellectual integrity, interestingly in much the same way as some other bills before this Legislature have done the same thing. Sunday shopping and the amendments to the Retail Business Holidays Act have done much the same thing: have forced Liberal members of this House to compromise their intellectual integrity. Indeed, because --

Hon. Mrs. Smith: No, they read the bill so they do not have to compromise their integrity.

Mr. Kormos: There are some who may not have it, but I am saying those who had integrity are being forced to compromise it by being forced to defend what they know is very unpopular legislation in the province.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Have you read it?

Mr. Kormos: I have read it and re-read it and re-read it. I have also listened to the workers of this province, to the senior citizens, to the retail workers, both organized and unorganized, and to people in the trade union movement and trade unionists.

I have listened to the clergy, priests, ministers and rabbis who recognize that a common pause day is a valuable thing in our society and who recognize that preserving Sunday as a common pause day is something that is historically significant, and who would urge not only us, who are strong opponents of that legislation, to continue to oppose it, but who also would urge those people who, as I say, have been forced into a scenario where they have compromised their integrity.

There is really only one of two choices. The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) made the point well, because either there was no integrity to begin with -- in which case, I would not dare suggest that it has been compromised -- or there was a position of integrity.

The real proof of the matter is in the quotes read earlier this afternoon of the member for Brant-Haldimand, then in a critic position, wherein he made some very clear comments about the type of retail sales tax we are talking about today, where he talked about it being iniquitous and improper.

The fact is that it is the same retail sales tax system he was talking about back in the 1970s that is being introduced by the Liberals today. I dare say that they would find their position indefensible and they certainly have no response to the quotes that were read to them.

One of the other interesting things is that one wonders why this type of taxation would be introduced at this particular point in time. One recognizes that it is spoken of in terms of being a one per cent increase. We all know that is grossly improper. It is not a one per cent increase; it is a 14 per cent increase -- indeed, 14 per cent and change. It is a significant increase in taxation.

There were some mumblings and comments that were spoken of when the retail sales tax was increased from five per cent to seven per cent -- they were substantially greater even than for the 14 per cent -- but once again it was spoken of in terms of two percentage points, just as this is being spoken of in terms of one percentage point.

It taxes the wrong people in the community. It taxes the people who can least afford to pay taxes. It is not just an insult; it is an attack on people who work for a living in our communities, and in communities like the one I come from in the Welland-Thorold area, they certainly did not get 14 per cent increases in their wages last year. I can tell the House that with certainty.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: Did they get one per cent?

Mr. Kormos: That argument is not even sophistry. That argument does not even qualify to be described as sophistry.

They did not get 14 per cent increases in their wages. I really think there are some people who may have swallowed their own bait. Maybe it is warranted, because I suspect there are some people who still want to call it a one per cent increase in retail sales tax. We know it is a 14 per cent increase.

The calculation is as follows. The new retail sales tax is eight per cent, the old one was seven per cent and the calculation is like this: You take one over seven and you multiply it by 100. So you divide 100 by seven and you end up with 14 and change. That is how you determine the percentage of increase that it is: 14 and change.

The Liberals know it is not fair to workers in the community. The government members know it is not fair to people on fixed incomes who, once again, did not get 14 per cent increases from this government in their living allowances. Yet there is an effort to perpetrate a fraud that it is but one per cent.

As I say, the saddest thing about it is both its regressiveness and the fact that it has forced Liberal members into a position where they have compromised their integrity. I suggest that indeed they have.

Mr. Harris: I am pleased to rise. I wanted to comment briefly on the remarks of the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Kormos). He has asked a couple of questions since I have been in the House. He may have given other speeches and debates, but I have not had the pleasure or the opportunity to be here when he has entered into the debate.

I will not be quite as glowing as I was for the member for Lake Nipigon. It took me three years to get to know the member for Lake Nipigon. Perhaps three years from now I will be in a position to comment at great length on the member for Welland-Thorold, but I do want to comment on a couple of things that he said.

First of all, the 14 per cent. I think that is important for people to understand. I understand from the interjections by the Solicitor General that she had difficulty understanding that. That does not surprise me. None the less, I want to say that a 14 per cent increase is indeed what was perpetrated.

I acknowledge that taxes have to be levied and taxes have to be collected, but this particular tax has been described by members of all three parties as an admittedly regressive tax. So to go 14 per cent on this particular one is indeed most unfortunate.

1740

I also want to comment because the member for Welland-Thorold indicated one of the reasons he is in this Legislature -- and I am sure there are others, as I believe is the case with the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham), but I believe one of the key reasons they are in this Legislature is this budget. It is because of this particular tax increase. The only measures we have had since the budget have been two by-elections and indeed, fortunately, we do not have any more on the other side of the House, so we have seen what has happened.

