Hansard Transcript 1988-Dec-05 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Villeneuve: It is with a great deal of pride and pleasure that I rise to recognize the founders of Child Haven International. Bonnie and Fred Cappuccino’s Child Haven is a registered charity based not only in my riding, but in my own home town of Maxville. Child Haven assists underprivileged and destitute children in Africa and Asia.

The Cappuccinos are today receiving the 1988 honourable mention prize from UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, for the teaching of human rights. This special recognition of Child Haven International is to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is the first time anyone from Canada has won a UNESCO human rights award recognition.

Fred and Bonnie Cappuccino are parents of 22 children, 20 of whom are adopted from various cultural, ethnic and racial backgrounds; truly a miniature and junior United Nations. The Cappuccinos actively support civil rights movements and truly are living examples of racial justice and help for the underprivileged. Child Haven International has and supports three active projects in India.

It is a pleasure and an honour for me to salute Fred and Bonnie Cappuccino and their Child Haven International on receiving this award from UNESCO, a first for Canada.

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Mr. Morin: The environment is not identified as the major issue throughout the world. Although the chorus of alarm is rising, economic expediency still takes precedence over environmental responsibility. I want to bring to the attention of the House the ongoing destruction of Brazil’s rain forest. Tropical rain forests, which cover seven per cent of the world’s land surface, do much to control the climate of the earth and contain a great diversity of unique life forms that are now threatened with extinction.

Next month the World Bank is expected to authorize a $500-million loan to Brazil to enable it to build two large dams on the Xingu River in the Amazon River basin. It is estimated that up to 25 million hectares of vital forest, roughly the size of Great Britain, will be destroyed.

Brazil is saddled with huge debts and it looks to megaprojects for its economic salvation. However, it has a tragic record with hydro projects that irreversibly disrupt nature’s ecological balance and destroy the culture and unique lifestyle of its aboriginal peoples.

I urge the federal government to appeal to the World Bank to ensure that this and future loans are granted on the condition of a regard for environmental consequences. The tropical rain forest is a global treasure and responsibility and not the preserve of one nation that can do with it as it wants.

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

Mr. Kormos: The Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) is now undoubtedly aware that a senior member of the Ontario Police Commission tried to pressure the Niagara Regional Police Commission into dropping its investigation of the Niagara Regional Police Force. Revelations at the Coulter inquiry last week showed that John MacBeth, who was then vice-chairman of the Ontario Police Commission, told the Niagara Regional Police Commission chairman, Denise Taylor, with respect to her investigation of the force:

“The Solicitor General appoints you. I am telling you that he is not pleased with you, and at such time as your position comes up for reappointment ... . Well, need I say more?”

Evidence at the inquiry further suggests that Mr. MacBeth took this position at the behest of then-chief James Gayder, one of the primary subjects of the investigation.

That any official of the Solicitor General’s office would interfere in this manner is shocking and intolerable. More shocking is that this matter may not even become a subject of inquiry of the Coulter commission because it was not originally included by the Solicitor General in its terms of reference. At the same time, the inquiry council appears reluctant to pursue the matter.

Surely, in view of this event, we can expect the Solicitor General to review the terms of reference, to expand them where indicated and to provide funding to the region for its involvement. The Solicitor General’s office appears to have served the Niagara Regional Police Commission ill and it is, I submit, obligated to facilitate an expansion of the inquiry.

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

Mr. Harris: The entire community of Temagami is on the verge of being wiped out. The impending closure of William Milne and Sons lumber and the loss of 200 direct jobs will devastate the region. The economy will suffer, affecting retailers, school boards and municipal, health and social services. The people of Temagami will be left without a future.

In the wake of this devastation, the Premier (Mr. Peterson) has been going around blaming everyone in sight. He blames the bank, he blames company management, he blames the people of Temagami, he even blames the native community. While it is clear that this mess is a direct result of his own action over the past two years, the Premier of the most powerful province in Canada accepts no responsibility, provides no leadership and offers no hope.

The sad truth is that the people of Temagami have been sold out. They have been sold out by a Liberal Premier who does not respect the rights of northern residents, northern workers, northern conservationists and northern natives. They have been sold out by a short-sighted and, I would say, arrogant government, including the MPP for the area. They collectively will go down in history as members of a party who sacrificed an entire town and its people for their own political careers. The question on the minds of many northerners these days is not: What happened in Temagami? We know what happened. The real question is: Who is next?

CONSTITUENCY EVENT

Mr. Callahan: I rise to give a message to my fellow colleagues in the Legislature as well as to my constituents in my home riding of Brampton South. This Sunday, December 11, we will celebrate our third annual get-together with the constituents in my riding. I urge other members of the Legislature to do this as well on an annual basis. What in fact it does is allows their constituents to see them face to face on at least one occasion other than election day.

We also take the opportunity on this occasion to suggest that these people consider the fact that not all people in the riding are necessarily going to have a Christmas where they are going to have sufficient to eat. We urge the people that come to my riding meetings on these particular occasions to bring nonperishable food with them. I invite all the members here, if they happen to be riding through the marvellous riding of Brampton South, to drop in. But they should make certain they bring along a little food, because I understand my constituents will be doing that.

1340

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

Miss Martel: I would like to bring to the attention of the Minister of Community and Social Services (Mr. Sweeney) and the Attorney General (Mr. Scott) a serious problem which has developed over family benefits and court order payments.

The cases in my office all involve women on mother’s allowance, but the problem could well involve men on father’s allowance as well. The Ministry of Community and Social Services requires people on mother’s and father’s allowance to go through court to obtain support payments. Once the court decides the amount to be paid, the ministry automatically deducts this amount from the mother’s allowance cheque.

In theory, once a court order is established, money from the supporting parent is to be paid directly to the support and custody order enforcement branch, and then to the mother. If the money is not forthcoming from the supporting parent, the enforcement branch is to proceed legally to garnishee wages so the mother is not out of money every month.

In reality, however, in spite of the court order, the support and custody branch is so backlogged that it cannot proceed against the defaulting parent. Further, both the support and custody branch and the ministry have argued that a period of at least three months must pass to see if a pattern emerges in terms of these delayed payments.

Therefore, the mother is having the entire amount of the court order deducted from mother’s allowance, but she is not receiving the court-ordered payment or is receiving it late and cannot budget at all.

If the Ministry of Community and Social Services is going to insist on a mother proceeding against another supporting parent, then the mother should not suffer financially as a consequence. The ministry should continue to pay full benefits and the support and custody branch should direct the court-ordered payment to the ministry instead of to the mother.

BIRTHDAYS

Mr. J. M. Johnson: Since this is the Christmas season, I thought the members would be interested in knowing that two of my colleagues on my immediate right, the member for London North (Mrs. Cunningham) and the member for Simcoe West (Mr. McCague), are celebrating their birthdays today. That in itself is a special event, but what is even more important is that my youngest grandson was born this morning at 5:30.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RACE RELATIONS

Hon. Mr. Phillips: I am happy to report to the House on a successful race relations conference which was held this past weekend. Because race relations is such a fundamental issue, it was gratifying to see that over 130 delegates were in attendance at this first race relations conference for municipalities.

I was very pleased to participate personally and the delegates who are race relations members for municipalities are to be congratulated for their participation and for helping to organize the conference. This conference was sponsored by the Ministry of Citizenship.

I am also pleased to note that of the 24 race relations committees in Canada, 17 of them are located here in Ontario. I hope that the conference at least partially demonstrated to the delegates the opportunity to create additional race relations committees here in Ontario. I would add that the services of our race relations directorate in the Ministry of Citizenship are available to assist in that.

It is important for all of us in this House to remember that potential problems and issues relating to race relations are the responsibility of all of us, municipalities, communities, urban and rural. I think members will find that the delegates to the race relations conference for municipalities and all the others who are concerned about these issues can be pleased with our progress to date.

Having said that, I know that all of us, at all levels of government and in all parts of society, recognize that we must do more. The goal for all of us is to create in this province a fair, equitable and prosperous province. We cannot and we must not shrink from this goal.

RESPONSES

RACE RELATIONS

Mr. B. Rae: In response to the minister’s statement, which I must confess does not really tell us anything with respect to the government’s plans in this particular area, perhaps the minister needs reminding, and I am sure the government does, that it was in May 1985 that the Premier (Mr. Peterson), who was then the Leader of the Opposition, agreed with me, when I was the leader of the third party, that we needed to create a government that would be committed to establishing affirmative action and employment equity programs in both the public and private sectors. That was in the accord that was signed by us on May 27, 1985. It is one of the unfinished items on that agenda which has not been addressed by this government and has not been addressed by this particular minister.

It is a sad fact that the record of the Peterson government with respect to employment equity is worse than that of the Mulroney government. The Mulroney government at least has passed a law which deals with companies that do business with the government of Canada. It has passed a law which requires reporting, which is beginning to take place.

In this province, we have had no initiatives by the government of Ontario in the private sector. We have had one initiative in the public sector, and that is the so-called I Count survey. But apart from the census in the public sector, we have had no concrete, specific action by this government taken to deal with the problem of discrimination on a systemic basis in the workplace.

It has obviously been decided by the government and indeed, I would suspect because of the way things work in this government, by the Premier, that it is simply too difficult an issue to be dealt with by means of new legislation. I am here to tell the government that unless it is prepared to bring in new legislation, this kind of historic step will not happen.

I am also here to tell the government that it will have an opportunity in the near future, when we debate a private member’s bill in my name, to begin to recognize that affirmative action and employment equity are ideas whose time and need have come, not only in government but indeed throughout our society.

We have to deal directly with the fact that there are rates of unemployment among our handicapped and disabled communities which can no longer be accepted or tolerated by any of us, and there are still very widespread feelings in a great many visible minority communities that the door is not as open to them for promotion, advancement and responsibility as it needs to be in our society.

The record is clear. The only effective way for government to show this kind of leadership is to bring in laws on affirmative action and employment equity that will ensure that fairness becomes not simply a matter of rhetoric but a matter of law, and that opportunity becomes not a matter of rhetoric but a matter of law and of right as well.

These are the changes that we are going to be proposing. We had hopes and, indeed, expectations that these were things the government would have put its mind to back in 1985. We continue to have the hope and, indeed, the expectation that even with this bloated majority, the government will act on behalf of visible minorities, on behalf of the disabled in this community, on behalf of all of us to ensure that we do finally have a place for everyone in this province.

Mr. Brandt: I would like to congratulate the minister on the hosting of the conference, since I believe very strongly that these race relations programs and discussions are ones that should not be limited just to provincial responsibility but in fact are vital at the local level.

Communities’ needs differ. As the minister is well aware, there are different ethnic groups represented in the various municipalities and throughout the local governments in our province, and I think it is important that we do involve those local people to the extent that it is possible.

I would like to remind the minister, however, and he failed to mention this in his statement, that the first province in the entire country that had a human rights commission and entrenched a code in its legislation to protect the rights of minorities was in fact Ontario. We have had a progressive record that is an example to the other nine provinces in this country. We have, in a very real sense, led the way. I would say to the minister that the foundation upon which he is building is a very solid and very sound one.

We have to continue to be, obviously, very sensitive to the needs of minorities and ethnic groups in our multicultural heritage in this province and in this country, and Ontario plays a very leading role in that. The last statistics I saw indicated that about 50 per cent of all immigrants who came from the various countries of the world came here to Ontario. Of that 50 per cent, fully half of those came right here to the Metropolitan Toronto area. So it is vitally important that we be a leader in this respect, that we understand the needs, the aspirations, the difficulties and the complexities of people who come from various other countries of the world and that these race relations committees reflect those needs and requirements on the part of the peoples who choose Canada and Ontario as their home.

I want to indicate to the minister in a very real sense that our party will work co-operatively in a positive environment to assist in whatever way we can to make Ontario very truly a home for those people who have chosen Canada as the place in which they want to live, to raise their families and to build a better future for all of us.

1350

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

Mr. B. Rae: I have some questions today for the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith) as well as for the Minister of Labour. It is my understanding that the Solicitor General is going to be here and I just wanted to give the government House leader a little bit of warning in that regard.

I will turn to a question to the Minister of Labour. It concerns 24 individuals, all of whom won their cases with the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal on this question of chronic pain -- the appeals tribunal is saying that they did have sufficient pain and suffering and that they deserved permanent pensions from the Workers’ Compensation Board -- and the decision on the part of the Workers’ Compensation Board to exercise that obscure but very pernicious section of the Workers’ Compensation Act called section 86n, which gives the Workers’ Compensation Board the power to overrule the appeals tribunal.

I wonder if the minister would agree with me that in the interest of justice, it would make most sense for the minister to accept very speedily a simple amendment to the Workers’ Compensation Act, which I am proposing; that is, that section 86n be dropped, that workers who have won their appeal at the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal be recognized as having won that appeal, and that people who have been fighting literally since 1982 and 1983 to win a pension from the Workers’ Compensation Board finally be granted those pensions which are still being held up because of this action by the board.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: As the Leader of the Opposition knows, section 86n was incorporated in the statute in Bill 101, which this House passed in late 1984 and which came into effect in 1985.

It is an interesting proposal he makes to bring about a speedy amendment. I am sure that, were an amendment put before this House, the Leader of the Opposition and others would want public hearings on that to ensure that fairness and equity be done. He knows quite well that I am not empowered under the statute to superimpose my views on what the board should do when it determines to take a section 86n review.

I do believe it does merit reconsideration, and I have told the member on other occasions that as we look next year to a green paper on questions about administration and adjudication, one of the questions we have to ask ourselves is whether the current review of decisions made by the tribunal is the appropriate one.

Mr. B. Rae: While the minister dithers, dallies and delays, the fact is that Mr. Villanucci, for example, was injured on June 20, 1980. He was able to win his appeal after 27 days of hearings in front of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal from June to October 1986. This is how slowly justice works in this province for injured workers -- a six-year wait. Then in May 1987, the WCAT decision came down, saying okay. But he is still having to wait because the board has decided in its wisdom that the time for making written submissions is going to go on unti1 February 28, 1989, supplementary written submissions are extended to May 1 and the possibility of oral submissions on substantive issues are after that time.

Surely the minister would agree with me that if he stood out of this place and were a worker and got injured in 1980, he would not like to have to wait until 1989 before he might, and only might, get justice from the government of Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: I want to tell the Leader of the Opposition that the kinds of delays that we experience in this system -- and I think the Villanucci case and the other chronic pain cases indicate that quite clearly -- are something we really must direct our attention to. We cannot allow a situation where decisions are taking a long time within the Workers’ Compensation Board and thereafter are taking a very long time before the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

In this final level of appeal and on questions of policy there is that time delay. It is not something that I am happy about, and it is something we should direct our minds to on an urgent basis. I have told the Leader of the Opposition and this House that we will be doing that, that this is part of the analysis of the worker compensation system that we must get on with, that administration, adjudication and time delays are of serious concern to anyone who has any concern at all about compensation matters in this province. We are moving ahead on that score.

Mr. B. Rae: We just had second reading on a bill amending the Workers’ Compensation Act. If my friend were interested in amending the Workers’ Compensation Act, he could have done it before last week when he asked this House to pass it at second reading. He has been the minister for a year and a half. It is just not good enough to stand up and say he is concerned about it and he wants to do something about it next year. He has had the power to do something about it.

I again want to go back to the minister. On Friday, the president of the Ontario Federation of Labour was turned away by a security guard at the Workers’ Compensation Board because he wanted to make submissions to the board itself about the unfairness of what is being done to these injured workers. Does the minister not feel it is most unfair to these injured workers, after they have been given an award by the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal, that they are still not able to collect a penny in an award from the compensation board for that particular pension when it has been granted by the appeals tribunal, when they have won their case at the hearing? Does he not think it is most unfair to them that they are still having to wait for their cheques and may never get their cheques because the board can still say: “No deal. As a matter of policy, we have decided not to award any pensions in this area”?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Minister.

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: The Leader of the Opposition makes a very complex issue -- that is, the issue of chronic pain -- seem entirely simple. I want to tell him that I do have a great deal of concern that there are workers who because of this process, which takes a very long time, are not being compensated and, worse still, are not sure whether they are going to get compensated.

I am also concerned about the kind of hypocrisy that the Leader of the Opposition shows in this House when I introduced a bill on June 20 and he said this bill must have the most extensive kinds of public hearings and then this afternoon he comes before this House and says we should introduce an amendment that has far-reaching implications for everyone who is concerned about workers’ compensation and we should not discuss it and we should not debate it; we should just eliminate section 86n without any public hearings and without consultation. I cannot accept that.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the Opposition wish to stand down the next question?

Mr. B. Rae: Is “hypocrisy” now acceptable as a term, Mr. Speaker, just out of curiosity?

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: Mr. Speaker, I just want to withdraw.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Brandt: My question is to the Premier. It relates to automobile insurance rates in the province and the Mercer report, which was in fact just tabled today.

The Premier will recall that the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon), who also had the attendant responsibility for insurance rates some time ago, indicated that the mandate of the

Ontario Automobile Insurance Board would be to establish reasonable rates or rate ranges for all types of motor vehicle insurance.

I realize the report that Mercer has in fact prepared is not binding on the board, but that report indicates very clearly that there are going to be very substantial rate increases in this province. It is recommending something in the order of 35 per cent to 40 per cent as an approximate range. Can the Premier indicate if he thinks that range is fair and equitable in light of other increases for costs in our society today?

Hon. Mr. Peterson: I believe the minister can bring the honourable member up to date on that.

1400

Hon. Mr. Elston: I want to thank the honourable member for the question. As the leader of the third party pointed out, the report itself was presented to the auto board today and will form the basis of a very public and open hearing, so that the very questions which he is talking about can be investigated very thoroughly.

From our point of view, the recommendations which are there are obviously not binding on the board, nor are they binding when it comes to setting the rates, but they are suggestions with respect to how the discussion with respect to new rates might be discussed.

The honourable gentleman has put his finger right on the particular problem at hand. In fact, those rate hearings or range-of-rate hearings will start next Monday, with anybody who wishes to participate being able to put his points forward.