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Harris: I want to say that I think --

The Acting Speaker: The member’s time has expired.

Mr. Harris: Oh, has it? That is most unfortunate, because I was just getting started.

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I would like to explain that we can all take per cents of per cents and it always makes very interesting conversation. If you work out what per cent of your children are this and that, it makes wonderful conversation, but the fact is, a tax that is eight per cent on a dollar is eight cents on a dollar, so a dollar costs you $1.08. It used to be the dollar cost you $1.07. It has gone up one per cent. That way, $1.07 now costs you $1.08. So it is one one hundred and seventh of one one hundred and eighth now, compared to what it used to be, because your tax is an increase on a dollar; it does not stand by itself.

Mr. D. S. Cooke: I can now see why the Premier put the member for London South (Mrs. Smith) in the job that she is in, and certainly not Revenue or Finance or anything to do with that.

It is so interesting to listen to the Liberal members on this particular bill and on sales tax, because I was here -- in fact I was our party’s Finance critic -- when the former government raised sales tax or expanded the coverage of sales tax, and my God, did those guys take a different position then. There was no argument about whether it was a 14 per cent increase.

How can anybody in this Legislature not agree with the member for Welland-Thorold when he says it is 14 per cent? When you raise income tax and you raise it one point, you do not come back and say, “Well, it is only this percentage of their income or this percentage.” You figure it out. If it is an increase of one point and there are 50 points, that is a two per cent increase in the income tax. Of course it is a two per cent increase in the income tax.

It is obviously very advantageous for their party to say, “We have only raised sales tax one per cent,” but they have raised it one seventh of what the base was, and that is a 14 per cent increase.

They should not try to mislead the people of this province. They should tell them the truth. They should tell them the truth about what they are trying to do with their conspiracy with the federal government and trying to have a national sales tax as well and how, during the whole federal election, the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue were rubbing their hands because they saw the money that would pour in at the provincial level as well.

The fact of the matter is that when the Liberal Party was the official opposition, it took one position on these types of regressive taxes and spoke like New Democrats. It is another example of speaking like New Democrats when they are opposition and acting like Tories when they are government. We see it on this bill again.

Mr. Morin-Strom: I would like to compliment our new member for Welland-Thorold for an excellent address on behalf of his residents and all the people of Ontario, and I would like to comment just briefly about the government’s contention in terms of the percentage increase that this reflects in our sales tax going from seven per cent on consumer items to eight per cent.

In fact, the increase is not one per cent, as one of the ministers has just claimed, and if this is a reflection of the economic intelligence of this Liberal government, it is really an indication of why this government is in such serious trouble and does not know where it is going in terms of taxation for the province.

In fact, if one looks at the amount of the increase in revenue that this government is going to take in terms of its sales tax take, we will see an increase of more than 14 per cent, assuming that the level of the economy and the level of purchases in the economy are the same from one year to another.

When my colleague tells us that it is a more than 14 per cent increase, he is being generous to the government because we know that the economy of the province is expanding. The number of purchases going on in the economy, based on the amount of inflation and the growth of the gross national product, would imply that the number of sales at the consumer level that are going to go on are going to go up by at least five per cent this year over last year. The take is going to be a five per cent increase on the sales tax because it goes up with the increase of the economy, plus another 14 percent, so it is a total increase compounding about a 20 per cent take from the people of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker: Thank you. That concludes the time allotted for comments and questions. The member for Welland-Thorold has indicated that he does not wish to reply. Are there any other speakers who wish to participate in this debate?

Mr. Mackenzie: I am pleased to rise to indicate my opposition to this bill. I cannot resist. I do not claim to be one of the intellectuals or brains in our party at all, just a very ordinary guy, but I cannot understand how this government and some of the ministers can tell us that an increase from seven cents to eight cents is not a one seventh or a 14 per cent increase. It does not make sense. It is an increase of more than 14 per cent in the sales tax applied.

I think my colleague the member for Sault Ste. Marie said it very well when he also tied in the additional revenue. That one cent that the minister likes to talk about, that increase of more than 14 per cent in the sales tax brings in almost $1 billion: $900 million and some additional to Ontario. Let me tell members, we are not dealing with peanuts here and we are certainly dealing with a major percentage increase in taxes.

I think there are a few things that should be said. I guess the level of service seems to have lowered with the many changes in the last two elections, but I have had a little better than 13 years here. I have sat in this House and on occasion will admit -- and I do not often admit this, being a fairly partisan kind of a guy -- that I enjoyed the speeches of the current Treasurer when he was railing in full blast.

I noticed that some of the members dug up some of his quotes today, and when he was railing in full blast against the Tory government and the finance ministers of the day and the budgets they brought in, he talked about and he did use the words “iniquitous and unfair and unjust” increases in the sales tax, and I sat here and listened and enjoyed it. Members can all go back and read it in Hansard.

So I do find it a little bit hypocritical that the first major tax increase, which is going to affect lower- and fixed-income people more than it will the high-income people, is a sales tax increase. We knew it was coming. We have in this House the standing committee on finance and economic affairs, and some members -- I am not sure if there are any in the chamber right now -- who sit on that committee were invited a little better than a year ago to a meeting in the Treasurer’s office across the way here.

One of the things that we discussed was whether or not we would really have any input into tax fairness or fairer taxes in Ontario and what kind of taxes might be forthcoming. It was really enjoyable sitting down and eating the nice little sandwiches we had -- on the Treasurer’s budget, I guess -- over the lunch hour and having a chat with the Treasurer and some of his officials in his office.

Then he got into, “Well, we want fair taxes,” because our committee had been discussing fair taxes and whether or not we could find a fairer system in Ontario. We got into the issue of fairer taxes, and what did the Treasurer say to us? “Well, that’s one of the things, but you have to admit” -- l forget his exact words – “that you are certainly tempted when you look at that kind of revenue. Do you realize the kind of revenue that there is in sales tax?”

So help me Hannah, you could see the dollar signs go around in his eyes and hear the click, click, click just like a slot machine. I came back to my caucus right after that luncheon and I think I told a couple of reporters when they asked me what might be coming in the way of a budget: “I’ll tell you right now that what we are going to see in Ontario is a major increase in the sales taxes.”

1750

It is the very argument that this Treasurer has used. I have sat in this House and listened to it being described as unfair to ordinary people in the province, as being regressive and unjust. I think “iniquitous” was one of his words in the various times he has gone after the Tory government for originally bringing in this tax, and what do we get? The biggest single jump, one per cent; additional items across the board, $900 million. It is not a fair tax and everyone knows it is not a fair tax.

So forgive me, my colleagues in this House, if I am more than a little bit cynical. It is obviously a case of, “Hey, I say one thing but I do another.” Unfortunately, we are seeing that in all too many areas and the people should realize where we are seeing it and who we are seeing it from. In this case, the unfair tax which is hitting the people right across this province came from the Peterson Liberal government and it came from the Treasurer, who himself has argued for many years against just such a tax. The people of Ontario should clearly understand who is doing it to them.

I think there are a few other things which should be said. We do not have a fair tax system. We have an increasing amount of our tax revenue coming from individual taxes in this province and this country and a decreasing amount coming from the major corporations. We also do not have a minimum tax. I think it is worth putting on record one other thing that happened prior to our meeting with the Treasurer in the standing committee on finance and economic affairs of this Legislature.

We had before us a number of groups which were arguing for tax breaks. We had one or two poverty groups, one or two social services groups which were arguing for fairer taxes, but we had before us some business interests. They were arguing that if we are going to keep business competitive in Ontario, we should really see that they not get any increase in taxes. Some of the ideas that were floating around were a little bit dangerous, and I got a little bit annoyed at the gentlemen who were sitting with us.

I forget all their names, but one of them stands out, and I simply said: “Well, I have some difficulty with the fact that there are hundreds and thousands of major companies in Ontario that are not paying any taxes at all and are able to find ways and means to get out of paying taxes in this province. But we are paying it and we are paying an increasing percentage of the tax load in the province.”

One of the gentlemen got a little bit angry and said, “That’s really not a fair argument,” and then he went on. Until that time I did not realize who he was, but he was one of the executive officers of the Hudson’s Bay Co. His argument to our committee, and there were a number of Liberals as well as two Tories there, was: “We have not paid any corporate taxes for the last three years, but it’s unfair to say we’re cheating the system. It’s unfair to say we’re the big, bad culprits and that’s why the rest of you are having to pay additional taxes in this province. The reason we’re not paying any taxes is that we have five years to claim losses, and we had some major losses in the three previous years. We had some restructuring, some rationalization.”

I do not know whether they closed some of their stores down. I know they modernized some of them. If you go up and looks at the Bay at Yonge and Bloor, you will realize that very quickly. They had not paid any taxes for three years, but it was not fair to say they should be paying taxes. Incidentally, they had made very good profits, they admitted, for the last three years, but they were able to claim the losses in the previous years.

Can members of this House tell me, any one of them, whether a worker in the province who is losing his job now because of plant shutdowns or transfers, who is out of work for six months or maybe has to take another job after 20 or 30 years’ service, and is only going to get about half the pay he was getting previously, can claim the losses he has suffered over the next five years?

That is one of the kinds of loopholes that are there in the taxes. I do not know of a worker in this province -- and it can affect him a heck of a lot more than it probably affected the Bay, and I think it is just one example of what we are talking about -- who can claim his losses or can make up the lower income he may have made or the no income at all or the difference between unemployment insurance or whatever he had to accept to live on. It does not happen.