Mr. Brandt: I would imagine that there will be a number of participants who will come before the board to express their views.

The reason that I raise this question with the Premier, and I will now direct it to the minister, is that during a fairly recent discussion with the people of Ontario which took place about a year ago and which resulted in a certain number of votes being cast for a particular political party, as I recall, one of the promises that was made at that time was that there was in fact a plan to lower rates in this province.

There was a plan. The spokesman, and that individual is now the Premier, indicated he could not disclose the nature of that, because the plan was going to be unfolded within the fullness of time. I guess we have now reached the point where we would like to be given the opportunity to hear what that plan might be.

I wonder if the minister is in a position to disclose the long-awaited plan to control or reduce insurance rates. Would he disclose that to the House today?

Hon. Mr. Elston: I was expecting perhaps some questions today from the opposition party; I had not expected that this issue would be raised by the member for Sarnia, who is obviously becoming the proponent of another way of dealing with insurance.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that particular reference should be made to eliminating discriminations as between marital status, age, sex and handicap, which were indicated as things that should in fact be taken out of the rate-setting policy of the insurance industry in Ontario. Those sorts of things are occurring.

As the member will know, the hearings that have been put in process and have gone on since August and have built to this final-stage hearing, the fourth of a series of hearings, will indicate how those sorts of criteria can be eliminated to get fairer and adequate premiums for the people of the province.

Mr. Brandt: I want to indicate to the minister that our position as a party has not changed, and that position is consistent with that of many experts and consumer groups which indicated that the government of the day was going in the wrong direction with respect to its policies. Many, many people across this province said that what the government was proposing to do would not work.

If the minister is indicating that the 35 to 40 per cent recommendation within the Mercer report is not binding -- and I understand that -- and that hearings are forthcoming -- and I understand that as well -- will the minister indicate what level of increase, what percentage increase, if that is to be, is acceptable to his government in light of the information that he now has at hand, where it indicates that past increases have been insufficient in terms of the annualized review and the rates that were brought into being in this particular province?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman does not understand, I think, what the role of the board is. The role of the board is to complete the mandate, which is to inquire into what the rates or ranges of rates are to be. He will understand that an analysis of all the material that is in front of them, including the latest piece of information which was released today, the study done by Mercer on the basis of information provided to it, will allow them to go ahead and put together the ranges of rates and rates to be used in the upcoming future.

The member knows that we will be looking very carefully at that process as it unfolds. It has been a process which, by the way, the public will want to know has been well viewed by participants, whether they be from consumer groups or from industry groups, right on through the entire piece. They have worked very hard on the board, and I extend my congratulations to those members of the board who have had to sit and make very intensive interrogatories and studies into the various questions which have been put before them.

I can tell the honourable leader of the third party that the product has been in fact a very first-class piece of work. I expect that this hearing, which is starting next Monday, as I said, and which is open to all public participants, to be no less thorough and come up with what in effect will be fair rates in Ontario.

TACTICAL RESCUE UNITS

Mr. B. Rae: I have a question of the Solicitor General. I want to go back to her. To me this is just such a fundamental question of what is being done about the killing of Bernard Bastien, and I really do want to try to resolve this before too long. In her answer to me the other day, the minister said, “We will examine with great care and great concern any recommendations from the inquest and, at that time, will decide whether a public inquiry is necessary.”

I would like to remind the minister that there has already been one inquest arising from the killing of a police officer by the tactical rescue unit in the tragic incident that took place in Woodstock in 1984, the killing of Mr. Ross. The Solicitor General will no doubt be aware that the jury in that case did make some very specific recommendations about the uses of radios, about the information that is provided to all the officers, the kind of advance planning that takes place, the kind of sharing of information that happens between the local police force and the tactical unit. All that is laid out in the inquest which took place on March 1, 1985. Much of what was recommended has not been done. Obviously it has not been done or we would not have had the tragic incident that we had in August near Windsor.

Does the Solicitor General not really think that she owes it to herself, to the Bastien family and indeed to all the citizens of Ontario to have a full inquiry into the uses of these particular units which are far different from anything contemplated when the forces were originally set up in 1976?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: The Leader of the Opposition goes from one subject to another, in so far as we are discussing the need to examine very closely the role of the TR units in our policing within the province, which we completely agree with and will do in detail.

The other issue that is raised by the member is the question of radio communication, improved communication and the sharing of systems and information between different police forces. This is a matter that has been a very grave concern to all of us and to the forces themselves. As the member will know, we are working now and at this time putting tremendous money into telecommunication systems in order to improve such communication.

I will continue to work on this as a priority item and I think if one good thing can come out of this terrible tragedy, it is that it will indeed emphasize to all police forces the need to work together to resolve these problems.

Mr. B. Rae: The first recommendation of the jury in the Ross inquest was as follows:

“All members of police forces involved in an operation must attend a formal joint briefing headed by appropriate expertise of each unit involved and ensure all instructions are clearly outlined. All members must be aware of the position of all officers involved in the operation and changes in position communicated.”

Can the minister stand up in this House today and give us her personal assurance that everything associated with this particular recommendation has been carried out by her, by her ministry and by people operating under her instructions within the Ontario Provincial Police? Can she tell us that right now?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: As the member well knows, this did not involve one police force; this involved three police forces, which is part of the problem. The communications system between them is definitely part of the problem. It is obvious that I cannot assure that these things were all acted upon, since this case outlines the fact that there is a great deal more to be done. I assure the member that I am looking at this, looking at how this case once again pinpointed the co-operation that is not occurring and looking to make sure that such co-operation is brought into place between police forces.

1410

Mr. B. Rae: This is not good enough. We have the death of a police officer in 1984. He was killed, it would appear, at least partly as the result of poor communication between different police forces involved in a particular incident. One of the police forces involved was the tactical rescue unit.

We now have this tragic incident three years later in 1988 in which Mr. Bastien was killed when the tactical unit was sent out thinking it was going after a suicidal young man. When the tactical units were set up, it was never intended that they would be used in this way. In the 1,400 incidents that have been responded to by the special tactical unit of the Metropolitan Toronto Police, there had not been one person killed.

Now we have this problem with the tactical unit, and there clearly is a need for an inquiry. The Bastien family is not getting the answers it needs. If any one of us as a citizen were placed in the situation Mrs. Bastien was in, we would be crying to the hilltops for a public inquiry, asking ourselves, “How could the police forces in this province have made such a mistake?” Is she not entitled to an answer to that question?

Hon. Mrs. Smith: I quite agree that we have to examine very closely the methods of communication. Once again, the member speaks about communication, which was sadly lacking and which is something I have seen since I first assumed this office as needing close examination. We are expending a great deal of funds and of time on our communication system. We hope to get as much co-operation as possible from the various police forces in order to tie such communications closely together. This is independent of the efforts of a TRU team one way or another. It could happen in almost any crime or any such incident.

However, we have a separate issue altogether, which the Leader of the Opposition has referred to, the appropriate use of TRU teams. We have already put down some restrictions on this. They can be approved only by the top officer of the OPP in the field division in this area. We are examining this most closely, looking to further restrictions. I quite agree with the member. I commend the use of similar units in the Metropolitan Toronto Police. They show that such units can be used effectively and well, and we will continue to move towards that objective.

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Mr. Harris: I have a question for the Minister of Housing. She knows now, as we all know, that as part of his constant search for new sources of revenue, the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) has increasingly with each budget put more of the burden of education costs on to the local taxpayer, indeed on to the local property tax.

Now the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Peterson) want to add $5,000 plus carrying costs to the cost of a new home through a new secret $5,000 education lot levy. What is the Minister of Housing doing to fight this new tax on local home ownership that the Treasurer and the Premier are not only plotting to bring in but now, I gather, have decided to bring in and are out trying to sell to the industry?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: As the member well knows, questions of tax policy should be answered by the Treasurer. My concern as Minister of Housing is to make sure that people have as many choices as possible in housing and as much diversity as possible in their choices. I am doing everything I can to make that possible with a variety of policies, the most important of which at this point is the land use policy, in which we are directing municipalities to make sure that in all new development about 25 per cent of what is built is affordable to people of low and moderate income.

Mr. Harris: We know the Treasurer wants to introduce lot levies to cover the costs of schools at $5,000 plus. We now hear that the Treasurer and the Premier are planning to introduce another levy up to $3,000 a lot for health care.

Is the minister prepared to sit idly by while the Treasurer adds as much as $10,000, with carrying costs, to the cost of every new home built in Ontario? I ask the minister again: What is she doing as the Minister of Housing, responsible for bringing affordable housing on to the market, to fight what I think are new, diabolical levies that will add $10,000, on the average, to the price of a new home?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: I reiterate that it is the Treasurer’s responsibility to set tax policy in this province. Let me also tell the member that he is suffering from a lack of very clear information in this area, and I would remind him of that as he thinks through the implications of what he has said.

What I am doing in the Ministry of Housing is working with municipalities and with the building community to make sure that many more units of affordable housing are built through our direction to the municipalities, especially in high growth areas, that 25 per cent of the new building that is done will be done to meet the housing needs of low- and moderate-income people.

We are working together with municipalities to identify the ways that will be done, in different ways in different municipalities. We are also doing an enormous amount of social housing building on our own, through the 30,000 units that were mentioned in the budget and through our work with government lands to make sure that on the land we own, the needs for housing of people of low and moderate income are much more adequately met.

Mr. Harris: In the midst of the worst housing crisis in our history, at a time when the Minister of Housing is wallowing around with myriad programs, all of which are failing, does she not find it shameful that her colleagues the Premier and the Treasurer are out promoting $10,000 worth of new levies that will be added to the cost of homes?

Surely the minister will know that these measures will be the final straw and will blow the lid off any possibility of providing affordable housing in almost every region of this province. If she will not stand up for affordable housing, if she does not seem to care about the cost of housing, why does she not step aside and make room for somebody who will fight for affordable housing in this province?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: I point out to the member opposite that when I stood up in this House and said we were going to make sure that municipalities met the affordable housing needs of people in this province, his colleague, who was then the critic on Housing, said we were being premature. I also point out to the member opposite that in the last federal election, when every single party came forward with ideas about affordable housing, the member’s party seemed to think that there were no problems in Metro, that there were no problems in Ontario. His party did not seem to think anything needed to happen. It seems to me that when someone is called upon to stand up for affordable housing, the member would do well to look at his own benches and look at them closely.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That completes that question and response.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are other members who would like to ask questions.

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

Mr. Allen: I want to ask the Minister of Community and Social Services about the great computer sinkhole that the Provincial Auditor discovered in his ministry. In explaining to the member for Etobicoke-Rexdale (Mr. Philip) the other day how this came about, the minister said it was the complexity of the system that had drawn in so many dollars to fund it and delay its application over the years.

That is the system Judge Thomson described as highly complex, adversarial, stigmatizing and inequitable in the 22 categories over which the bureaucrats of his ministry and its officials in an exquisite kind of torture had to either stretch or shrink its social assistance clients in order to make them fit the system. Judge Thomson has proposed a vast simplification of these categories to three, and this computer system is therefore imminently totally out of date.

Will the minister suspend forthwith any further expenditure on that outmoded system, or is he going to use the investment already made as another excuse for doing nothing to implement the Thomson proposal?

1420

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: I understand, since this goes back to 1980, that the consulting firm that was employed was supposedly the best in the business at that time with this kind of computer system. As a matter of fact, the same firm was doing computer systems for banks and trust companies and insurance companies, and it misunderstood or underestimated -- that is correct -- the complexity of our system at that time. If anything, the system has become more complex in the intervening years because we have attempted to provide services to a wider range of people.

It is quite true that Judge Thomson’s report indicated that the number of categories could be cut down to three, but that is only one small part of the system. The system contains many other complexities in addition to that. I would certainly hope that the implementation of that report, or at least partial implementation of that report, would make the existing system a little simpler than it is at the present time.

But it is currently in all of our ministry area offices, and I would be loath at this time to give a direct answer to the member’s question, will we take it out? I cannot say that. At the present time I would have to say no.

Mr. Allen: I presume that some of the rest of the complexity has to do with an appeal system that another consultant in the Social Assistance Review Committee review described in exquisite detail as “a fog,” and went on to delineate all the elements of fog that pervaded the system. That, in turn, is the computer system that this minister is operating to stretch and twist and contort the lives of ordinary simple people.

One can only conclude that the money has been wasted, that the minister is currently paying 300 consultants up to $430 a day and at the same time sending children under five, their mothers, the disabled and the ill to food banks in order to make ends meet, and all because the minister refuses to do what is right, that is, to simplify the appeal system. Why does the minister not simply put the money where it is needed, in the people’s hands, and get back to his desk and simplify the system?

Hon. Mr. Sweeney: As a matter of fact, the system that is now in place in all of our offices, in four municipal offices -- and a request has already been received by our ministry for seven other major urban areas to put it in their offices as well -- is a great deal simpler than it was when the whole thing started.

The member might be aware of the fact that, if a constituent came into one of our offices wanting some personal information upon which he or she could base an appeal or request further consideration, the turnaround time, because most of it was manual, could have been three to four weeks. It is now two or three hours. Therefore, we have a system in place which allows us to provide information to constituents, clients coming in, which can be turned around in two or three hours instead of several weeks. I think that is a simplification where it really counts, that is of information which the individual client needs; that is what really counts.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION

Mr. Cousens: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs. The minister must be aware of the current fiasco in the city of Toronto, where a judicial ruling on spoiled ballots has been requested in the midst of a city-wide recount of the November 14 municipal election results. There were many problems surrounding this year’s municipal election and the legitimacy of this election is obviously in question.

What actions is the minister taking to resolve what has become a great embarrassment to this government?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: There is no embarrassment whatsoever. Section 42 of the Municipal Elections Act authorizes any municipality to use voting equipment. This provision has been in place since 1972, the member will recall, and this is being used very effectively by other jurisdictions, Etobicoke, Scarborough, North York and others, without any problem whatsoever.

It is my responsibility to put in place the general framework for municipal elections, not to cut paper.

Mr. Cousens: We warned that problems were going to happen. In the six short months just before these elections, the minister enacted a series of changes that he calls “framework” that affect the municipal elections. He changed the enumeration process, the structure of Metro Toronto’s government, the structure of the school board trustee representation, the nature of campaign expenses and the recount process. What has happened is that his new laws have failed to “improve” the municipal election process in Ontario as he said they would. He shoved them through this House without enough debate. The legislation needs help. Now, in view of the problems experienced across the province, will he take a second look at his municipal election laws, and in the meantime, will he agree to financially assist the city of Toronto if a new election is necessary?

Hon. Mr. Eakins: The city of Toronto asked for that authority. Let me tell him, in regard to the Municipal Elections Act, I have had no problems brought to my attention whatsoever. The problem is not with the legislation; the problem is with the machines and that is not the problem of the legislation. If he can tell me where there has been a problem with other parts of the Municipal Elections Act, let me tell him when we discussed it in an all-party committee everyone was on board with the changes. I made changes to suit his party and the official opposition. I believe we have a really good Municipal Elections Act. The problems that are associated with recounts are not the problems of legislation.

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

Mr. Matrundola: My question is to the Minister of Transportation. It has been brought to my attention, from a number of sources, that there is currently a five-month waiting period in Toronto for people wanting to take a road test in order to receive a driver’s licence.

Many people may not consider this of great importance. But what about the unlicensed person who is offered a job, and needs a vehicle to drive to work, or will have to drive as part of the job. Or the new immigrant who has 60 days to obtain an Ontario driver’s licence. Even if he or she books an appointment on the day of his or her arrival, he or she can only drive for 60 days, then will have to wait for 3 months for the test.

Can the minister advise the House as to what steps he will be taking in order to ease this unacceptable situation?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I thank my friend the member for Willowdale for the very appropriate, timely question, one that is of great concern to me, as minister, and certainly to our ministry and this government. Our staff in the driver and vehicles branch is wrestling with this. The five-month reference is really the extreme across the province. In most other regions it is somewhat less, in some cases considerably less. Certainly on the question he raises with respect to immigrants and people looking for jobs or where the job is dependent upon having a licence, we would undertake to look at somehow extending that 60-day framework. In fact, we have been criticized from one or two sources for even considering accommodating people, like school bus operators, where they often run their applications through during the summer months which obviously causes a problem, for in fact having given them extra treatment where a job is on the line with respect to the licence.

Mr. Matrundola: An employee of his ministry was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying, “We don’t know where all these people are coming from.” It is public knowledge that immigration into Ontario and Toronto is increasing. Can the minister tell us if he will be improving his ministry’s planning so as to better react to changes in demand for services?

Mr. Brandt: Where are those people coming from, Ed?

Mr. Sterling: Blame it on the feds.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: In recognition of the increased demand, we have indeed increased the number of staff in the testing area by nine per cent. The reality is that we are having to cope with a 36 per cent increase in the demand. A lot of that, of course, has to do with the great success of the economy of Ontario, and particularly southern Ontario. Certainly with respect to the Metro region, we are actively looking at relocating the Scarborough testing service. We are looking at extending hours, including opening the facilities on Saturdays. We have a direct and a very strong interest in reducing this time frame. We will work with the affected parties to the best of our ability.

1430

Mr. Adams: Good question. Excellent answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If I could have the attention of all members.

Mr. Breaugh: It is just the Liberal rump breaking out.

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

Mr. Breaugh: I have a question for the Minister of Housing concerning the Rental Housing Protection Act.

The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto and the Metro Federation of Tenants have now released their study on the difficulties that have been encountered on it. Although their study is quite detailed, they point out that even when the ministry is made aware of violations of the act, it refuses to do anything about it. How does she explain that she has a law on the books, that she is often informed that the law has clearly been violated, and yet she continues to refuse to enforce that law?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: When problems with the Rental Housing Protection Act are brought to our attention, we bring them forward. In fact, we laid charges in five cases in 1988 and the member opposite will be aware that just recently, with a property that was owned by Beaconsfield Properties, the landlord was fined $5,000 for violating the Rental Housing Protection Act. I think that is a very good sign of how seriously we take violations of the Rental Housing Protection Act. We take them forward and we have brought a number of cases forward and one just recently was fined a significant amount of money.

Mr. Breaugh: The Highway Traffic Act should get such vigorous prosecution. How does the minister explain matters to Barbara Baillie, who is the last remaining tenant in a building on Millwood Road in East York, about which I talked to the minister earlier? From her perspective, she has watched her landlords illegally evict people from her building. She has watched them get a $30,000 interest-free loan from the government. She knows that the ministry was informed that the evictions took place illegally and that the act was clearly violated. From her point of view, the ministry rewarded the landlords for breaking the law with a $30,000 interest-free loan and she is looking at a 59 per cent increase in her rent. How does the minister justify that to her?

Hon. Ms. Hosek: When there are any allegations of illegal evictions, we deal with those and pass them on, as well, to the Attorney General (Mr. Scott), because it is the Ministry of the Attorney General that deals with violations of the Landlord and Tenant Act.

When there are concerns about illegal evictions, we have a method of dealing with them. We also have a hotline for tenants who have problems associated with the Landlord and Tenant Act and with the Rental Housing Protection Act, and my knowledge is that we have taken a number of cases forward and prosecuted them and that there have been fines for people who have violated the Rental Housing Protection Act.

TRUANCY

Mrs. Cunningham: My question is to the Minister of Education. It has been four years since the Juvenile Delinquents Act was replaced by the Young Offenders Implementation Act, leaving Ontario without a meaningful truancy law that works. As a result of this vacuum, truancy levels have increased substantially. Attendance counsellors and family court officials say they are unable to assist our young people. The numbers are truly a disgrace to this province’s educational system. An average of 20,000 children under the age of 16 are declared truant every year. This government once again has shown its great abilities of procrastination in its failure to address this real challenge and provide this province with compulsory attendance legislation.

My question is this. When is this government going to clear up this confusion by drafting long-awaited and promised compulsory attendance legislation?

Hon. Mr. Ward: The member has quite correctly pointed out that the new Young Offenders Implementation Act and the repeal of the Juvenile Delinquents Act has, in fact, left something of a legislative void in terms of dealing with the issue of truancy.

But I must say in response to the member, who seems to be putting forward the notion that the power of the courts is perhaps the best way to deal with students who are habitual nonattenders, that it is a point of view that, frankly, I do not share. I believe that our role should be one that emphasizes prevention of the problem, that emphasizes an early intervention and provides assistance for those students who do habitually go truant.

At the same time though, I do recognize that with the void created by that new federal legislation, there is a need to review the practices and policies as well as the regulations that are currently in effect. That work is ongoing and should be completed in the very near future.

Mrs. Cunningham: I find that response to be a nonresponse and very interesting, the same old thing we have been saying for two and a half years. I think that when the minister is asking for input from school boards and professionals, and parents I might add, and they worked very hard over a period of some two and a half years to give specific recommendations to this government regarding a clear policy regarding attendance legislation, the implementation is the responsibility of this Ontario government.

I think that everyone who has been working very hard to give input to the minister deserves a better response than that, so I am going to ask the question again. That is the same answer the minister has been giving for two and a half years, and at the same time he has been asking for more input. What is he going to do with all the input he has been getting for the policy that he wants to make?

Hon. Mr. Ward: It could hardly be the same answer, because it is the first time I have been asked the question.

I do want to reiterate one more time for the member, who seems to believe that some sort of quasi-criminal proceeding is the best way to deal with young people who happen to be nonattenders in learning programs offered by our schools, that I fundamentally believe the emphasis should be on prevention and early intervention. The emphasis should be on providing a range of alternative learning programs that will encourage those students to attend.

I can tell the member that in touring this province, I have visited many school jurisdictions which have very aggressive attendance programs. As a suggestion, I invite the member to take a look at the program that is offered by the Fort Frances-Rainy River Board of Education, its extensive attendance counselling program and the tremendous success that it has had. In my view, those kinds of programs are far more effective than any quasi-judicial proceeding in a court.

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

Mr. D. R. Cooke: My question is for the Minister of Transportation.

Kitchener and Waterloo have about 200,000 people and Guelph has about 75,000 people. Between these two cities, only 13 kilometres apart, we have a single two-lane highway without controlled access, being used, on average, by about 15,000 cars a day. The only reason we do not have more accidents on this road is that drivers know better than to ever try to pass another car and they time their trips accordingly.

The train service is very poor and I realize that any interest in GO Transit moving this far west will only encourage Via Rail to make it worse.

Is the ministry prepared to reconstruct Highway 7 between Kitchener and Guelph so as to allow it to carry the traffic that needs to move between these two cities?

Hon. Mr. Fulton: I appreciate the member’s question. It is an issue he has brought to my attention previously, as has his colleague the member for Guelph (Mr. Ferraro).

I recently drove the highway in question and agree with the member that something needs to be done. We have had the study program put together. The funding is in place. We have made that approval. The study of the requirements, whether they are twinning, four-laning, or limiting the access, will start early in the spring of 1989.

Mr. D. R. Cooke: I thank the minister very much. I appreciate that answer. I wonder if the minister can tell us when he expects it will be completed.

Hon. Mr. Fulton: There is an environmental process to go through. Of course, there will be substantial participation by citizens’ groups and other interested parties from within the area. We will deal with it as quickly as we possibly can. I hate to specify a date, but I can give the member and my colleague the member for Guelph the assurance that we will deal with it as expeditiously as possible.

1440

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

Mr. Kormos: If I may, a question of the Minister of Financial Institutions: I am referring to the editorial in the Toronto Star of Saturday, December 3, which spoke of increases in premiums to the tune of $504 million. I am wondering if the minister can respond to that and indicate whether he anticipates if the increases will be in that amount, more or perhaps less as a result of the Kruger report and its recommendations.

Hon. Mr. Elston: At this

stage, as he knows, the rates or ranges of rates have not yet been determined, but he will be aware that there have been decisions on the first three parts of a four-part industry-wide hearing process. The fourth part will start on December 12.

For my part, just to make the member aware of what has happened today, there was a release of a technical report by William M. Mercer Ltd. which made some recommendations upon which the hearing for the rates or ranges of rates will commence next week. Before we receive that information, it will be difficult to comment further on the question.

I am quite prepared to leave the hearing and the determination of the rates with the Ontario Automobile Insurance Board. They have proven in the past, with respect to their previous three hearings, that they do a very thorough and reasonable job of analysing the material that is available to them and in fact make recommendations where there is a deficiency of same upon which to make good and valid recommendations.

So at this stage, until I hear what the rates are, as proposed and finally determined under the hearings to start next Monday, I am not able to comment further on that number.

Mr. Kormos: If the rates set by the board are indeed substantial increases over the rates currently paid, will the government and the minister specifically then consider a government-run auto insurance plan, as that same editorial in the Toronto Star recommends?

Hon. Mr. Elston: The honourable gentleman will know that the mandate of the board is to establish fair and equitable rates with respect to insurance. All of us will be waiting, I am sure, to hear the results of the hearings which will come to us after the public and members of industry have a chance to put their case with respect to the recommendations by Mercer.

I can tell the honourable gentleman that at that stage we will then have the board making a determination for us. That is the mandate, the legislation speaks to that as the regimen under which we are operating, and that is in fact what we have at the present.

BEEF CATTLE FINANCIAL PROTECTION PLAN

Mr. Villeneuve: My question is to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. The minister will be aware that Brussels Stockyards Ltd. went bankrupt some time ago, leaving some 70 creditors. He should also know that there were some 4-H club members who were left unpaid for cattle that they had sold for their 4-H projects. These young people rely on these sales to the stockyard to purchase next year’s calves, for their education and a number of things. Under the ministry’s rules, they are not producers and therefore they do not have protection.

Will the minister be prepared to look into this situation and make changes to the beef cattle financial protection plan to prevent such similar occurrences in the future?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: We have already looked into the situation. I met with about 30 or 40 farmers who maintain that they have legal claim to the fund, and they certainly spoke on behalf of the 4-H members, who I must say did not cash their cheques after they were issued. As a matter of fact, those cheques have been sitting around now for over two months since the cheques were issued. Of course, you are given a certain period of time in order to cash the cheque before you are eligible under the financial protection plan.

However, it is my understanding that the matter has been taken in hand. I believe the person who is now running the Brussels livestock sales or the former owner of the sales has given some kind of assurance that those 4-H members will be covered under the financial protection plan. I also know that the Live Stock Financial Protection Board is taking those 4-H members into consideration as well.

Mr. Villeneuve: I certainly appreciate that the Live Stock Financial Protection Board will be looking into it in detail.

I have another question on that same bankruptcy, on that same subject. Could the minister explain why he has instructed his bureaucrats to literally treat the farmers as criminals when they are trying to collect money that is owed them?

Hon. Mr. Riddell: That is not the case. The same point was raised at the meeting I had with the growers in the area, and after we gave our explanation.

It is not beneath some people to abuse any system you put in place. The fact of the matter is that we have to ask very pertinent questions in order to get the information to make a determination as to whether they are eligible under the financial protection plan.

They were not treated criminally in any way. As a matter of fact, there were some people who got up at that meeting and thanked us for the procedures that were followed. They said it was a good procedure, the fact that we sent our people out to the ag rep offices to do the interviewing. They did not have to come in to Toronto. They fully understood the reason the questions had to be asked, so I am going to tell my friend he is way off base.

DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCILS

Mr. Miller: I have a question for the Minister of Health. Recently, there has been a rumour circulating in my riding that the district health council is taking over duties from the local hospital board. Can the minister clarify the relationship between the district health councils and the local hospital boards?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: I want to thank my colleague the member for Norfolk for bringing this matter to my attention and state that I am now aware there is such a rumour and that the rumour is unfounded. In fact, the district health councils are local planning bodies; they generally have good relationships with the hospitals and are responsible for regional planning advice to the minister.

Mr. Miller: Can the minister please tell us how this applies specifically to the Norfolk General Hospital board and the Haldimand-Norfolk District Health Council?

Hon. Mrs. Caplan: As the member knows, I visited Haldimand-Norfolk over the summer and met with the district health council members as well as many of the trustees and leaders of the health care community in that region. As I said, the district health council helps to set regional planning priorities and advises the minister of proposals and suggestions from the local hospitals. It is the responsibility of the hospital board members, who are volunteers in the community, to run the hospital. They have responsibility under the Public Hospitals Act for those responsibilities, and I know that they are undertaken with a sense of responsibility and accountability for the resources which are allocated to them.

I enjoyed my meeting when I was in Haldimand-Norfolk and believe that the members of the district health council play a very important role in receiving proposals from all of the hospitals and health care providers in the community and then recommending priorities to the minister. I seek their advice and their recommendations.

COURT SYSTEM

Mr. Hampton: My question is for the Attorney General. The Attorney General will know that recently a provincial court judge became so frustrated with the backlog of court cases in the Brampton area that he publicly criticized the Ministry of the Attorney General and said that the overloading of the court system cheats citizens of proper justice and makes judges embarrassed at being judges. Does the Attorney General feel that the provincial court system is functioning adequately and that the citizens of the province are receiving proper justice?

Hon. Mr. Scott: There is no doubt that in six or seven judicial districts in Ontario, principally the ones that surround Metropolitan Toronto, there has been extraordinary population growth over the last four or five years. This has put stress on the system, and I have no doubt that was the stress that the learned judge was referring to.

Mr. Hampton: I think we heard that same answer to a question last spring, that the problem exists only around Toronto, but I want to tell the Attorney General that we in northern Ontario have cases that seem to take for ever to get on the court list in the provincial court.

The judge in question refers to Barrie and says that the system has completely broken down in Barrie to the point where judges have stopped assigning trial dates and are just rolling people over in assignment court every two months.

I ask the Attorney General again -- I do not think it is just a local Toronto problem; it is more widespread than that -- does he think that people are getting proper justice?

Hon. Mr. Scott: The honourable member misunderstood the answer. When I said it was a suburban problem, what I meant to convey by that is that in the areas adjacent to Metropolitan Toronto, which include Barrie, the county of Simcoe, the judicial district of Durham and the county of Peel, there have been extraordinary population increases which have made the list problem very severe.

In other parts of Ontario, particularly northern Ontario, there is not a significant shortage in terms of services. If there is a difficulty getting trials listed, that may be the fault of the bar or other circumstances, but by and large in the northern districts and in eastern Ontario the lists are in reasonably good shape for in-custody cases and in pretty good shape for out-of-custody criminal cases.

1450

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

Mr. Villeneuve: The Minister of Skills Development will recall that last week I made a very detailed presentation on behalf of the Mutual Aid Firemen’s Association of Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry regarding the funding of a course to update our part-time firemen. Could the minister update myself, as representative of the Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry Mutual Aid Fire Department, as to his intentions with respect to funding this very good training program?

Hon. Mr. Curling: The honourable member brought this to my attention and I met with members of the mutual aid fire department in the office of my colleague. I brought it to their attention, as a matter of fact, that they come under the Solicitor General (Mrs. Smith). Both the Solicitor General and myself are working out the most appropriate way in which they can get funding in order to be trained. These are part-time firefighters. As I brought to the member’s attention, as soon as we work out the appropriate scheme in which they can be properly trained, the member will hear from us.

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Cousens: I am pleased to table a petition to the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by approximately 100 residents, objecting to tax increases imposed by the Peterson government.

I have another petition, again signed by approximately 100 people from across Ontario, to the Lieutenant Governor in Council and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario objecting to the tax increases imposed by the Peterson government.

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

Mr. Beer: I have a petition from a number of members of the Superannuated Teachers of Ontario. Some 123 have signed this petition.

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

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

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

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

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. There are many private conversations. They may be necessary, but they are very noisy.

CHILD CARE

Ms. Poole: I have a petition signed by over 50 residents of Eglinton riding and I have also appended my signature.

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

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

“Whereas quality, accessible day care is essential to the wellbeing of our children and their emotional and educational development; and

“Whereas day care is currently offered in many of our schools on a space availability basis; and

“Whereas enrolment is increasing in many schools with no corresponding increase in capital funding; and

“Whereas the day care services currently provided at Allenby public school in Toronto may be withdrawn because of space limitations;

“We hereby urge the government of Ontario to:

“1. Recognize that day care must receive the same priority as accorded to general education; and

“2. Expand on its current program of providing day care facilities in new schools in order to include existing schools; and

“3. Take measures to ensure that the day care services provided at Allenby public school continue to be provided in future, either in the school or in the immediate community.”

EXTENDED CARE

Mr. Adams: I have a petition from a number of people in the Peterborough area concerning extended care facilities.

“We believe that all residents of extended care facilities, whether it be a nursing home or a municipal home for the aged, are entitled to equal care and services, according to the specific care requirements of each individual.”

“Nursing home residents should benefit from the same amount of funding and kinds of services as residents of municipal homes for the aged.

“We urge the Ontario government to reform the extended care system so that it is uniform, fair and equitable with regard to funding and regulation and so that seniors in all extended care facilities receive the quality of care that they deserve.

“We support Mary Snelgrove, Ena Symons and the Ontario Nursing Home Association in their legal challenge and their efforts to gain fair and equal treatment for nursing home residents.”

TAX INCREASES

Mr. J. M. Johnson: I am pleased to table a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario signed by approximately 100 residents of Ontario objecting to the tax increases imposed by the Peterson government.

I have signed this petition.

PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS

Mrs. Cunningham: I have a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario endorsed by 345 persons from London concerning the proposed two per cent increase to their pension contribution. I have added my signature to this and the date and I would like to quote:

“As employees, we have never had say in either our contribution or benefit levels. We are not permitted to have input into investment of our money which makes up a $4-billion fund.”

I would like to present this petition, duly signed, to the House, Mr. Speaker, and to yourself.

TAX INCREASES

Mrs. Cunningham: I have another petition. I am pleased to take this petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, signed by approximately 100 residents of Ontario, objecting to the tax increases imposed by the Peterson government.

I have two like petitions which I will present at this time.

Mr. Villneuve: I too have two petitions which I endorse and have signed.

I am pleased to table a petition to the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor and the Legislative Assembly of Ontario. It is signed by approximately 100 residents of Ontario objecting strongly to the tax increases imposed by the Peterson government in 1988.

The second petition is a similar one to the first one.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. B. Rae moved first reading of Bill 195, An Act to amend the Workers’ Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. B. Rae: Quite simply, this private member’s bill deletes section 86n of the Workers’ Compensation Act. It makes it clear that the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal is, in fact, the tribunal of last resort when it comes to appeals and that the Workers’ Compensation Board cannot use its bureaucratic power to overrule the appeal function of the Workers’ Compensation Appeals Tribunal.

1500

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

Hon. Mr. Grandmaîre moved second reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: Does the minister have any opening comment?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: I do. Bill 120, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act, received first reading on April 25, 1988, and is designed to implement the Treasurer’s budget of April 20, 1988, raising the tax on cigarettes and on cut tobacco.

La premiere lecture du projet de loi qui vise la modification de la Loi de la taxe sur le tabac a eu lieu le 25 avril 1988. Ce projet de loi prévoit la mise en application de La majoration de la taxe sur les cigarettes et le tabac coupe, annoncée par le Trésorier (M. Nixon) lors de la presentation du budget le 20 avril dernier.

The new rate of tax on cigarettes is 3.83 cents per cigarette, which represents an increase of one cent on the old rate of 2.83 cents per cigarette. The new rate of tax on cut tobacco is 2.2 cents per gram, which represents an increase of 0.6 cents on the old tax rate of 1.6 cents per gram. The increases became effective at 12:01 a. m., April 21, 1988.

I will also be proposing a further amendment to this bill that will permit the Lieutenant Governor in Council to make regulations to define any term used in the Tobacco Tax Act and to establish a system of marking tobacco products to improve compliance.

Copies of the proposed amendments have been distributed to honourable members.

Ms. Bryden: As the minister has said, Bill 120, the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, is part of the budget tax bills which whacked the residents of this province with $1.3 billion of extra taxes. This came after a pre-election sunshine budget of no taxes, which makes us wonder about the fiscal responsibility or irresponsibility of the Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon).

Strange to say, perhaps, this is one tax which our party does not oppose. Some people call it one of the sin taxes. To put it in a better light, it is one of the taxes which we hope will not only discourage smoking but will provide funds for helping people who wish to stop smoking, will provide funds for educating people about the dangers of smoking, both firsthand and secondhand, and will provide funds which may help those who are in tobacco farming to switch to other crops and other occupations.

We need a great deal of extra money for that. What this tax yields will not be nearly enough for that kind of adjustment program for tobacco farmers and for people in the production of cigarettes and other kinds of tobacco. They also will need assistance if this tax has the effect of reducing smoking.

The purpose of the bill is to raise the excise tax on cigarettes by one cent per cigarette from 2.83 cents to 3.83 cents and by 0.6 cents for each gram of cut tobacco. On a full-year basis, this will raise an additional $172 million. This is consistent with what our party has been calling for in our prebudget material over the last couple of years because Ontario, even with the tax increase, will still be firmly in the middle with respect to the level of tobacco tax that is imposed across the country. Prebudget presentations have indicated this is one area where the Ontario government should not only stay in the middle, but should perhaps lead the way in taxing tobacco.

This does not mean we do not sympathize with those who find great difficulty in stopping smoking or those who work in workplaces where there is secondhand smoke and there is no protection from it. We hope the ministerial statements of last week about providing smoke-free workplaces in the province by next spring will really be implemented, because the provincial government’s implementation of its own internal smoke-free workplace for workers is abysmally foot-dragging and inadequate.

In our own caucus, we have asked for a room to be provided for the smokers that would be vented and separate from the rest of the offices. Certainly in the north wing we have no such room and I do not think steps have been taken in the main building either. It is simply being rhetorical for the government to say it is going to have smoke-free workplaces in Ontario by next spring if it does not provide adequate facilities for those who still smoke, and protection for employees who do not wish to have lunch-rooms full of smokers; or other offices with no place to smoke with employees having to go outside, take longer breaks and that sort of thing.

One interesting thing about this bill, and I hope the minister will look at it, is that while it puts an extra tax on cigarettes and on cut tobacco, it studiously avoids any extra tax on cigars. I think we have advocated for the past several years that cigars should also have increased taxes, but neither the previous Progressive Conservative government nor the present Liberal government has seen fit to increase the tax on cigars. I will be interested to know if the third party is prepared to recommend that this year.

Is there a symbolic implication, that cigars are exempted because they are smoked by big business, and is this a big business government that does not want to touch the cigar smokers? This is something I think should be investigated.

We have to admit this is a regressive tax and this party is opposed to the switch to regressive commodity taxes which the provincial Treasurer seems to be leaning more and more towards. His $1-billion increase in the sales tax of course is the prime example of a switch to commodity taxes or more reliance on commodity taxes. The gasoline tax increase is also an additional tax that is regressive and will not hit according to ability to pay. In fact, the gasoline tax will depend on who drives the most miles, and whether it is part of your job or whether the goods that are delivered to you have added costs because of added gasoline tax.

In the case of the Tobacco Tax Amendment Act, I think we have to consider that this is a very regressive tax for those low-income, older people who have been addicted for years. They are the ones who really will suffer from it and they are the ones who should have some assistance in order to relieve the burden on them, because many of them have not been able to succeed in dropping the habit. Perhaps there should be a special relief tax credit for older people of low income who will really suffer from this tobacco tax increase. Of people over 60, probably 50 per cent are on pensions or below the poverty line and they really deserve some special treatment.

1510

We also want some of the proceeds to be used for education in the schools and education in sports centres so that we halt the early addiction of children. That is one area where this government has not done nearly enough. It has not paid enough to the schools in the way of teaching aids and information sessions for young children so they will be aware of what an addicting product cigarettes are, and that starting very early makes it very difficult to stop much later.

The other thing I think the minister should give us an answer to is the statement in the Provincial Auditor’s report last week that indicated there was cigarette smuggling going on and that the province was losing millions of dollars in revenue from the evasion of both tobacco and fuel taxes. We would like to know what the minister is doing to investigate these situations the auditor has pointed out, to see how much of this lost revenue can be recovered and how these illegal activities can be stopped.

Not only are we losing as taxpayers, but we are losing the battle against cigarette addiction by allowing this kind of smuggling of the product, it then being marketed through illegal channels that do not care whether the person who buys it becomes addicted. That is an area where I would like the minister to reply before we go further.

I am also still concerned about what he and his colleagues will report to us they will do with the additional $167 million with regard to the tobacco farmers and what additional assistance will be available to them. I think they are the greatest losers from an economic point of view in this industry and they certainly need all the assistance this government can give them. We hope a program will be brought forth in this session. Now that we are increasing the tobacco tax, we hope a program will be brought forth as to how the minister intends to spend the additional $172 million.

Our party will be supporting this bill. As I say, it is one of the few tax bills we support. Most of them do not seem to be going in the direction of a fairer tax system, but we support it for health reasons and for reasons of providing funds for educating people, and if possible, ending tobacco addiction.

Mr. Sterling: It is with a great deal of pleasure that I see and indicate the support of our party for this particular Tobacco Tax Amendment Act. It is the first time in a long time that this government has attempted to keep up with the rest of Canada with regard to taxation. I guess it is one of the few taxes I have said was too low in the past.

Tobacco taxation is part of a comprehensive policy needed by this government to assist in fighting addiction to tobacco. We have had in the past the Minister of Health (Mrs. Caplan) say that this government believes in preventive health care, yet we have had in the past a government unwilling to act with regard to bringing up the level of taxation to an adequate level in order to keep the consumption of tobacco down to a reasonable level.

I want to talk about a number of matters with regard to this particular act. The first I would like to deal with is the matter of the taxation of tobacco over the past three or four years in Ontario. What we have seen in the past four or five years is that tobacco products in Ontario in April 1984 were the second highest in all of Canada. Prior to this tax increase, we became the second lowest taxer of tobacco.

I am not out to hit cigarette users or people unjustly in terms of the amount of tax they pay on any particular product, but the fact of the matter is that there is a very good argument that the level of taxation has a very direct effect on the consumption of tobacco in Ontario. Over the past three or four years, because this government has failed to keep the tobacco tax up with the rate of inflation, there has been an increasing number of smokers taking up the habit in this province.

It is also interesting to note, according to a Rothmans of Pall Mall Ltd. report, that if we go back in time to the 1960s, 67 per cent of the product cost at that time was tax. Prior to this government coming forward with this tax increase, the amount of tax per cigarette had dropped to 62 per cent. In very real terms, this government had cut back on the amount of taxation it was taxing people in this province.

Mr. Faubert: We are supposed to be the good guys for that.

Mr. Sterling: Well, in some ways I would agree that lower taxes are nice. But if you read the reports of various researchers who have looked into this matter, they will indicate to you that if you keep your taxation low and the price of tobacco products low, you will encourage young people to start smoking.

I am going to refer, first, to recommendation 4 of a report for the Ontario Council of Health, dated 1982. It says, “It is recommended that the government of Ontario take action to ensure that the retail price of cigarettes be doubled within a 12-month period by means of three-phased increases in taxation.”

They indicate their reasoning for that. The first reasoning they put down is: “It probably is the most direct and reliable way to reduce the overall amount of smoking in the province. Its rapid and substantial effect should make a marked contribution to social climate and facilitate other recommendations.” They also say, “The measure would be productive of additional government revenue which could be used to finance other components in an overall smoking program.”

I want to refer to that a little later, to what some of this funding is being used for and how little of this $150 million to $170 million is actually being plowed back to prevent people from taking up the habit of tobacco, and also to try to compensate people who are getting out of the process of supplying that tobacco.

1520

Another reason they talk about, and this is the most important one, is that the impact would be especially strong on young people who have less disposable income and whose smoking is a particular problem for society. Very recent scientific evidence underscores the great significance of this measure for smoking prevention.

In other words, they are saying that as you increase the level of taxation and the cost of tobacco, it is young people who will quit faster than anybody else and who will be more affected by the increase in the tobacco tax. I think that is something we should encourage. I know all members of this House do not agree with that, particularly the four members of the government side who represent the tobacco area.

With regard to the tie between the rate of taxation of tobacco and the consumption of tobacco, I would like to refer to a study by Dr. Kenneth Warner who is with the department of health planning and administration at the University of Michigan. He says in a documented study that the pattern of price responsiveness varies with age. He says, first, “Teenagers and young adults have smoking habits that are less well defined and of shorter duration,” which implies less of an addiction to tobacco when people are young.

“The potential for responsiveness to price is much greater,” so the younger you are, the more likely your habits are to change as the price of tobacco goes up. “Younger people may be more inclined to start smoking as a result of a price decrease,” which has happened over the past three years in Ontario because the government has not kept the rate of taxation up with the rate of inflation. “On average, younger people will have less disposable income so that the price response may include more of an income effect.”

Dr. Warner, who has studied this matter, says that as we increase the price of tobacco, the likelihood of older people leaving or quitting smoking is not that great, but some of our younger people, those who are starting to smoke, will be discouraged from taking up the habit.

He also says in this report of the study: “Very few people begin to smoke after the age of 21 years. Hence, cigarette price decreases might be unlikely to induce adults to start smoking, while price increases could encourage some smokers to quit. The implication is that price response might be considerably greater in the instance of price increases than decreases.”

In his conclusions with regard to this particular article he has written: “In the long run, the toll of smoking is tied to the smoking practices of the youngest generation. There is widespread consensus that the ultimate conquest of smoking-induced illness can come only from preventing the onset of smoking in the teenage and early years.

“In this regard, the findings of this study are particularly important. Not only do the price responses represent large numbers of young persons, they also represent substantial proportions. An eight-cent decrease in the federal excise tax” -- he is talking about a decrease in American excise tax -- ”would increase the ranks of teenaged smokers by about 10 per cent, assuming the decrease was fully passed on to the consumers.” Therefore, for every per cent of increase or decrease in the rate of cost of tobacco, the consumption by young people either decreased or went up by that amount.

The results of the fact that this government has not kept up with inflation were reflected in the statistics, I believe for 1986, which indicated that while smoking has decreased in all other provincial jurisdictions across Canada, it either stayed the same or increased in Ontario.

That could be attributed partially to the affluence of the people of Ontario, in terms of the economy being relatively good at this time, or it could be as a result of us underpricing our tobacco products in relation to the disposable income that our people have at this time.

I mentioned before that we in Ontario, at the time this government took power, were the second-highest taxers of tobacco. Prior to this tax being implemented we were the second-lowest. With this particular tax increase we come about in the middle of the pack, either fifth or sixth in that range. I might add that most of the provinces that are higher than that are ones with smaller populations.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: And do not add the retail sales tax.

Mr. Sterling: No, my figures take into account, I might add for the Minister of Revenue, the total taxes after adding in the retail sales tax.

Hon. Mr. Crandmaître: Our tax does not include the retail sales tax.

Mr. Sterling: I am quite aware of that. So the minister will have the correct figures. I will say that on a carton of 200 cigarettes the prices I have been given show that the total tobacco taxes are $17.23 in Ontario. This includes a tobacco tax of $7.66, a sales tax of $1.92 --

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: All told, $9.45.

Mr. Sterling: I have $9.58, so we are close.

In relation to that, the province has now brought itself into line with the mainstream of Canada. I hope that over the next year or two, or even this year, we will see a drop in consumption of tobacco because we have brought those figures up to a reasonable level.

Why has my party in particular led this fight against the use of tobacco, trying to constrain the use of tobacco? Every 43 minutes in Ontario someone dies prematurely by seven to seven and a half years because of the addiction to tobacco. That is every 43 minutes, so from the time I started speaking to the time I end, someone in this province will pass away because of his or her use of tobacco. That is how lethal this product is.

I want to quote from the World Health Organization. We have been a long time coming around to realizing what the World Health Organization has said and that we should take some action on it. It said in 1975, “Smoking-related diseases are such important causes of disability and premature death in developed countries that the control of cigarette smoking could do more to improve health and prolong life in these countries than any other single action in the whole field of preventive medicine.”

1530

The Minister of Health has stated that she is interested in preventive medicine, but it has only been after some pushing and cajoling that the government has now seen fit to take some action with regard to taxation, with regard to controlling smoking in the workplace and in public places.

I do want to congratulate the Minister of Correctional Services (Mr. Ramsay). I see him sitting in the House. I understand in his institutions he has now taken some policies with regard to young offenders and the use of tobacco. I wanted to congratulate him here -- he is standing up and taking a bow -- because in doing this, the minister has given a lot of young people who are caught up in our young offenders’ institutions a degree of comfort in terms of trying to stay away from tobacco. Unfortunately, in the past, many of our young people became addicted to tobacco while they were in our institutions. I wanted to congratulate the minister on taking that step. I do not always say only negative things about the government, as you know, Mr. Speaker.

The one thing I did want to say in a negative context about the government is what this government is doing with the money it is getting from this particular tobacco tax. The member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller) might be well aware of this, as I am sure he is involved with the Redux program, which deals with trying to compensate tobacco producers if they opt out of producing tobacco. I believe some tobacco producers have already taken some steps to exit from producing tobacco.

I was much chagrined at the fact that this government has not held up its end of the bargain with regard to the Redux program. In fact, what has happened is that we had a great announcement, going back to May 1987, dealing with the reduction of tobacco producers and compensating them for it. Both the federal and provincial governments agreed to put forward $30 million each. Now the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell) is saying he is not going to come up with his $30 million.

I read most recently an article in the Delhi News-Record, which is down in the tobacco belt. It said:

“The provincial government will not match relief money. The Ontario Minister of Agriculture and Food has turned thumbs down on matching the additional $30 million in Redux funding announced by the federal government in mid-October. At a meeting with the tobacco board directors on Monday, Mr. Riddell made it very clear he would watch the federal Redux program for the next four years before committing any Ontario funding for this purpose. He expressed his concern about too many producers leaving the business and said he wants a viable tobacco industry. Mr. Riddell did say he would go to cabinet to seek more funding for transition, alternative crops, research and retroactivity.”

I find it a little two-faced here that the government is coming in with a significant increase in tobacco taxes, some $150 million to $170 million, yet is unwilling to help out the producers in the riding of the member for Norfolk, who see the writing on the wall with regard to the use of tobacco. I feel very strongly that this government is being two-faced in terms of asking for a greater amount of tax with regard to this product but not helping out the people who are going to be affected by the fact that -- I hope -- more people will abandon tobacco in the future and that young people will not get hooked on it in the future.

There are many other points that I could raise about this government’s overall policy with regard to tobacco. As I said at the outset of my remarks, tobacco tax is part of an overall policy which should be developed on the use of tobacco:

Tobacco taxation, as I have mentioned before, the reduction of the number of tobacco producers who are producing tax, and this government putting its fair share of money into the pot to help those people out. I think they should be doing more to help out not only the primary producers of tobacco, but also those people who work in the factories which produce the cut tobacco products. This government has done nothing in that regard.

We recently have heard that the government would, in its own civil service, be assisting provincial civil servants to the tune of about $100 each, to help them try to break the tobacco habit. I would like to see this government take a more active role in assisting not only people in the provincial civil service to get away from the addiction of tobacco, but also individuals in the private workplace.

I would be remiss if I did not also congratulate the Minister of Labour (Mr. Sorbara), who is not here, on bringing forward a piece of legislation last week to control smoking in the workplace. I have read that piece of legislation over and have many concerns about how practical it is and whether it can be enforced and will provide protection for nonsmokers in the workplace.

I was privileged to debate briefly with the minister last week and put forward the scenario within that piece of legislation that would still allow a situation whereby a nonsmoker would be forced to sit side by side with a smoker.

I look forward to having the government bring that bill forward so that we can then put it out to a committee, in order to ensure that there will be proper amendments to that piece of legislation, that nonsmokers’ rights will really be protected in the workplace. Unfortunately, while I believe that the piece of legislation that the government has brought forward is well intentioned, I do not believe that it reaches its goal. I am quite willing to work in a positive and constructive way to reach that conclusion.

I can only say, in concluding my remarks, that we in this party support this increase in the level of taxation of tobacco products. However, we do not believe that this government is utilizing that money to help tobacco producers who are going to be put out of business if in fact the rate of consumption of tobacco goes down as a result of this tax increase. I want each and every tobacco producer in Ontario to know that the federal government is now doing more than twice what Ontario is doing in this regard. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture and Food does not seem to want to do very much at all to deal with this particular issue.

1540

I wish the Minister of Health was here, because while the Addiction Research Foundation deals extensively with the problems of addiction to alcohol and to drugs, it is doing far too little with regard to the addiction to tobacco. I believe that, in terms of research staff, there are 10 researchers dealing with alcohol addiction to one dealing with tobacco addiction. When we compare these two addictions and consider the carnage, the loss of health and the loss of life caused by the addiction to tobacco is at least equal to that caused by the addiction to alcohol, if not greater.

The other area the member for Beaches-Woodbine (Ms. Bryden) was talking about was public education. The only thing that we have seen from this government in the past has been a decrease in the number of dollars it has put forward to tell our young people the facts and figures about the use of tobacco and to say that once they start tobacco, they may not be able to quit in the future.

We look at tobacco taxation as part of one of the comprehensive policies which our party would put forward if we were ever to govern in the immediate future. One particular part of our policy would be to encourage tobacco producers to get out of the business. We would pay them fairly, compensate them fairly to get out of the business. We would help them retrain. We would also like to help the communities that are affected by the fact that the tobacco product may not be part of their economy any more. We would like to help retrain those workers who convert the tobacco products into their end use.

We would like to help people in the private sector kick their addiction to tobacco. We would consider policies, like a reduced Ontario health insurance plan premium, for people who do not smoke. We would consider other kinds of policies to encourage in some way a reduction of the use of tobacco by all our Ontario residents.

As I said before, every 43 minutes someone in our province dies prematurely by seven to seven and a half years because of tobacco-related illness. That adds up to 35 or 40 a day, 12,000 a year. Unfortunately, once individuals get hooked on tobacco, it is almost impossible for a good number to quit.

We would look at a reasonable policy with regard to tobacco tax and we support this increase in tobacco tax, but we would ask the government to reconsider other prongs of its health care policy and give more of this $150 million to $170 million to fighting the results of increasing tobacco tax in the province.

Mr. Miller: As the member for Norfolk, I want to take a couple of moments to express my concerns about the tax that has been proposed and about some of the comments that have been made by members in the Legislature, particularly the one who has been on a crusade against smoking for many years now within the province, the member for Carleton (Mr. Sterling), and also the member for Beaches-Woodbine who commented earlier that this is a sin tax.

I would not disagree with the statements which have been made and I am not one to stand up to promote a product which is going to be detrimental to the health of our young people or the people of our province, but I would like to make a few points that concern me.

The first is that the higher you put the tax on tobacco, the more pressure you are putting on, going in different directions, the use of a habit-forming product. It can vary from drinking to drugs to smoking pot and so many other things that go on.

First, I would like to indicate that I never smoked until I was 30, as a matter of fact, because when we went to school, smoking was not permitted in the school. The only ones who did smoke used the church shed and they often rolled their own tobacco at that time, because money was very scarce and very hard to come by and the principal smokers were using roll-your-own tobacco rather than tailor made. Only the well-to-do people could afford that luxury of using tailor-made cigarettes.

I did not smoke because I wanted to protect my health. I enjoyed sports and I wanted to participate to the fullest of my ability. Consequently, we looked up to our athletes of the day like Syl Apps, Howie Meeker and those who played hockey when the Maple Leafs had an excellent hockey team. As I recall, Bee Hive corn syrup was the main energy producer for those hockey players and was the main sponsor. How times have changed.

To project my personal life a little further, we played ball and hockey until we were 35 or close to 40 years old, and supported our hockey team by coaching and lending our talents in those directions. We always promoted strong bodies and taking care of yourself.

I can recall also, as we used to go for a drive on a Sunday afternoon, my father would have a cigar. He would light it up, and that smoke always kept a memory of my father. He passed away when I was 21 years old, but I always enjoyed that trip because I loved the smell of that tobacco smoke.

When we went to school, the old steam trains used to go through Jarvis, and the smoke from those trains was another era we have gone through. It was always a highlight that we could stand and watch that train go by and have that whiff of smoke.

Again, I do not recall it, but I have heard my mother and dad say that my grandparents always smoked a clay pipe. Consequently, I was not led in either direction, whether I should smoke or not smoke, but as I got older I have taken up smoking the odd cigar. I have taken up smoking my pipe.

As I said, when I go to visit my mother who is in the nursing home at Simcoe, there are some older folks there sitting by the door smoking on their pipes. I am not sure what else they might do to get a little satisfaction and contentment, and I think it is relaxing to see them do that. When we are talking about wiping out the use of tobacco totally, I do not think that is going to be possible.

Only this last summer, within the Ontario Tobacco Museum in Delhi, in the township of Delhi in my region of Haldimand-Norfolk, they unveiled a bronze plaque of the tobacco plant. It was unveiled by a member of the Six Nations Indian reservation. He gave the history of tobacco as it relates to North America, indicating that it has always been grown here and that it was a way that those native Canadians or Indians communicated with their Maker. There is merit to that if we get some satisfaction.

He did make the comment that when the white man came to Canada, he did not know how to handle it. They would be the first ones to admit that anything used in excess can be hazardous to your health, and chain-smoking is hazardous, no doubt about it. Making our young people aware of the hazards can be applied, again, in many areas. We do make them aware of that and we do set good examples for our young people. and we do not permit them to smoke in our schools.

1550

Another thing: If we do not permit them, even in this Legislature, and my colleagues indicate that

it is a hazard to them, they do not like it, it is going to be detrimental, I respect that. I think it is respect that I want to promote.

A quote from the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, October 11l, 1988, indicates my concern about roll-your-own cigarettes. “As the tax goes up, we will see more use of roll-your-own tobacco. You do not have the protection with those that you have with a filter on tailor-made cigarettes.

As I recall, when I go back to those growing-up days in the 1930s and 1940s, roll-your-own was the main tobacco smoked. Vogue cigarette papers and a package of Daily Mail for 25 cents could provide you with smokes for a week.

In the Globe dated Tuesday, October 11, it indicates that: “A decade ago, roll-your-own cigarettes were associated with cowboys and fishermen and were understandably an insignificant part of the market. But sales of fine-cut tobacco for rolling has doubled in the past 10 years and they now account for 15 per cent of the total sales.”

I think that is an indication, without having to go through a lot of research, that tobacco is going to be used in one form or another, and if people are going to roll their own, the government is going to lose taxation money which has been a great contributor to the overall revenue of the province, particularly over the last 15 or 20 years.

The member for Carleton indicated that his government was responsible for putting that heavy tax on. I recall it well, but I think by overextending the tax, in the long run we will lose income and drive people to go in other directions in utilizing tobacco, no matter what.

I do not think the tax increase is unacceptable according to inflation. I would just like to make that point to the minister as he considers increasing the taxes in the future.

I suppose the other argument I would like to put is that we are encouraging smuggling, moving tobacco from one province to another if the tax is not in relationship across Canada. Being close to the American border, of course, we have to contend with competing there also.

I think those two arguments should be considered in dealing with any increase in the future.

To get back to comments by the member for Carleton on what we have done for the tobacco farmers, particularly in Ontario, which we represent and which produces 90 per cent of all Canada’s tobacco, we have been supportive, along with our federal friends, in supporting the Redux program and trying to assist those farmers who have been caught in a difficult financial position. We have contributed $21 million, along with our federal friends, to assist up to 500 farmers in retiring from the industry and taking 3,200 acres of tobacco out of production.

We do have a tobacco advisory committee established at the present time within the Ministry of Agriculture and Food, again made up of our federal representatives, our tobacco growers and the manufacturing sector, to come up with a long-term plan to ease out those growers if the market continues to decline. I would like to make a point very clearly to the member for Carleton, that tobacco sales and growth last year was at about 110 million pounds. This year we have markets for 145 million pounds, which is an increase.

If we are going to have tobacco on the shelves in Ontario and in Canada, would he want that tobacco to be imported or would he like to see our farmers growing it here in Ontario? From my point of view, and as the representative of my area, I want to make sure that if it is going to be a legal product and if it is going to be utilized, I think that our farmers should be permitted to supply that demand.

With those comments, I would like to close with a warning to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) that hopefully he can see fit to keep a realistic figure on tax increases, particularly when it comes to tobacco.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any questions or comments? Would the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. D. S. Cooke) like to ask some questions or make some comments? Are there any other participants in the debate? Would the minister or the parliamentary assistant like to wrap up the debate?

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: With regard to the tax on cigarettes and cut tobacco, I think there is a general consensus in this House that the increases are warranted and that the size of the increases is appropriate at this time.

Avec un produit de consommation comme la cigarette où la taxe constitue une grande partie du prix de vente, les profits réalisés par ceux qui arrivent à se soustraire au paiement de la taxe sont considérables.

Protecting the integrity of the tobacco tax base has become a matter of increasing concern. The amendments with respect to marking will be made to this bill in committee and will give us the ability to improve tobacco tax compliance.

If I may, I would like to address some of the concerns that some members have brought to my attention concerning Bill 120. The member for Beaches-Woodbine has asked me a point-blank question. What will the government provide us with or what will they do with the additional $150 million? I would like to remind her that the government has used in the past and will continue to use these tax dollars to improve programs, such as health programs, environment programs and other health programs. These tax dollars have always been used to improve programs.

Her second question was, “What will you do about the tobacco growers in this province who will go bankrupt or whatever?” What have we done in the past to assist them? I would like to remind her that this government and the federal government have worked out or are working out a three year program consisting of $30 million for the next three years to assist tobacco growers to adjust themselves to raising other crops.

I think we have responded and we will continue to respond to the tobacco growers of this province. I know that they are dearly affected by any tax increase, as the member for Norfolk pointed out so correctly. We are thinking about these tobacco growers.

There was another question from the member for Beaches-Woodbine about cigars. Cigars are taxed at 45 per cent of the retail price. This is a higher tax than the 3.83 cents per cigarette tax.

Ms. Bryden: There has been no increase for a long time. Isn’t it time for an increase?

1600

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: No, no increase. It is 45 per cent and I just want to remind the member that it is higher than the 3.3 cents for cigarettes. Also, to respond to my colleague the member for Carleton: first of all, I think this honourable member must be congratulated for the fight that he has been putting up in this House and outside this House to combat addiction and smoking in the workplace.

I was very interested in his comments and remarks which he read from the report of some doctor, whose name escapes me at the present time. I do not want to argue with those facts. I think they are facts and I want to encourage him to keep up the fight. I think people have to be better informed about addiction to tobacco and I think that the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Labour at the present time are working hand in hand to combat addiction and to introduce better programs in order to diminish and eliminate tobacco use.

For the time being, I want to thank the participating members.

Motion agreed to.

Bill ordered for the standing committee on finance and economic affairs.

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L’ESSENCE

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître moved second reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: This bill, An Act to amend the Gasoline Tax Act, provides for an increase to the rate of tax on gasoline. The new rate of tax on gasoline is 9.3 cents per litre, which represents an increase of one cent over the old rate of 8.3 cents per litre.

La taxe sur l’essence passe de 8,3 cents a 9,3 cents le litre, soit une majoration d’un cent.

This bill also provides for an additional levy at a rate of three cents per litre on all purchases of leaded gasoline, making the effective tax rate for leaded gasoline at 12.3 cents per litre.

Ce projet de loi prévoit également une augmentation supplémentaire de trois cents le litre sur tout achat d’essence avec plomb, portant la taxe sur l’essence avec plomb à 12,3 cents le litre.

This increase became effective at 12:01 a.m., April 21, 1988.

The Deputy Speaker: Are there any questions and comments on the minister’s statement? Do other members wish to participate in the debate?

Ms. Bryden: This amendment to the gasoline tax is a further departure by the provincial Treasurer (Mr. R. F. Nixon) and the government from a fair tax system in this province. The budget that the Treasurer brought in on April 20 contained an almost $1-billion increase in sales tax, and then a further $167 million in gasoline tax. It followed a pre-election, no-tax budget, which shows how much the government was trying to hoodwink the voters into thinking the Treasury was full and no tax increases were going to be imposed. Little did they realize what a big whack would be imposed when the first budget after the election came down. This bill, as the minister has said, raises the tax on a litre of gasoline by one cent. That is a regressive tax.

There is an additional charge of three cents on leaded gasoline. That is the only part of this bill I would support, because leaded gasoline has been proved to produce a great deal of pollution and should have been banned years ago by this government and by the federal government. This pollution is infecting all of us and is pollution we should not be exposed to. In fact, I would really recommend a higher tax on leaded gasoline so that there is no incentive to adjust your car so that you can continue to use it.

There should be a real disincentive built into the law about leaded gasoline. lt really should be banned outright. I notice that at the gas pumps the full three-cent differential does not always show up, which means there is some lack of enforcement or definition in that extra three cents being collected so that the two prices are at least equalized. I think that is something the ministry should be looking into.

It seems the height of something or other for the minister to come to us asking for a one-cent-a-litre increase in the gasoline tax with the Provincial Auditor bringing out a report last week saying, “You’re not collecting half of what you should be collecting from the gasoline tax,” and that there are all sorts of schemes being operated to defraud the government of its collections from this tax. Apparently, it has been going on for years.

I think this highlights the lack of proper administrative procedures in the collection of this tax. It indicates another reason why the ministry should be bringing out an annual report, which I have been suggesting for a number of years, so that we could have statistics on collections and costs of collections and the kind of administration personnel being used in this field. The estimates would then give us a better opportunity to examine the practices of the ministry in collecting this tax.

Thank goodness we have an auditor who has some clout and some machinery for investigating these activities of the Ministry of Revenue. There should be much more information available, so that all of us would not be taken by surprise when the auditor suddenly discovers there are a whole lot of illegal activities going on. I am really shocked that the Ministry of Revenue did not seem to know very much about them, or if it did, they did not come out until the auditor reported them to us. I think there should be no increase in the gasoline tax until such time as they clean up their act on collecting it.

1610

The gasoline tax is one of the most regressive taxes in our system because not only is it not based on ability to pay, but it hits certain parts of the province much more heavily than other parts. The north in particular not only pays a higher gas tax because the distances are so great, but it also pays a higher gas tax because the cost of the fuel is higher. It has to come more of a distance up to the north. The northern people also pay extra costs on all their consumer goods which are trucked in or brought in by any form of motor vehicle, because the cost of the gas is added to the price and then the markup is put on top of that.

There are good arguments for a lower gasoline tax in the north in order to equalize in some way the cost to the consumer of having to be serviced greatly by vehicle carriers and paying all this extra tax to the government.

The gasoline tax also discriminates against people in certain occupations. Anybody who needs to drive a car in connection with his work pays more for the operation of his business or for his occupation. Often the cost is not reimbursed by his employer. It is not based on ability to pay; it is based on the amount of travelling you have to do and the high cost of the fuel when you get it in different parts of the province.

We need an equalization of the cost of fuel and we need some compensation for the greater distances and greater costs of consumer products, particularly in areas where there are very few alternative means of transportation. That is another handicap the people in the north suffer from, and the people in some other parts of the province too. There are fewer bus services or transit services, so more and more people have to rely on gas-driven vehicles or some other fuel that is used in them that is equally taxed.

We wonder why the government felt it had to whack all of us with these huge tax increases in the first post-election budget when it actually had an increase in revenues, in the year before the budget came down, of nearly eight per cent. Certainly, that is way above the cost of inflation.

The government is overtaxing us, if we consider it should just keep up with the cost of inflation, in order to have more money to throw around in various ways, as it seems to be doing in grants to the IDEA Corp. and things of that sort. But it is cutting back on all the grants to self-help groups, Meals on Wheels, services to seniors and things of that sort. Instead of using some of its revenue for those things, it is using its revenue to take trips to Hong Kong or have the caucus move around the province frequently.

The people who really need the grants -- self-help groups, service groups and groups that are trying to organize nonprofit housing -- are the ones who are not getting any of this largess. What they are told is: “There is a freeze on government services and ministries. We have to keep our costs down.” So they keep them down at the expense of the poor and the underfunded groups that are trying to serve the people of this province who are being underserved in very many ways.

I include welfare recipients in that group. Apparently, they will have to wait until next spring for any sort of increase, even though the province has all this money flowing in from the new sales tax. Those people are really hit very hard by the new sales tax, because to them it is a 14 per cent increase in most of their living costs since they do not have very much they can save and do not buy very much that are not taxable commodities.

We are going to vote against this bill, against the one-cent increase. We will support the three-cent-per-litre increase on leaded gasoline, but hope it will be enforced better so there will be no differential in the cost of leaded and unleaded gas. I hope we will move with regulations to outlaw the use of leaded gas as soon as possible. We are actually behind the United States in the elimination of leaded gas and emissions from motor vehicles.

We would have hoped that instead of this increase, the government would have moved further towards a fairer tax system. But we find that at the same time as this tax comes in, there is not a one-cent increase in the corporation tax and there is no minimum tax for corporations in this province, so literally thousands of corporations pay no tax at all because they are able to benefit from the loopholes in the tax system. Therefore, ours becomes less and less a fair tax system, the poor and the middle class pay a larger and larger percentage and those who drive cars are being asked for an even greater contribution than other people who do not have to drive cars as part of their work or as part of their living standards, as part of the commodities they must purchase.

I urge the minister to reconsider this bill, to withdraw it and instead to bring in a corporation tax that produces a fair share from the corporations, and to stop whacking the users of gasoline.

Mr. Harris: I want to say a few words. Unfortunately, it has been so long since this budget was introduced and this bill tabled in the House that one has to refresh one’s memory once again at just how dastardly a move this tax was, along with the other ones. However, as I quickly reviewed it in preparation for some lengthy comments today, it did not take me long to --

Mr. D. S. Cooke: Work yourself back into it.

Mr. Harris: That is right; to remember just what a dastardly move it was.

Mr. Reycraft: Remember the holiday spirit.

Mr. Harris: In the holiday spirit; thank you very much.

I mention that by way of preface because it really is, and I am taking every opportunity to say so as we debate these tax bills. I do not blame the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Grandmaître) nor the Ministry of Revenue officials who are watching with bated breath, anxiously wondering what the member for Nipissing might say. I do not blame them because I know they would have much preferred to have had these tax bills debated in the spring, and to have had them completed in an orderly fashion in the way good, orderly governments used to do things around here.

I know it must be with much chagrin that they have to deal with a Premier (Mr. Peterson), a Treasurer and a House leader who all say: “Look, these tax bills are not very friendly things. In fact, we’ve just perpetrated the biggest tax grab in the history of the province on the people. Maybe if we kind of put them out of sight, they will be out of mind through a federal election. Perhaps the longer we can put them off, we can squeeze the opposition by bringing them on just before Christmas and it will not want to debate them too long. Perhaps they will be buried in the free trade stuff going on in the federal House and the federal election aftermath and what not.”

1620

That is clearly the political agenda and strategy of this government. It is a very chicken strategy. It is not a fair strategy towards the people of this province. It is incumbent upon us to refresh the memory of the motoring public out there, as we do with the 14 per cent increase in sales tax, and of course the increase in tobacco taxes which we as a party are not actively opposing. We still have to wonder where the dollars are going. We would much prefer to see those dollars in some direct tie-in to fighting some of the negative effects of smoking and of tobacco usage.

The gas tax is 18 cents a gallon on leaded gasoline. We oppose this tax increase. We will be opposing this bill. On April 21, when we first got word of it, we indicated we were opposed to it. I think at that time the government was, and I guess still is, trying to portray this new tax as some form of environmental measure.

One of the advantages of doing this six, seven or eight months later is that we have not seen these new dollars that are coming into the Treasury being used to improve the environment in any way, shape or form. In fact, if a detailed analysis is done of the Ministry of the Environment estimates, quite the opposite is taking place.

At that time, I said if they -- that means the dastardly ones -- were serious they would lower the tax on unleaded gas to equalize prices. That was the name of the game, to provide equal prices for leaded and unleaded gasoline. The government could just as easily have lowered the tax on unleaded gasoline, or as we also proposed, it could have brought in a revenue-neutral measure, something that might have been a compromise between the two. The government chose not to do that.

Therefore, we concluded at that time, and we have seen nothing to change our minds, that this increase in tax is nothing more than another tax grab. Everyone will feel the impact of this tax increase, but the people in northern Ontario will be hurt even more, particularly by the sales tax but by the gasoline tax as well, because there are more people in the north still using leaded gasoline. That presents a problem as well.

Let me talk about the across-the-board, one-cent increase in gas taxes for a moment. This is a repeat performance of what the Treasurer attempted to do in 1985. At that time, he tried to rip off Ontario drivers with a substantial increase in gas taxes. That was when he took off the ad valorem, by the way, and tried to sneak a little extra in there at the same time.

Again, I do not blame the Revenue officials. In fact, I congratulate them for coming up with the little sneaky schemes to rip more money out of us, because that is indeed their job. Their job is bring money in for the province. Undoubtedly, in their minds in 1985, and it was confirmed in their minds in 1985, 1986, 1987 and 1988, they saw a greedy, fast-spending government coming in and said: “Look, our job is to feed this out-of-control monster that wants to substantially spend more money. If we’re going to do our job, we have to come up with every sneaky, underhanded measure we can to raise more money for our Treasurer and our Premier to spend.”

That is their job and I do not blame them for doing it. I blame the philosophy of a Premier who sets that kind of direction and who says: “Yes, that’s a good, sneaky idea. That will suck more money out of them. Let’s go with that.” Indeed, it is a civil servant’s job to read the Premier, see what he is like and give him what he wants, and that is what they are doing.

As I understand it, what we have is a one-cent increase in all gasoline taxes across the board. What happened in 1985 when the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue tried to do this was that there was a minority parliament, and when it was pointed out, particularly by my party -- the New Democratic Party members at the time were very anxious to get rid of the ad valorem aspect of the tax and that might have clouded their immediate judgement, because I thought they were not as quick to respond at that time to the hidden freezing, they were so ecstatic to see the removal of the ad valorem.

However, they quickly saw what was going on, as my party pointed out what was happening, and they joined with our party, as we are joining quite a bit these days on a number of issues, and we would not accept that. We would not accept that from the Treasurer, the Minister of Revenue or the Premier of the day.

Faced at that time with going to the people over a substantial increase in gasoline taxes, cognizant of the experience of Joe Clark when he tried to do something similar, the government backed down. They said: “No, we don’t think we’ll take this to the people. We think we will just back down and we will reduce that tax.” At that time, it was a flat tax proposal of 8.8 cents a litre and I guess they ended up reducing it to 8.3 cents per litre.

At that time, members will recall, the Conservative opposition of the day proposed an amendment that would place a cap. It said:

“Leave the ad valorem in, if it upsets you so much that prices go up. We propose to cap it at 16.6 per cent.” So if gasoline prices went down, which they did, as members will recall, the motoring public and the consumers would benefit. We would have capped it at the 8.3 cents. We think this would have been much fairer to drivers. In fact, had that 16.6 per cent ad valorem cap been in place, I believe the Ontario drivers would have saved about $450 million in 1986 and $500 million in 1987 under the Conservative proposal.

The Canadian Automobile Association has estimated the new Liberal system of gas taxes increases this to about $700 million for 1988 and the cost to individual drivers to approximately $96 per year. That is the difference between what a Conservative government had in place and would think is fair for gasoline taxes and what a greedy, high-spending Liberal government wants to do with gasoline taxes.

That is just the one cent that we are talking about, so that would be the unleaded gasoline.

When it comes to leaded gasoline, of course, we are into this four-cent increase, which I point out is precisely 18 cents a gallon, the figure that Joe Clark has lived to regret. Indeed, I suggest political history has been substantially changed by a government which thought 18 cents a gallon and being up front with people in putting it out there would be acceptable. I do not think there is any doubt that that tax at that time did change the course of history.

1630

I suggest to those Liberal backbenchers who at this very moment are in a caucus office, eating some peanuts, watching me speak -- I know they are there, because I was visiting them just a few moments ago. I did borrow some of the Liberal peanuts; in fact, they have been very generous with their peanuts. I want that on the record for those who are in there watching me at this moment.

I say that because there were a number of first-time members in there. I assume they are watching. They want to be cognizant of what can happen when a government hikes gasoline taxes 18 cents a gallon in one fell swoop. They may want to reflect back on this budget some time after 1991. At that time, they will probably have a million other reasons as to why they got walloped and lost power.

Over the next few years, as the members think of the government’s silly free trade stand and the new stupid things it will do over the next few years and the mistakes it will make, I suggest members not forget to think back to the 18-cents-a-gallon tax as perhaps the turning point, that this budget is perhaps the turning point that led to their defeat in 1991.

They have a caucus meeting tomorrow before this bill finally comes forward for third reading, so those first-time members, many of whom we know will not be returning members, may want to bring this up in caucus and say: “Listen, Mr. Premier, Mr. Treasurer and Mr. Minister of Revenue, yesterday, while we were eating peanuts in the caucus office, we heard the member for Nipissing talk about this 18-cent gas tax hike and he was making some sense to us. Could we just have a little chit-chat about this in caucus before we smoke this very unfair perpetration on the people of Ontario before third reading?”

I mention it for that reason. I also say they should hearken back three or four years from now to this budget and this day when I pointed it out to them.

The Treasurer has tried to smoke this through by saying it is an increase in tax on leaded gas as a measure which shows his concern for the environment. He is grabbing 18 cents a gallon and he wants us to believe: “I’m concerned about the environment. That’s why I’m ripping these people off.”

This really is very far from a positive environmental action. I think I pointed out to members that if indeed that were the motive, then a revenue-neutral tax scheme would have been the order of the day. The government would lower the tax on the leaded gasoline and increase the tax on the unleaded gasoline into a revenue-neutral mode.

Had the Treasurer done that, he could then, in good conscience, have said: “It’s an environmental measure. It’s revenue-neutral. This is why I did it.” We would have all bought that. Nobody buys it when all he does is rip off 18 cents a gallon and put it in his pocket and spend it wherever he may want to spend it, with no dedication to the environment.

It increases the tax burden, not substantially but somewhat, on low-income families, particularly in my neck of the woods. The member for Timiskaming (Mr. Ramsay) will know that he and I share some like constituencies in close geographic proximity which are not the richest areas of this province; indeed, they are some of the poorer areas of the province. They are struggling. They are looking at wages that are substantially below the provincial average and they depend on a vehicle. They do not have a fancy subway zipping up and down Yonge Street and across Bloor Street, buses whipping around all over the place and GO Transit bringing them in and out to work. They rely on their automobile. In some places the roads are so bad they need skidoos, but that is another story. I would like to save that argument for the Minister of Transportation (Mr. Fulton), who cash starves us in northern Ontario when it comes to roads.

Indeed, in those sections of my riding and like sections -- I mention the member for Timiskaming -- they have to use their automobiles. That is it. That is their only way in and out of town. It is their only way to whatever employment they are able to achieve. Admittedly, a lot of them will save money as they were formerly driving over to Milne Lumber. They no longer have to make that trip because they do not have those jobs any more. They will be looking to other areas to try to find jobs. I suppose they may use their cars even more if they are in the job hunt.

A lot of those people cannot afford new cars that run on unleaded gasoline. I understand that it is difficult for Metropolitan Toronto members to understand and to recognize what is going on in some regions of the province. It is difficult for the civil service, particularly centred here in Toronto, as they whip around in their new Buicks and Oldsmobiles -- and that is just the lower-down ones; the higher-up ones I guess are into the government cars, the Cadillacs and the rest of them.

It is very difficult for them to understand what life is like when you drive a 10-year-old half-ton to and from work or a 12-year-old car that relies on leaded gasoline. Those who cannot afford a new car, those areas of the province in my neck of the woods --

Mr. D. R. Cooke: How old is your car, Mike?

Mr. Harris: I am not talking about me. My car is about a week old. Quite frankly, I do not mind it being public knowledge that I get a new car every year. I am not the one that I am talking about here. In fact, there is no vested interest on my part at all. I am talking on behalf of those constituents throughout northern Ontario who --

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Then you don’t need a raise.

Mr. Harris: I would be very careful there if I were the member. I am talking on behalf of those constituents across this province who are a little less fortunate than others. This tax is regressive in that nature, I admit not by a large measure, but when you are poor, every cent counts. Take a four-cents-a-gallon increase as it applies to somebody who does not drive his seven-year-old or eight-year-old half-ton or car by choice -- when you add four cents a litre to gasoline for someone living in Chapleau or somewhere in northern Ontario where gasoline is already in the 55-cents-a-litre range, with his having to drive 30 or 40 miles for work, you can see that this is regressive in that way.

It really is a necessity in many areas of northern Ontario to own a car. It is not a luxury. It is not a treat. It is not like living in Toronto where you can walk to work, take the subway or the bus and have your Porsche and your Jaguar to zip up to your cottage on the weekends. In many areas of this province, in many of the areas of northern Ontario and indeed in some areas of eastern Ontario as well, it is still pretty tough slugging out there. Anything that impacts negatively on those people we are opposed to.

1640

I guess there are a couple of things I would like to close with. First, was this tax to be an environmental move? If so, we ought then to have seen substantially more dollars going into the environment, which we did not see, and we ought to have seen a revenue-neutral method of adjusting the taxation, to make those abuses where vehicles could run just as well on unleaded gasoline -- I am not opposed to that principle.

Had the minister brought it in as revenue neutral, and particularly had he taken my first option, which was to drop the tax on unleaded gasoline to equalize, then I would not have opposed that move. Had the minister made it revenue-neutral, it would have been difficult for me to oppose that move, because I could then have said: “Yes, the Treasurer is not trying to smoke it through. Yes, he really does care about the environment.” But we have seen not one whit of that concern for the environment. We saw a tax grab of 18 cents a gallon in the context of looking at this in conjunction with the sales tax grab of a 14 1/2 per cent increase and the tobacco tax rise which we saw.

Then there is the land transfer taxes. I was talking today in the Legislature with the Minister of Housing (Ms. Hosek), whom I do feel sorry for because I know what happened to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Kerrio); he lost the fight in cabinet and virtually lost his ministry. In fact, resource policy was taken away from him and given to the Premier and his wife and to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Bradley).

Now we see the Minister of Housing, whom I indeed did feel sorry for today. While being critical of the proposal, I acknowledged -- and I think she concurred -- that I really was fighting for her and her ministry. She now appears to have lost the battle. She has been hijacked in the corridors of power. Her power as Minister of Housing has been taken away from her by the Premier and the Treasurer in that greedy tax grab. They are looking at something that will give them $8,000 a lot and that in fact will probably cost home buyers $10,000 or $12,000 by the time the carrying costs are run through. In particular, I mention this in the context of land transfer taxes, which have tripled or quadrupled since this government took power.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, when one compounds it with gasoline taxes -- because I sense you want to bring me back to this bill -- that it is the compounding part of taxation that is so cruel and shows the true colours of this Premier and this Treasurer. I am sure when they are looking at spending estimates, they say: “Well, how much can we rip them off for and get away with? That’s how much we’ll spend.” Then there are the pressures of some minister saying, “No, we’ve got to spend more than that.” So then they go back to the poor Treasury officials and the poor Ministry of Revenue officials and say:

“Sorry, we’ve got to rip them off even more. Come up with some sneakier ways to do it.”

As I started my address today, that indeed is their job, to serve those sneaky political masters who make those sneaky decisions.

Hon. Mr. Mancini: Is that parliamentary, “sneaky”?

Mr. Harris: Sneaky? I think sneaky is pretty good. It is certainly apt anyway.

It really cannot be much fun being a civil servant in this government, when you know they are reduced to being that sneaky and trying to see how you can rip people off. I do not think it can be near as much fun as it would be with a more positive, outgoing, caring, Conservative government that --

Hon. Mr. Sorbara: That is a contradiction in terms, Michael, and therefore unparliamentary.

Mr. Harris: That is another story. As I said, for the civil service in this province and the people in this province, we accept the realities of September 10. We recognize it will be another two and a half, three or four years before that opportunity comes along.

I leave members by saying my party is opposed to this 18-cent-a-gallon tax grab.

Mr. Faubert: Eighteen cents?

Mr. Harris: Yes, 18.

Mr. Faubert: Not 18.

Mr. Harris: Now, just a minute. The member must be the parliamentary assistant the way he has been nattering away the last few days. I have kept track of that, but I have been interjected upon by the newly appointed parliamentary assistant. He says it is not 18 cents.

It is four cents a litre for the poor people, so if you multiply that by four and a half, which I think is roughly the number of litres in a gallon, it works out to 18 cents a gallon.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Three cents.

Mr. Harris: No. It is four cents. It is a cent across the board and then three cents extra for those, which is four cents.

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: So you are putting everybody in the same global picture?

Mr. Harris: No, it is only 18 cents for the poor people. The government did not hit the rich as hard. For the poor people it is 18 cents a gallon. I am sorry I had to take the parliamentary assistant through that math again, but maybe after a couple of years on the job he will understand how this system works.

We are opposed. We will be voting against this particular bill; in fact, we will be dividing on this particular bill. We point out once again to the people of Ontario that this is a cumulative measure of very far-reaching tax increases, some hidden, as they tried to hide this one under the guise of environment and as they tried to hide the land transfer tax in the cost of buying land, property and houses.

They have a hidden agenda, it appears, for every one of these things they bring up. I just point out that they are trying to hide this one under the guise of environment because their polling told them: “Slap it on. If you say it has something to do with environment, people might buy it.” I say it does not wash. We do not buy it. It is another greedy tax grab, and my party and my caucus will be opposing it.

Mr. Pouliot: I really take no pleasure in standing up today to talk about Bill 121, which is another systematic, deliberate and punitive measure to grab more money out of the consumers, especially those less fortunate in northern Ontario.

It was last week that I was on my feet talking about another excess in the cesspool of inefficiency, which was the mugging that took place under the auspices of a one per cent increase in the sales tax on December 10, 1988.

Today, I just received a survey of gasoline, that is, regular unleaded, in some parts of Ontario. In the community of Fort Severn, which is the northernmost settlement in the province, on the shores of Hudson Bay, this morning a litre of regular unleaded gasoline retailed for $1.08. In Kasabonika in the riding of Lake Nipigon, a native community, it cost $1 even. In Beardmore, in the southern part of the riding of Lake Nipigon, it cost 54.9 cents a litre; in Nakina, 54.9 cents; in the township of Marathon, which is now the largest township in the riding of Lake Nipigon, 55.9 cents a litre.

Manitouwadge, cave of the Great Spirit, also my hometown, was penalized to the tune of 54.3 cents a litre; the township of Geraldton, 54.9 cents; Schreiber, 56.9 cents; the boys at Shell in St. George -- this is where the Treasurer lives -- 47.9 cents. They are doing it to him too, although not to the same tune, because when we got to Toronto and other parts of the Golden Horseshoe this morning, we had three samples: 44.9 cents, 41.3 cents and 42.3 cents.

1650

What does it mean at a time when there is no need to increase either the sales tax or, in this ease, the gasoline tax? We have excess revenue. The province has been doing extremely well in terms of revenue: a low rate of unemployment, more people employed, money coming in from pretty well all over. There was no need for that supplementary tax grab. World oil prices, spot prices a few weeks back, went as low as $10 a barrel. Did the consumer get any benefit from those circumstances? Of course not.

Driving 30,000 kilometres a year is pretty well average in our special part of Ontario, because you have to drive longer distances in northern Ontario, and the climate is colder, so you have to warm up the car. Of course, every time you do so, you are using gasoline. If you were to drive 30,000 kilometres in northern Ontario versus 30,000 kilometres in southern Ontario and you had the same car, an ordinary car with 9.8 kilometres to the litre, it would cost you about $430 more to do the same in the north than it would in the south.

The members can laugh all they want, but I am talking about people not only in the riding of Lake Nipigon but all through northern Ontario who are being ripped off to the tune of an extra $400 in the left pocket. In the right pocket there is nothing left. This is no laughing matter, not at all.

Where will it end? We are talking about a necessity, not a luxury. We do not have public transportation systems. Every time we go to the marketplace, we have to use the car to go shopping. We travel to Thunder Bay, in our case, for medical services. Every time we leave home, we take our car to go to work. We take our car to go downtown and check the mail, while we still have a postal system. We go to Thunder Bay, we visit relatives, we drive back and forth. We are constantly driving. We should get a tax break, but we are not getting a tax break. We are paying $400 more a year on average to drive a car in northern Ontario than they are in southern Ontario.

One of the reasons given behind this, the rationale was that we were going to get better roads. Some of the money the government got from that supplementary tax was going to come back to northern Ontario for better roads.

I am going to tell the Treasurer what has happened. He better than anyone should be aware, because he made it possible. He made that climate possible, to give within a relatively short time $30 million of taxpayers’ money to build a stadium, the SkyDome, for a playpen --

Mr. Reycraft: Careful. We might catch you in there.

Mr. Pouliot: I do not have to be careful, because I see the injustice. On the one hand, $30 million of taxpayers’ money for the playpen on the waterfront -- the government will never get its money back; there is no provision in the arrangement, in the partnership, to get its money back -- but the $30 million in the heritage fund has yet to be spent.

It is a matter of doing what common sense dictates, of doing what is right. Those prices, when prices worldwide are at the lowest point that they have been in recent years, attest more than anything to the lack of consideration for the people of the north.

We can stand up and say: “If only I understood. That is all I wish to know.” But when I see 54.5 cents, 59.9 cents -- it goes on and on -- and in some cases $1 a litre, I really begin to stew. You have to look from within and say:

“No, try to be positive. You must not, it is not your mandate to judge others.” But there is really nothing left sometimes. People will say, “Well, don’t get emotional.” In fact: “Don’t talk with your hands. Just tell them very casually.” I have done that and it does not work.

People say, “What about credibility?” Yes, let’s talk about credibility. When I am paying a buck a litre, why make it $1.01? Why make it $1.03? Is there ever a time when it is enough that social justice will prevail? On the one hand, thousands of corporations do not pay one penny of tax; 34 per cent of the wealth in Ontario is controlled by one per cent of the population, and that is okay. “Don’t rebel. Don’t be too loud. Take your lunchpail, Joe, go home, work another day and pay more sales tax, pay more gas taxes, more provincial tax.” It never ends.

People are telling me: “I don’t want to work overtime any more. Sure, I’ll grab a couple of hours here and there, but what is the use? The government takes it all.” When we say that the middle class is under siege, we can never be repetitious. We can never say too often that the middle class is literally under siege; it is getting mugged. There is no question about it. There was no need for a supplementary three cents and one cent on leaded and unleaded gasoline. There was no need for that supplementary tax grab. Revenues were up, times indeed were good times, they were prosperous, world prices were down, and what do they do? One more shot, one more time.

On November 24, 10 or 12 days ago, I sent the following letter to the Minister of Energy (Mr. Wong). It goes as follows: “Mr. Minister, allow me to once again remind you of the glaring and embarrassing disparity in the cost of diesel fuel between Canada and the United States. In July of this year, diesel fuel cost paid by Ontario truckers” -- those are people making a living trucking goods back and forth in Ontario -- ”was 45.8 cents a litre.”

Let’s remind ourselves that under free trade, competition will become more and more the order of the day. What I want to convey here is, which is the better place to do business? What does the future have in store for us? “In New York, truckers were paying 28.4 cents.” Remember in July we were paying 45.8 cents; in New York, the truckers were paying 28,4 cents. “In Michigan, 27.9 cents, in California, 25.5 cents a litre.” Those are the people we will be competing with. “In Ohio, 28.4 cents a litre.”

I go on to say that world oil prices have been declining for well over a year -- and I have said that before -- with world spot prices at around $10 a barrel. Yet there is not one thread of evidence that these price reductions are being passed on to Ontario consumers. Prices are at the lowest they have been in years by virtue of a glut created by the lack of agreement by members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries. But these disagreements do not last for ever.

1700

In fact, a few days ago members of OPEC reached a tentative agreement, and we have noticed that the spot price of oil has been going up and up for the last 10 days. If we are paying those prices here on December 5, today, when prices are still relatively low, what can we expect to pay when the law of supply and demand is being affected negatively? When the price of that commodity goes up, are you looking at 10 cents a litre more or 20 cents a litre more? I do not know.

It is not going to get any warmer in northern Ontario. We still have to warm up the car, go to the market, take our children to the junction and to the bus station, take our parents to Thunder Bay 250 miles from where I live and take them back another 250 miles, and all that time the clock, the ticking never stops. Every kilometre is being penalized, every mile. Every time you run that engine you are putting money into the Treasury of Ontario, and most of that money stays down south again. It does not come back up north to give us goods and services as promised by the Treasurer, as a rationale and a disguise behind this tax grab. That is what happens.

I dare anyone to go honestly and remind the people of northern Ontario, whose contribution to the coffers of the province is not only proverbial but never-ending, that this supplementary tax on gasoline was a necessity and a benefit for the people of the north. One would indeed be shying away from the truth if it were suggested that this was the case.

To make matters worse, in the Provincial Auditor’s report -- when was the report tabled?

The lockup was last Wednesday or Thursday -- under “Revenue Taxation Collection” -- now this is the Provincial Auditor; we are not talking about just anyone here. Except when he talks about grants to northern Ontario, the Provincial Auditor is almost always right.

The Provincial Auditor gives passing marks to the government, seven out of 10. I give the Provincial Auditor nine out of 10. Sure, maybe he missed the boat. He was tired. He has to work long hours trying to monitor compliance so that the taxpayer gets value for money. It is not easy, but he does his best. He gets tired as he comes to northern Ontario, but aside from that, this is what he says under “Scope and Objective”:

“The ministry has been unable to collect over $4 million in unpaid taxes identified by recently improved controls over ... gasoline and fuel products.”

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Read the paragraph before.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes. The minister reminds me.

He says, “Read.” I am reading from the book. It is page 119. What does the Provincial Auditor say about his ministry? “Millions of dollars in fuel taxes were being lost through export evasion schemes.” He is saying the minister is not doing his job. He is saying the minister is losing $4 million because he cannot monitor compliance.

Again, the minister may smile. I have to believe either the Minister of Revenue or the Provincial Auditor.

Mr. Faubert: You have a choice.

Mr. Pouliot: Yes, the member is right. I have a choice. As the vice-chairman of the standing committee on public accounts, I believe, in this instance, in page 119. The Provincial Auditor is right when he tells that, through inefficiency and some negligence, the minister has missed out on collecting $4 million.

Yet he goes back to the people of the north and says, “You’re not paying enough when you’re paying 53, 54 or 55 cents a litre.” He is convinced he is doing his job. He is not doing his job. He is short $4 million. Why pick our pockets? Why sock it to the people of the north one more time?

I fail to understand why educated people, people who are given the chance to make a contribution, do not take their responsibilities really seriously. It is agonizing to have to remind the government one more time that what is being done here is not the right thing; it is wrong.

Look at the average family income in Ontario, another statistic that was released last week. We are talking about $49,000 in average family income in Ontario. If you go to the riding of Lake Nipigon, the average family income is far lower than that and yet we end up paying more for gasoline than anywhere else in Ontario.

It never stops amazing me that you can go to the Liquor Control Board of Ontario, pick up what is certainly not a necessity -- a bottle of liquor or a case of beer -- and pay the same price in downtown Toronto, Thunder Bay, Geraldton and Longlac, the same price across the province for a product that is not a necessity in the least. Yet when we are talking about a vital product such as gasoline, it is indeed what the market will bear.

The minister can say what he wants, but I challenge him, with all the sincerity this subject matter demands, to justify a difference of 12 or 13 cents a litre; not a gallon, but a litre.

The Treasurer had the opportunity to come closer to social justice. I believed I would have the opportunity to get up; I was determined to do so -- to say: “No if, no but, Mr. Treasurer, the people of northern Ontario are proud of your action. You mean what you say. This is the proof. I do not care what my party is saying. I am not all that concerned about what other people say in that context.”

1710

I was going to commend the Treasurer on a job well done. Unfortunately, these statistics barely allow for decorum and good manners, and need a good deal of control, I can assure members. This kind of attitude represents government at its worst. It makes sceptics out of northerners. It pits one section of Ontario against the other to some extent. We do not even begin to catch up, with this kind of endeavour.

It was only last week that I said: “I think you people are beginning to plan well. You have a sense of vision. The promotion is there. The planning is better than it had been under the previous administration. You seem to mean what you say.” But every time I am going to cross that line, take that long walk --

Mr. Keyes: Well, come across.

Mr. Pouliot: No, you do not need me; you have 94.

Every time I am going to take that long walk, I am always reminded and I get a rude awakening -- taxes and more taxes. That is a deterrent. If the government wants to encourage people, and money is the motivator, it should give people their worth, not create a climate where somebody makes a living wage and then when he gets his pay slip, wonders if he is working for the government. There is very little left. Every time the government does that, it is less money in the economy, less money to create jobs. It is very unfortunate.

The people are waiting for a chance to rectify or remedy what is really an injustice. There is no reason in the world why it should cost $400 to $450 a year more to drive a car in northern Ontario than it does in southern Ontario, the only reason being that the price of gasoline is that much higher; no reason whatsoever.

This is a blatant example of mismanagement of the tax system. The people of Ontario have been complaining, and rightly so, for a number of years about the price of electricity, about the price of gasoline, about the shape our roads are in and about the lack of roads. Sometimes I think that over the last 15 or 20 years, we are no further ahead.

There is no reason why we should have to pay electricity rates 10 per cent, 15 per cent and in some cases 20 per cent and 25 per cent higher than people in southern Ontario, no reason whatsoever when we are all responsible for that crown agency. There is no reason why we should have to pay $400 a year more to drive a car in the north than our counterparts in southern Ontario.

When we are talking about Bill 121, it is a very sad day for the people of the north. I share the feeling of many of my constituents that there was no need for this. It represents government at its worst. The government of the day will be judged very harshly because this does not begin to do justice.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. M. C. Ray): Are there any comments or questions? Are there any other participants in the debate?

Mr. Hampton: If I could, I would like to comment briefly on my colleague’s speech.

The Acting Speaker: Is this a comment?

Mr. Hampton: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I want to commend my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon for putting forward to the House so many of the problems that are shared by all communities across northern Ontario in the many ways people feel we are being treated unfairly.

So many of our enterprises feel they are being subjected to a taxation scheme that unfairly discriminates against them and so many small businesses that are attempting to get started and to generate some economic wealth in northern Ontario feel they are being unfairly penalized.

I want to commend my colleague the member for Lake Nipigon for bringing to this House a very concrete and well-worded message as to exactly what the feeling is across northern Ontario on the unfair gasoline tax measures of this government.

The Acting Speaker: Are there any other comments or questions on the speech by the member for Lake Nipigon? Are there any other participants in the debate? The member for Lake Nipigon may respond if he wishes. He declines. There appear to be no other participants in the debate.

Mr. Hampton: I have some comments of my own that I would like to put on the record.

As I said just a few moments ago, I want to commend the member for Lake Nipigon for his comments on this tax bill and his comments on the effects of this tax bill upon the economy of northern Ontario. I agree with all the comments made by my colleague from Lake Nipigon. I can only say that I cannot agree enough with what he has said.

I share with the member for Lake Nipigon a constituency that is at the far northwestern edge of the province. It is a constituency of several isolated communities. It is not unusual in my constituency to leave one community and then drive for two hours and not see anything -- no side roads, no gas stations, no signs of civilization whatsoever -- until you get to the next community.

People in my constituency do a great deal of driving. What someone in southern Ontario would consider a hazardous trek or a day’s drive, from London to Toronto or Toronto to Kingston, people do routinely every day in my part of Ontario. It is not unusual, for example, to see someone who is engaged in the business of logging, in hauling logs to the sawmill or the papermill, get on the road at 2:30 in the morning and drive throughout the day, until six or seven o’clock in the evening, and cover over 500 miles in the course of a day. That is not unusual at all.

For those individuals who are engaged in the practice of logging transportation, or indeed any other kind of transportation in northwestern Ontario, this tax bill and this increase in the gasoline tax is a direct attack on his quality of life, his standard of living and his capacity to make a living. In that sense, it is a grossly unfair attack on people who have to earn their livelihoods in the field of transportation. I can only echo in that respect the comments made by my learned colleague from Lake Nipigon.

This bill is unfair and grossly discriminates in a number of other ways. Unlike Lake Nipigon, my constituency is a border constituency. A number of the communities in my constituency have, directly across the border from them, a sister community in Minnesota. For instance, directly across the river from the town of Fort Frances, not more than 150 yards across the river, is the community of International Falls, Minnesota. Directly across the international border from the small community of Rainy River is the community of Baudette, Minnesota.

1720

What the government fails to recognize in increasing the level of taxation on gasoline yet again is the outright harm that is done to those businesses which, in the process of attempting to sell gasoline in communities like Fort Frances and Rainy River and other communities close to them, try to employ a number of people. It fails to recognize the difficult position this increase in gasoline tax puts those communities in.

When someone is trying to make a living operating his gasoline station in a community like Rainy River and is attempting to employ two or three people in the operation of his gasoline station, it is incredibly unfair when he has to compete with a gasoline station 150 yards across the border that is selling gasoline for less than one half the cost in Rainy River.

For example, in my home community of Fort Frances, if you go to many of the gasoline service station operators and ask them to give you, either anecdotally or in accounting terms, a record of their sales and a record of the increase or decrease of their business in the last five years, they can very quickly say to you, “There hasn’t been any increase, and if I check closely, I think I can show you where there’s been a decrease.”

That business is going directly across the border into Minnesota. It has got to the point where not only American tourists who are fishing, hunting or sightseeing in northwestern Ontario will pull into a gasoline station near the border and ask for $2 worth of gas so they can get back across the border and fill up on the American side, but increasingly now Ontario residents are doing it as well.

Their attitude is: “Look, if the government is going to increase this unfair tax, this tax which is absurd in its impact upon the economy of northwestern Ontario, then to hell with it. We’ll go across the border and buy our gasoline.” That is exactly what is happening. There is not a word of misstatement in saying that someone from a community in northwestern Ontario who is within 30 or 40 miles of a border crossing can pay the bridge toll to cross over to the United States, pay the exchange on the Canadian dollar and still buy the same amount of gas for less than half the price.

That is the uncompetitive position in which this government is putting enterprises all across northwestern Ontario, a very sad situation to be in. Many of the gasoline and service station operators are particularly befuddled, because when the present government came into power, when the present government was waging such a strong battle for its majority government, they thought it was saying: “We’re going to change things from what the previous government did. We’re going to be a little more fair. We’re going to listen to you a little more. We’re going to hear you. We’re going to take heed of what you’re telling us.”

Yet now, only a year and a half after the government has achieved its majority status, how quickly it forgets, how quickly it learns not to hear, how quickly it learns to discard what individual small business people all across northwestern Ontario are telling it about the unfair impact of the gasoline tax. How quickly they are learning that this government, as the oft-stated expression so well says, campaigns from the left, campaigns progressively, but governs from the right, governs regressively and imposes regressive and unfair taxes that have regressive and unfair impacts upon a part of the province that cannot afford any further regressive taxation; in fact, has already experienced far too much regressive and unfair taxation.

I say to the government that this tax bill is unfair in its impact all across Ontario. It is a regressive tax, but it is nowhere more regressive, nowhere more harmful and nowhere more unfair than it is in northwestern Ontario. It is unfair to consumers and unfair to those small business people who struggle every day to make a living working in the field of retailing gasoline and gasoline products.

There is another unfair impact in this gasoline tax bill. It is this: I would invite members of the government, as they did when their caucus met in Quetico Centre, to take a tour a little further into northwestern Ontario. If some members venture into Atikokan they will discover that the town of Atikokan has a 25 per cent unemployment rate. It is nothing to smile about, nothing to laugh about. There are a lot of people who are struggling every day to make ends meet, who are struggling every day to earn a meagre standard of living. Many of those people cannot afford to buy a new car which takes unleaded gasoline. They have to use leaded gasoline.

I invite them to go to the community of Ignace where one of the mines has just shut down throwing more than 200 people out of work, or go to the community of Ear Falls where the mines shut down completely and threw everybody out of work, or go to Kenora to see where the stud mill just closed down throwing 125 people out of work, or go to Rainy River where the railroad recently rationalized its efforts and threw another 100 people out of work.

So many of these people cannot afford to buy a new car which is easy on gasoline and burns unleaded gasoline. A lot of these individuals drive older cars which consume a great deal of gasoline, cars which consume leaded gasoline. When I look at the impact of the increase in the gasoline tax on leaded gasoline, the impact that increase will have on those people, I can only say that this government obviously has very little time and very little consideration for some of those people who are the most hard-pressed in our society and who live in the most hard-pressed regions.

This is like a double whammy. It is bad enough that the tax on unleaded gasoline is going to increase, but when the tax on leaded gasoline is even that much more, the impact is grossly unfair upon so many of those communities which are already under the gun in terms of trying to get along in the modern Ontario economic environment.

Mr. Miller: Don’t you want to help the environment?

Mr. Hampton: Certainly we would like to help the environment. Let me reply to that for a minute. If the government wants to help the environment, it should go after some of the paper companies and the mining companies who have specialized in polluting the environment for years and years. Do not go after some guy who is making the minimum wage plus 10 cents an hour. Go after some of those guys, after it gets done counting how much money they contributed to Liberal Party coffers last year.

1730

It is very interesting when I look at some of the great corporate polluters in northwestern Ontario and I look at some of the returns from the last election and I see where they made their corporate donations. It used to be that I could always count on them giving a fairly substantial chunk to the Progressive Conservative Party, but I noted in the last provincial election they reserved the most generous chunk of their corporate donations for the Liberal Party.

If this government is really concerned about pollution, it should go after some of those fellows. Go after some of the fellows who want to build chemical plants without even bothering to go to the Ministry of the Environment to get the proper okays before they begin the construction of the chemical plant. In Dryden -- and the Minister of the Environment knows all about it -- they finally had to discontinue construction of the plant when they found out they were not even building it on their own land.

So I say, if the government is concerned about the environment, it should not go after the small guy who has to burn leaded gasoline, it should go after some of the corporate polluters and do the job right.

Let me put it to the House this way. The government is going to do very well indeed on the new gasoline tax in northern Ontario. As we have said, we estimate that about $200 million will come from the motorists of northern Ontario, from the gasoline tax. That is $200 million that northern Ontario cannot afford.

I say again to the government, the small business people who are trying to sell gasoline in many of the border communities cannot afford this gasoline tax, they cannot afford the unfair impact, they cannot afford to see their customers flee across the border to northern Minnesota. So many of the people who are involved in the transportation industry, the logging industry, cannot afford it. So many of those people who live in the economically hard-hit communities across northwestern Ontario cannot afford the unfair impact of this bill either.

The government is simply taking money out of the pockets of those people who are already hard-pressed, who already have a hard time paying the tax bite that is there. It is simply robbing them of a quality of life, a standard of living, that is below the average of Ontario and a standard of living they already have to work too hard at, and devote too many hours of the day to, to preserve in any way.

So I say to this government, this is a very shameful act indeed. This is a very shameful increase in the gasoline tax. It is a very unfair one, a very regressive one, and the people of northwestern Ontario will remember the Liberals two and a half or three years down the road when it comes time to add up the tally sheet as to how fair this government has been and how well it has listened. They are not fooling anyone with this one.

I would suggest that this government look very seriously, and do it soon, at ways of cutting the gasoline tax, cutting its unfair and regressive impact across Ontario, but especially upon the people of northwestern Ontario, who have to rely more than any other part of the province upon gasoline as a means of transportation and who have to travel longer distances than anyone else in Ontario if they want to earn a living and if they want to see an increase in whatever type of small business they own.

So I would urge the government very seriously to make this the last increase in gasoline tax, and in the coming year to get down to business in terms of reducing the gasoline tax, before it puts everybody out of business in northwestern Ontario.

Mr. Cousens: We could be dealing with many other bills in the Legislature that are very important, but unfortunately, we have to deal with one of the most regressive types of legislation possible, that is, this government again putting its hands in the pockets of the taxpayer.

There has never been a bigger tax grab than the grab that has been perpetrated on the people of Ontario by the present Treasurer and this Minister of Revenue. They smile when they do it so that you are almost taken in by their captivating friendship and their marvellous way of being nice to people, but they are greedy, they are hungry, they are taking our money and then they are squandering it.

If they were doing something with it other than just coming along and building a larger government, we would not be as upset. The fact is it is wrong and it is not going to get any better the way these guys are running this government. The people of Ontario are going to remember what they are doing three years from now, if they last that long.

They may last, but we are going to be here and we are going to keep reminding the people of Ontario that we are not at all happy with the way they are running this government and with the way they are running this province.

We happen to be in a situation where it is prospering, but they are just taking the cream off. They cannot keep their hands off the cream, and what do they do with it? It curdles. It goes sour when it gets in their hands because they do not know how to use it properly. They do not affect the deficit. If you were using some of the money from the gasoline tax -- Mr. Speaker, and I do have to speak through you -- if this government were spending the money on roads, then the people of Ontario would begin --

Hon. Mr. Grandmaître: Highway 407?

Mr. Cousens: But you are not. Highway 407 -- yes, sir.

I will go for roads because the infrastructure of Metropolitan Toronto is suffering with the lack of investment on the part of this government on needed services that we have to have.

Mr. Pelissero: That was the previous Tory government.

Mr. Cousens: Come on, now. If this government is going to have the most successful economy in this province, the most successful city as far as the economic centre of Canada is concerned, and if this is going to be a place where the government wants tourists to come, then it better have roads to get them in and out of this city. The amount of money that it is putting in roads in this city is negligible. It is not even beginning to touch on the need. The money the government spends on roads goes right back into the economy. It goes back into the salaries of the people who are making it happen. What it needs is a few megaprojects that have to do with keeping the economy of this province going.

If the government took all the tax money that it takes out of drivers of cars and put it back into roads, we would have a system that works. But what, in fact, we have right now is a system that is just slowly breaking down. It is not even putting enough money in to maintain the bridges and the roads the way they should be. There is going to be a mammoth amount of cost in order to make this system come together again.

We are dealing with a form of corruption that is worse than the kind where you can come along and put them in jail. It is just so ongoing. It is because out of one side of its mouth we hear this government say, “Oh, we are going to do this, this and this,” and yet the end result is nothing -- just more window dressing. It is filling potholes. That is about the extent of what this government does for roads. It does not have a long-term strategy to build a network of roads to strengthen the system around Metro and the greater Metro area. There is no community right now that is not suffering greatly because of this.

In my own community it is a very serious problem. I think the growth will stop. If it stops, it is going to affect the whole economy that goes on around this area because it is generation of wealth through the building of homes, through the furniture they buy and through the cars that those people buy. You have to continue to grow in order to be able to maintain a strong economy. But our economy is becoming strangulated because this government is not building the necessary services that will allow this economy to continue to be strong.

Mr. Cousens: It is not a joke. For the ladies and gentlemen who are watching this from television land, I will just tell them there are smiles on the faces of everybody here, except for the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Riddell). He has not smiled since he was given that portfolio. Everybody else just makes a joke of what is going on around Metro. It is no joke. It is no joke at all.

Mr. Faubert: It’s your grammar that’s a joke.

Mr. Cousens: There is the member for Scarborough-Ellesmere (Mr. Faubert) who is sitting over there, sent down here to represent the people. He is saying it is no joke and so on. He should tell me when he is going to do something about the roads. When is he going to do something to solve the dilemma of the people who are spending longer and longer hours a week, more and more time every day on the Don Valley Parkway, more and more time on Highway 401? The government does not even know how to schedule the repairs and to do them so that people can get around them. This city is becoming a strangulated mess, and here it comes along, right now --

Mr. Carrothers: Strangled.

Mr. Cousens: Well, a strangled mess. But it is enough to be concerned about, and the government is not. I think it is time the government began to be concerned. Look at the amount of money it is going to take from the taxpayers of Ontario with this additional three cents per litre on leaded gasoline, and increasing the unleaded by another cent.

It just keeps on adding and adding. As well, it is a hidden tax, because when people buy their gas -- they have to buy it -- they have no idea just how many of those dollars are going into it.

1740

I would like to get some answers from the Minister of Revenue. I would be delighted if he could tell this House when he has a chance, how many dollars come out of, for instance, my community of Markham for gasoline taxes. Perhaps he could just show me the number of dollars that come out of my community for gasoline taxes, on the one side, and then on the other, tell me how many dollars go back into that community to build roads so that we could see something.

You would expect gasoline tax to be tied in to the roads and services. How much of that is going back into the construction and maintenance of roads and highways? I would love to see that.

I know that the dollars that are being poured from our community and the greater Metropolitan Toronto area alone -- York region, Peel and Durham, along with the municipalities of Metropolitan Toronto, for instance -- are all going into the coffers of the provincial Treasury. How much of that money goes back into those communities to build roads?

I will tell members this much: There has not been any great expenditure on roads by this government since it took power. It announced Highway 407 with a great deal of fanfare. The silver shovel that the Premier used to open up the highway cost more than the amount of money the government put into the highway. The project to build Highway 407 is going to cost $650 million.

An hon. member: Tell the truth.

Mr. Cousens: Is it more or less?

Mr. Adams: Yes, definitely more or less.

Mr. Cousens: I am asking. If some honourable member in this House thinks that I am not telling the truth, I would like to have him just stand up in his place. Is it the member for Brantford (Mr. Neumann)? I am wondering if it is the member for Kenora (Mr. Miclash). If there is anyone who questions my figure that Highway 407 is going to cost over $650 million, I would like to see him stand up in his place right now.

If anyone wants to question the figure that this government is putting in only $25 million the first year and approximately $25 million the second year, that means it will be 24 to 25 years before this highway will be completed. This government has to accelerate the development of roads and highway structures in and around this province.

I would like to speak eloquently for the needs of northern Ontario, eastern Ontario, western Ontario and the rest of Ontario, but all I can speak about is the area that I know best. I represent the riding of Markham. I am concerned about the needs of Durham, York, Peel and the greater Metropolitan Toronto area, and I know this government is not as committed to roads as it should be. Any government that has a great big sod-turning ceremony to start a new highway with the intention of taking 24 to 25 years to build it, which is the length of time it is going to take to build Highway 407, really should be kicked out of office. I will just tell members this much: If I could, I would, but my boot is not big enough.

The people of Ontario will have that chance, and one of the single, most important issues that touches upon people every day of their lives in and around Toronto is the transportation problem. They are getting more and more angry about it. They are fed up, and they are becoming fed up with this government’s lack of commitment to do something to solve it.

If we knew that our dollars from an increase in gasoline tax were going into the construction of roads and the improvement of services, there would not be that same sense of regret. There would be a sense of knowing that the right thing was being done with our money, that it was being invested wisely. The fact of the matter is this government is not doing it, but there is still time. There is still time that it could do something about it. The Minister of Transportation could accelerate Highway 407, take some of the gas tax money that comes out of our area and put it into the building of that highway, so we would get it an awful lot sooner and we could do an awful lot more with the other roads and networks around Metropolitan Toronto.

I do not think that many people realize it, but in Toronto this last summer there was one night in which they had gridlock. Many members would not even know what gridlock is, but that occurs when all the highways, all the major routes, all the regional routes and all the small feeder roots are clogged up together. It took three or four hours, at least, before Metropolitan Toronto was able to get the traffic moving again. We are going to see more gridlock in Metropolitan Toronto, believe my words, unless we begin to do something to solve the problem of the transportation coming in and out of this city.

There is a combination of things that need to be done. We have to do something about the road system; we have to do something to get the traffic moving better, and not just Mr. Eggleton’s idea of making certain parts of Toronto one-way streets. There are many, many things that need to be done, but there has to be a strategy on roads. There has to be a strategy to get people to use commuter services, and that is not available either.

We have got to do something about GO Transit. We have GO trains in my riding. There are two trains, two different routes of services that are provided for people in my area. One comes from Richmond Hill down through Langstaff and Oriole, and there are three trains a day. That is the same service, three in the morning and three at night, that was introduced in 1976. There are surveys every six months asking people: “Do you want more service?” and yet ever since that service was installed there has been no change to it.

We had a train brought into Stouffville, Markham and Unionville in 1981. When that train was inaugurated, it was agreed that there would be a second train brought on that system, but we are still waiting for it.

If we are going to bring people in and out of Metropolitan Toronto from the north, we should be providing the same kind of services that we have for those who travel east and west into Metropolitan Toronto. They can come from Oshawa and they can come from Oakville and there are trains running throughout the day, but in our area of York region there are just no comparable services to get people to leave their cars at home.

What we need is a strategy on the part of this government that says, “We’re going to do something to get the commuters going.” We have one of the best already-built railway systems that any city could hope for. But to what extent are we using it? Hardly at all. It is still not too late for this government to come out with a strategy to get commuters to use something other than their cars. There needs to be a transportation strategy that is going to improve the road networks; there has to be a transportation strategy to get commuters to use public transit.

In fact, you cannot look at GO Transit without looking at the Toronto Transit Commission. The TTC has what you would call just a real wall around Metropolitan Toronto. Any of the outlying areas that want to use the TTC have to work out special private arrangements in order to make that possible. What we really have to do is have some integration of these services.

The province heavily subsidizes Metro Toronto’s TTC services, but when our communities outside of Metro Toronto want to hook into them, it is at a very heavy cost to the local taxpayers. What I am asking for is that we can begin to have a comprehensive plan for the TTC, so that those who are in Metro and out of Metro can somehow have that service made available to them.

When we are talking about GO Transit and TTC, let’s begin to put some investment into a subway system that is going to begin to touch on the needs of this great Metropolitan Toronto area. It is just a tragedy that we have not done anything more about the Sheppard subway, except a few games that are being played to take a small extension from Wilson up to Sheppard. There has got to be some real investment made in order to get the Sheppard subway going.

There should be an ongoing commitment to build more subways, and there has not been anything. Now you are seeing the Yonge Street line almost at overcapacity. The number of people who are using that system -- I do not have the numbers. They are not in front of me right now. Is it 1.6 million who use it a day? It is an incredible number. It will soon be at 1.7 million. In order to continue to attract people to use the system, this government should continue to do something to improve the service. That has not been done. This government has been so generous with its words, yet it has not been generous with its commitment to do something about it.

We are talking about a gasoline tax, and I have a very simplistic way of looking at it. If as much money as is gathered out of the gasoline were spent on roads and commuter services, then we would begin to have a quality system in this province. I would think it is still not too late for the Minister of Revenue, who is one of the more influential people in that cabinet, to come along and cause some change to be made. He is key to the government. He collects the taxes and surely he can influence some of the spending habits of the other ministries, so that they could do something about the important needs of the people of Ontario.

1750

I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but inasmuch as these subjects had not been adequately covered, I felt I would take a few moments just to touch upon a very easy quid pro quo. For any dollar or any cent that someone puts into the gas tax, why cannot that dollar be invested in the building of better road systems, better commuter services?

If there is anything the minister can do about that, I would be most impressed by it and I would be the first to congratulate him in the House. The Minister of Revenue has shown himself as one who is capable of making things happen. If only they could do it in the rest of the government, we would be proud of them. Unless they can begin to do that soon, we are going to have to push them and push them and push them until the people of Ontario push them right out of Ontario.

Mr. Adams: I was very interested in the speech of the member for Markham (Mr. Cousens) on the transportation system in the province. I thought I would mention a few things which I think will be of interest to him and to you, Mr. Speaker.

This year alone, on Highway 115 between Highway 401 and Peterborough, something in the order of $10 million is being spent. Most of that money is being spent on overpasses. The foundations of those will be completed this fall and the four-laning of the highway will continue next summer. At the same time, Highway 28, between Peterborough and Highway 401 but in a slightly different direction, has been greatly improved. The bends and the curves on it have been improved at a cost of several more millions of dollars.

An interesting thing is that the member mentioned Highway 407. He may not realize that Highway 115, as it is projected, will be a part of Highway 407 and the section from Highway 35 to Peterborough, which runs in more of a west to east direction than north-south, is designed so that it can be expanded to eight lanes and be a part of Highway 407. To that extent, funds are being spent this year on Highway 407 itself.

The member also mentioned GO Transit, Mr. Speaker. I would like to remind you and members of the House that GO Transit was extended only yesterday to Whitby, which is very convenient for many people in Markham. Those of us in that part of the province are looking forward eagerly to the further extension of GO Transit to a terminal which will be located at the Holiday Inn at the east end of the city of Oshawa, very convenient for the people of Peterborough and adjacent areas.

I would simply say to the member that I appreciated his remarks in many respects and I am delighted at his interest in the transportation system. I thought he should know that a great deal is being done.

Mr. Neumann: I listened with interest to the comments of the member for Markham and would like to respond briefly.

The member commented at length about the lack of progress on Highway 407. I would like to inform the House and the member that recently in the Brantford Expositor, I noticed in the column which they print every day entitled “25 Years Ago” that the government of the day was promising a speedy construction of Highway 403 through that area.

Well, 25 years later, Highway 403 is still not completed. Our minister in this government is making good progress on that project now, but I would remind the member that it was the previous Conservative government which left the people in that region waiting, short on delivery of the promises made.

Furthermore, I am interested in hearing comments such as the member made with respect to the need to spend more money on Highway 407 and on subways and on this and that. At the same time, we generally hear from the Conservative benches comments that we should be cutting down and not spending as much money as we are.

At least this government recognizes that there are real needs out there in Ontario and that the revenue has to be raised to meet those needs. I know that the people in our community appreciate that. As our Treasurer has pointed out, there are two kinds of deficits. There is the deficit in the budget, but there is also the deficit in facilities which this government inherited from the previous government, where there was a lag in the construction of schools and roads and the infrastructure across the province. With the revenues raised, we are making up for those kinds of deficits and meeting the needs of the province.

Mr. Laughren: I was not going to comment on the remarks of the member for Markham, but I was struck by his solution to the problems of the province.

I am sure that people out there in television land who watch these debates in a religious kind of way must be wondering why all these wonderful solutions that the Tories are laying before us these days were not put in place when they were in government for 42 years. I am sure there must be a real sense of puzzlement all across Ontario. I hope the member for Markham is consistent in his pitch that whatever money is raised, that is the way the money is then spent.

I can imagine the Cadillac of antidrinking campaigns we are going to have in the province if all the money collected from alcohol taxes is spent on educating people on the dangers of alcohol consumption; or I think of my friend the member for Norfolk (Mr. Miller), who is always concerned about the plight of his tobacco farmers, as he should be. I could imagine that if we spent all the money from tobacco revenues on teaching people about the evils of smoking, it might be a very good thing. However, the member for Norfolk might not agree with that.

I was intrigued by the comments by the member for Peterborough (Mr. Adams) about the member for Markham’s remarks that what this province needs is not just better bends and curves, but more bends and curves. I think that is what he said about the highway system in Ontario. I am looking forward to the response by the Minister of Revenue as to exactly how the moneys that he collects should be spent on the highway system in Ontario.

Mr. Cousens: Maybe I am launching my leadership campaign right here and now. If what we need is some leadership, then that is one thing that is not coming from the Liberals. The other thing is that they sure do not have their facts right. So as we look into the future of this province --

Mr. Faubert: It’s a long way to Tipperary.

Mr. Cousens: No, the problem is that they have been given the chance to lead and they are doing nothing except being greedy on the taxpayers. One day we have to worry about the Ontario provincial retail sales tax; now today we are talking about the gasoline tax, and the next day we are going to be into alcohol.

The ladies and gentlemen of Ontario have to worry about what the government does to their pockets. It is worse than having a hole in them. Their hands go in and they just take it out. I am concerned about roads. I think we can do something about them. If members of this government sat down together with us, we could show them the solution. We have been trying to give it to them over the last several years. I was trying to do it when I was in the backbenches of our government. I will continue to fight for what I believe in. That is something that we would like to see from them.

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

The House adjourned at 6 p.m.

December 5, 1988

MEMBERS’ STATEMENTS

CHILD HAVEN INTERNATIONAL

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

NIAGARA REGIONAL POLICE

TEMAGAMI DISTRICT RESOURCES

CONSTITUENCY EVENT

SUPPORT PAYMENTS

BIRTHDAYS

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

RACE RELATIONS

RESPONSES

RACE RELATIONS

ORAL QUESTIONS

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

TACTICAL RESCUE UNITS

AFFORDABLE HOUSING

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

MUNICIPAL ELECTION

DRIVERS’ LICENCES

RENTAL HOUSING PROTECTION

TRUANCY

HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION

AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE

BEEF CATTLE FINANCIAL PROTECTION PLAN

DISTRICT HEALTH COUNCILS

COURT SYSTEM

TRAINING FOR FIREFIGHTERS

PETITIONS

TAX INCREASES

TEACHERS’ SUPERANNUATION FUND

CHILD CARE

EXTENDED CARE

TAX INCREASES

PENSION PLAN CONTRIBUTIONS

TAX INCREASES

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

WORKERS’ COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

ORDERS OF THE DAY

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR LE TABAC

GASOLINE TAX AMENDMENT ACT / LOI MODIFIANT LA LOI DE LA TAXE SUR L’ESSENCE