We discussed that in the committee, but we certainly have not seen any move that way in this province. We have not seen any move to any kind of minimum corporate tax, which is one of the things we could look at. We have not seen any of these moves in a really basic, reforming and fair kind of tax system in this province.

Even though this information was all there and could have been looked at by the Treasurer, what we did see was the Liberal government opt instead for the easiest way. It was not the fairest way; fairness never entered into it. That was obvious, as far as I was concerned, from the Treasurer’s remarks. They opted for the easiest way, almost $1 billion. Put the one cent on across the board, and who pays that? The minister knows darned well. Whether he likes the idea or the charge or not, he knows that it falls much more heavily on ordinary and lower-income people in Ontario. That is the route we have opted for.

I am telling members there is something wrong with that approach. There is something wrong with the unwillingness to take a look at the kind of money that the Bay has made over the past three years -- as I say, that is just one company -- and at why there should not be some kind of minimum tax there. There is something wrong with saying that we are going to let the people pay the increasing percentage of the revenue of Ontario.

It has been accelerating so rapidly since 1966 it really scares me, because there are a lot of bucks here. Personal taxes were 64.5 per cent in 1966 and corporate taxes were 35.5 per cent of all the revenue that we needed to run this province. What are they in 1987? I do not have the 1988 figures; they are probably worse. It has gone from 64.5 per cent that we as ordinary taxpayers were paying -- and you can factor in the sales tax in that -- to 72.9 per cent that we are now paying. What are the companies paying? Most of them are doing quite well, thank you, especially over the last three or four years. They are down from 35.5 per cent to 27.1 per cent of the income.

I simply ask, how long are we going to let the ordinary people get it in the neck in taxes? That is what is happening. How long are we going to see the kind of increased tax load we got when we got that 14 per cent increase in the sales tax in Ontario that this Liberal government brought in after having spent years saying how unjust and unfair it was? When is the government going to start taking a look at exactly where it is going and how many mistakes it is going to make?

I think that was one. I think it is going to cost the government. I think it has already cost it. I think people see it, just as I think the Sunday shopping issue, the Bill 162 issue and probably now the Temagami issue are mistakes the government has made.

I am not sure if I have a half a minute yet. If I do, I want to add one more thing. Our committee had another meeting, one year later, in the Treasurer’s office. I was more than a little upset to listen to the Treasurer say how fundamentally he was opposed to this national sales tax approach we have. But what then happened in the course of our conversation in his office? His real concern was whether Ontario would be the loser; whether it could be put into place in such a way that Ontario made sure it got its fair share.

I can see this government once again almost on side with the federal government and the kind of approach it is using, because it is the easiest way to get a pile of big bucks in. But it certainly is not the fairest way in this country of ours. I think the government has some answering to do for this bill, and it is why I oppose it. I think it has some answering to do for what appears to be the direction it is heading in in terms of taxes. It is certainly not a direction of this Liberal government that is fair for ordinary working people in this province.

On motion by Mr. Mackenzie, the debate was adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Conway: I would like to make a business statement for tomorrow.

Tomorrow afternoon, following question period we will complete the estimates of the Ministry of Health, after which we will proceed to the various revenue bills standing in the name of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître): Bill 122, Bill 121 and Bill 120. We will proceed as time permits. It may be that we will just continue the debate on Bill 122, but if we should complete that, we will then move on, in order, to Bill 121 and Bill 120.

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

November 30, 1988

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

TRUCKING INDUSTRY

BARBADIAN INDEPENDENCE DAY

NATIONAL STUDENT CONFERENCE ON NORTHERN STUDIES

CORONER’S INQUEST

ASSISTANCE FOR THE DISABLED

PROTECTION OF OZONE LAYER

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

JANE MAHER

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

CONTROL OF SMOKING / RÉGLEMENTATION DU TABAGISME

RESPONSES

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

CONTROL OF SMOKING

CRASH OF AIR AMBULANCE

CONTROL OF SMOKING

ORAL QUESTIONS

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

ANNUAL REPORT, OFFICE OF THE PROVINCIAL AUDITOR

SEWAGE TREATMENT

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

SEWAGE TREATMENT

ONTARIO DRUG BENEFIT PLAN

EDUCATION ASSESSMENT

HOSPITAL SERVICES

FUEL TAXES

PUBLIC SECTOR PENSION PLANS

LIQUOR CONTROL BOARD OF ONTARIO

APPRENTICESHIP TRAINING

REPORT BY COMMITTEE

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND PRIVATE BILLS

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

SMOKING IN THE WORKPLACE ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT (CONTINUED)

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE