Hansard Transcripts 1982-May-14 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, in the budget address the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) announced one specific housing program and indicated that I would be commenting further today. The provision of housing in this province is a complicated, large-scale task. We must meet the needs of people with many levels of income and many different lifestyle preferences.

In addition, housing is part of the physical fabric of our communities. To a large extent, the appearance and personality of our cities and towns is determined by planning decisions on housing. We should not forget that the creation of housing provides employment to tens of thousands of Ontarians in construction and in the supply of materials and, later, in furnishings and appliances for new homes.

An undertaking of such importance requires the consolidated efforts of government at all levels, of the industries involved and of individual citizens involved in the acceptance of change and progress in housing.

During a recent series of meetings with the mayors of Metro Toronto and the chairman of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario, the job of providing housing to Ontarians was described as a "shared challenge." That is exactly what it is. Under the umbrella title Challenge 2000, I would like to outline the direction in which my ministry is moving to help meet the housing challenge of this province.

Challenge 2000 is partly program and partly attitude. It is a combination of incentive funding and inventive leadership. It is a program of education and a focal point for housing action. Here are some of the actions to be undertaken through the Challenge 2000 program.

The first is the renter-buy program, announced in the budget, which meets three specific challenges:

1. It helps provide jobs for our construction trades, hard hit by the federal government's high interest rate policy. We estimate this program represents the generation of some 38,000 man-years of employment.

2. New home buyers will be able to own their own homes sooner than they may have planned.

3. Rental units will be made available for those who need them.

The specific details of this and the other initiatives should be in the mail boxes of the individual members but, in general, this ministry will provide $75 million in interest-free loans to citizens at present living in rental accommodation and who want to buy a new house.

Looking ahead, we see the need for continuing improvement of the utilization of existing land and building stock. To assist municipalities, developers and financial groups find new, innovative ways to use existing land for rental housing, we are introducing the "inno-rent" initiative.

It may be that better use of shopping centre lands is an answer in one community; in another, air rights over transportation corridors might be used for housing. There are many innovative ways to build new rental accommodation and this program will encourage such efforts. Challenge 2000 has designated $48 million to help fund projects which will set the pattern for more efficient land use in the future.

We must also recognize that one of the best ways to provide housing, particularly rental housing, is to upgrade what we have. Of course, my ministry already has the Ontario home renewal program, OHRP, which will continue to be used to assist low-income home owners keep their homes in good repair. Today, I am pleased to propose a $9 million "renthab" program that will encourage rehabilitation and preservation of rental units in existing buildings while at the same time helping to discourage demolition of older rental buildings in our province.

Another sum of approximately $1 million will be made available as part of Challenge 2000 to undertake demonstration projects which can overcome constraints to housing conversion such as zoning impediments, building and renovation code issues and public attitudes. These projects will be designed to create new rental units from existing housing.

Challenge 2000 also includes some challenges to the financial community. It is important that the lenders find new ways to help provide housing in this province. It is my plan to encourage and, where possible, take the leadership in financial innovation in the housing field.

In that regard, on behalf of the Ontario Mortgage Corp., I am announcing today that clients of that crown corporation will be able to repay mortgages on a weekly basis if they so choose. Such a schedule allows for faster payment of the total mortgage and results in a major reduction in the total interest paid. I hope the private sector will follow our lead. At this time, I compliment those smaller credit unions in this province which have already implemented this program, on a limited scale, in their portfolio.

It is the intent of this umbrella program to make available up to 20,000 rental units throughout the province. As well as representing upwards of 50,000 man-years of work in the housing industry, it will provide a new direction and spirit of co-operation among all levels of government, industry and the general public.

I feel it is obvious that this government is moving to meet the challenge to provide housing in this province. It remains for our colleagues in the federal government to take up their share of this challenge.

They could start by reducing interest rates, as there is no factor which works against housing action today as much as the high cost of money. The federal government continues to insist that high interest rates are necessary in some sectors of the economy. I suggest they separate mortgages for individual home owners from other forms of loans and bring down the rates for individual mortgages. The next move is up to the federal government in this particular case.

10:10 a.m.

I should also tell the Legislature that my ministry's new programs make allowance for a specific federal government pledge. The federal minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp., Mr. Cosgrove, made a commitment to myself and to this government to deliver in this province under the Canadian rental supply program 10,000 new rental units to be commenced in 1982.

In turn, the federal minister asked very positively that Ontario not participate in this category of provision of rental units. The federal government has copied the Ontario rental construction program of a year ago, but it has insisted that we do not -- neither this province nor any other province -- piggyback that rental supply program.

I want to inform the House that we are willing to do exactly as requested by the federal government in this case, but I also want to make it clear that we are holding Mr. Cosgrove to the firm commitment of the provision of 10,000 rental units to be commenced under construction in 1982 in our province. For our part, with the introduction of the Challenge 2000 concept, we intend to ensure that the people of Ontario continue to be housed as well as any group of people in this world.

POSSIBLE BUDGET LEAKS

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, one which I brought to the House's attention last Monday. I would like to raise that again because certain circumstances have happened that are very disturbing. Again, it refers to the business of the confidentiality of the budget process.

To put it in context, particularly for the odd apologist for the government in the galleries, the confidentiality of the budget is absolutely necessary so that there is no insider information or anyone able to take advantage of any tax changes or government initiatives that might take place. That is the primary reason there should not be any budget leaks.

On Monday, there was an article in the Toronto Star headlined, Budget to Offer No-Interest Home Loans: Builders. I said at that time if the figures in that article were close to what the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) was going to reveal last night, then there obviously was a good possibility of a budget leak.

The article said that the government has budgeted $75 million to $100 million for this program. As we heard last night, the government budgeted $75 million. It said that first-time buyers would get a grant of perhaps up to $7,500. They got $5,000.

Further to that, in an article by Rosemary Speirs in yesterday's Globe and Mail she was quite accurate in predicting there would be sales tax increases on a plethora of articles that had heretofore been exempt and even named some of them exactly.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Why are you decrying her abilities as a prognosticator?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am not, she is a very good reporter; but the fact is these are specifics that were in the budget.

Third, in this morning's Globe and Mail, which is actually the bulldog edition which hit the streets in Toronto about 9:30 last night, there is a quarter-page ad by the Ministry of Revenue outlining the new tax increases. They wanted to be sure the Ontario public had the good news already.

In checking with the Globe and Mail, I am informed that they will not hold the presses or hold space for an ad, even for the government of Ontario, unless it is an obituary.

Mr. Sweeney: That is what it was!

Mr. T. P. Reid: Unless it is a death.

That leads us to two conclusions. One is that there was a budget leak, or people knew about it in advance of the Treasurer reading his speech. The other is that the Globe and Mail looked upon it as a death. They have two black mastheads and, when one reads the budget, one can consider it was the death of the provincial economy and the death of the low-income person in Ontario.

The press and the two opposition parties go through an elaborate process on the day of the budget. We go into the lockup; we have to sign in; we get badges; we get terrible food; but we are in there for six hours. If one has to go to the washroom -- and believe me, one got very nauseous reading that budget yesterday, so there were a lot of trips -- one is taken by a security guard right into the washroom, and watched while one performs whatever ablutions one has to, then escorted back. If this elaborate process is all window-dressing, let us do away with it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Tax it, tax it.

Mr. Foulds: You are going to have to pay a tax on that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I understand the New Democrats would have gone bankrupt after what they did yesterday in there.

The point is there appear to have been budget leaks. In this budget perhaps there might not have been much chance to take advantage of the tax change or the programs that are available, but the fact is that over time there may be an advantage to somebody, people with inside information who have advance knowledge of the budget. It is a very serious problem. Mr. Speaker, I bring it to your attention and to the attention of Treasurer, and I hope he will respond.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, to speak very briefly to that point of order, I understand the honourable member raised this with respect to one rumour concerning, as he phrased it, grants to builders. There was a story in the Toronto Star speculating about grants to builders. The program the minister has announced this morning quite obviously deals with no-interest loans to purchasers. Even the member for Rainy River can draw some modest distinction between that and --

Mr. T. P. Reid: No, it was interest-free home loans to the home owners.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The member read out to me "to builders." That is all I heard him say and the Instant Hansard will show he quoted to me "loans or grants to builders." There are no grants to builders.

It is quite obvious that there have been discussions for some time, Mr. Speaker, if you read that story carefully and look at a story that was in the same newspaper some three or four weeks ago. It quoted some people in the development industry and some of the representations they made as to how the industry might be stimulated, so you could draw certain parallels.

There is no question there were discussions with the development industry. There is no question that the Treasurer of this province is taking a far more sensitive and intelligent approach than was taken by the Minister of Finance in Ottawa.

If the federal minister had consulted with the development industry, he would not have had the multiple-unit residential buildings program in such disarray that he had to back down the day after and recognize that he had not consulted with Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. and others. As a result, the MURB program that was to come to an end at midnight that evening had to be reinstituted, and holes dug in the ground by January 1. It just shows how much better it is to deal in a consultative fashion. To say this represents --

Mr. T. P. Reid: We are not arguing that point and you know it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It is true. The member can spend all his time defending his friends in Ottawa, but they handled it very poorly. To constitute this as a leak, I would say with great respect to the member for Rainy River, is silly. I cannot describe it in any other fashion.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have one brief comment on this exchange. We in this party believe the Treasurer should resign, not so much because of the process of the budget but because of the substance of the budget.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the member for Rainy River that this is not, in fact, a point of order. It would be more properly a question that should be directed to the Treasurer during question period. It is obviously something that is beyond my authority to deal with.

10:20 a.m.

ORAL QUESTIONS

BUDGET

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, it is good the Premier is here to help the Treasurer because he is going to need all the help he can get over the next little while.

I have a question for the Grinch. The Treasurer is aware there are hundreds, indeed thousands, of home owners in this province who are under tremendous pressure just to hang on to their homes. He is aware of the tremendous pressure on farmers and small businessmen, a lot of whom are not making any money and who will not get the benefit of the tax forgiveness program. Why did he not set aside some funds to assist those people to survive now, or is he just prepared to let them go?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I pointed out I was not able to solve all problems for all people, nor did all problems fall within my jurisdiction.

The honourable member knows as well as I do that the major problem facing all those people is the rate of interest. He also knows that is and continues to be a federal responsibility. We have been encouraging some action at the federal level to reduce that. Instead of that, we have seen consistent mismanagement of the Canadian economy, particularly in the last week, forcing a sudden outflow of Canadian funds due to a panic in that confidence, causing a drop in the Canadian dollar and causing yet again an increase in Canadian interest rates yesterday. That is federal.

I also pointed out in my budget text, and I am sure the member saw it, that because the federal government does have a program to help those people whose mortgages are over 30 per cent of their income, we felt we should at least monitor that program before jumping in. Last of all, the assumption that a few dollars here or there would solve those problems is totally inaccurate. He knows it involves billions of dollars.

Mr. Peterson: The Treasurer's priorities are to throw out a few dollars here and then look for the political credit in a variety of other areas. He is prepared to initiate those kinds of programs where he thinks he can extract a couple of cents' worth of political credit or appeal to the larceny in people's souls to build the housing industry. At the same time, he is whacking people in this province with outrageous tax increases that I think are unconscionable.

At a time of recession in this province, how can the Treasurer extract all these consumption taxes and regressive taxes from those people least able to pay? He is increasing the personal income tax take by 13 per cent this year, retail sales tax take by 28 per cent, gasoline tax by 22 per cent, motor vehicle tax by 25 per cent, Ontario health insurance plan premiums by about 18 per cent. He is extracting in those categories alone close to $2 billion more out of the public hide, out of people who cannot afford it. How can he justify that perverted sense of priorities when we are in such serious trouble in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: My friend has quoted a lot of statistics. Of course the return from sales tax will go up this year, because there was a major sales tax holiday last year for seven months. Obviously many items were not taxed at all until June 30 and they will be in the tax base this year.

Second, I think it was wiser, and I will continue to defend this, to maintain --

Mr. Peterson: You are taxing kids, for God's sake.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Where? For chocolate bars and soft drinks. It is better they do not have them.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Hamburgers, cafeteria lunches and everything else.

An hon. member: It's a Big Mac attack.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It's a mean budget.

Hon. F. S. Miller: A mean critic.

In any case, the tradeoff I was faced with was an increase in the overall sales tax rate or an expansion of the base. I point out to the member --

Mr. Peterson: That wasn't the question --

Hon. F. S. Miller: Will you let me answer the question? I am polite when you are on your feet. You learn to be polite when I am on my feet.

Mr. Peterson: Answer it intelligently then. You are worse than John White.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: You are almost as adolescent as your former leader.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Almost, but not quite.

Mr. Gillies: Bring back Stuart.

Mr. Mackenzie: Let's get back to the budget.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would point out to all honourable members that surely, if in no other place, we should be able to expect free speech in this chamber.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The only thing he has not taxed is free speech.

Mr. Speaker: I would point out to the member for Rainy River, he is indeed taxing me.

It is your question period; you may use it as you wish, but I would implore you to use a little common sense and certainly set an example for those people who may be observing from the public galleries.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I think I generally do try to sit quietly while the Leader of the Opposition poses his questions. I would suggest that the order of the House is much better when he allows me to answer, even if he does not like my answers; that is part of the process. It is much better for those who watch and for those who participate.

Ms. Copps: Don't lecture us, Frank.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member for Hamilton Centre lectures me constantly and one day she will learn she is not always right.

Mr. Speaker: Would the Treasurer get on to the question?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have simply said there were tradeoffs to make. My impression was that it was better to maintain a rate of seven per cent, recognizing that many of those items that were brought to tax yesterday have, at some time or other, been in the tax base. Over many years we have created quite a hotchpotch.

A year ago in my budget I simply pointed out we would be re-examining the entire base, determining what items were justified to be out. There are some reasons for justification on items like food and children's clothing, where we have not taxed them. There are other cases where it would be very hard to say this item should not be taxed and that one should be.

As many members know, we create a lot of administrative problems, where, frankly, they have had a hard job --

Mr. Peterson: You are the one who fiddles around with taxes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: There you go again; sit down.

Mr. Peterson: You just don't make any sense. You are the one who fiddles around with taxes for political purposes all the time.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, going back to the original question where the Leader of the Opposition mentioned small business assistance, instead of a tax expenditure of $250 million for small business why did the Treasurer not consider taking some of that money and giving it to the small businesses that are not paying tax because they are having difficulty coping with high interest rates? They are not making money. Why did he not take a look at helping the small businessmen who need assistance, instead of giving a tax break to those who are already making profits?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, that is one of those easy to state, rather motherhood kind of issues. The fact is, I am trying to create jobs. The people creating jobs today are those who are making enough profit to reinvest.

In general, small business people have often found they have reinvested all their profits and have no money left to pay their tax. I could think of no better way to allow the small businessman to have access to some money to reinvest, and also to give him something the member may not understand: the encouragement so he will believe a government has some faith in him so he should go ahead and create those jobs.

Mr. Peterson: I gather the Treasurer is the one who said that the only jobs that will be created out of that tax holiday are by those rushing to incorporate, another make-work program for accountants and lawyers in this province. How many jobs will that program produce in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Does he want me to give a number today --

Mr. Peterson: Yes.

Hon. F. S. Miller: -- so he can wait until a year from now and try to figure out some way to determine whether it is right or wrong?

All I know -- and I know a lot better than the member does -- is that small business owners given a dollar to invest will invest it. I do understand that they work hard, that they take a lot of risks, that they have problems and that they do need that tax break. I know that will make them --

Mr. Peterson: How many jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: All right; $250 million reinvested in this province --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

10:30 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: In London Centre the member has impeccable manners, but in this House his manners are lousy. They are an indication -- as with his party's previous leader -- once the members opposite begin to lose ground in this House they start interfering and try to be rude. He is doing it just like Stuart Smith did, and it will do him no good.

Mr. Peterson: I would very much like to thank my friend for his lesson on manners. He could use a lot of lessons on economics, let me tell him.

Mr. Speaker: Question, please.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer said on page 5 of his budget statement that we must adapt to growing international competition and technological complexity. What is he doing to do that? There is no program in this budget that recognizes the fundamental changes that have to go on in this province. There is nothing for the automotive industry and nothing for the manufacturing sector. Why does he mouth all this rhetoric with no substantive backup?

Hon. F. S. Miller: This is a new question I assume, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: It was really a statement.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member does not like to admit to the fact that the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development centres are doing that very thing. The fact that they were created before does not require me to put them in this budget. There will be some moneys in the line-by-line items for ministries such as Industry and Trade to do that. They are aimed at assisting our industries in Ontario to upgrade their technological capacity and remain competitive or become more competitive.

Mr. Peterson: I see nothing in what the Treasurer is doing that translates into meaningful jobs -- only 31,000 temporary jobs -- which he even stated himself some months ago has to be the priority. The labour force is going to increase 61,000, and employment by some 10,000. Is he not now admitting major failure of his job creation programs and that in fact this will have very little substantive long-term effect for this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Not at all. What I am doing is reacting to the totally inadequate federal budget as far as I can.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, does the Treasurer actually expect us to believe that in the automotive sector, for example, one technical centre under his BILD program is the answer to the problems in the auto parts sector? Is that the only imaginative program this government can come up with for the most important part of the manufacturing sector of this province, where 50,000 jobs have been lost since 1978? Is that leadership?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, do I expect the honourable member to believe me? No. I have learned never to expect him to believe me on anything. I would add, though, that is not all we are doing. We have done a number of things for the automotive industry that have helped. The member does not like to admit that there are more people at work in the auto plants in Windsor today than there were a year ago, does he? But it is true. Chrysler is on extra shifts and the number of people on layoff is lower. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that until the overall economy recovers, I cannot create the sale of cars in North America. It is also a fact that Ontario is working hard with the United Auto Workers, the automotive parts manufacturers and, with somewhat divided loyalties, the automobile manufacturers to make sure measures are taken to require Japanese cars to have Canadian content.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer's budget thrust is really all on short-term job creation. He has to appreciate that there are structural changes in the economy. He is talking about 31,000 short-term jobs for young unemployed particularly. Those people have been unemployed for a number of years. He is providing jobs that are going to run for maybe 12 to 24 weeks. Where is the long-term job creation for these people, or is he just setting up another revolving-door type of job creation program that is going to give only temporary relief and do nothing to deal with the long-term job needs in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the 31,000 jobs that are referred to in one part of the budget speech are specifically short-term jobs for measures we thought were important -- repairs to universities, colleges, schools, municipal buildings; some work on highways, on farms, line fences, etc. -- things that people normally put off doing if times are tough. Sure, they are short-term.

Secondly, there is a fair amount of money invested in the youth employment programs. Those youth employment programs, such as the Ontario career action program, very often lead to full-time, long-term employment by giving people who have been previously unemployed their first exposure to work.

Last of all, we have 38,000 man-years of jobs on the housing side. I am going to ask the member to repeat these answers shortly, because he has not been listening.

In the meantime, as stated clearly in the budget, the purpose of our job stimulation program was to bridge the gap while the economy improves in the balance of this year; which it will do.

ASSISTANCE TO HOME OWNERS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Treasurer. On page 8 of his budget statement, he says:

"I would like to deal briefly with the question of mortgage interest for existing home owners. The federal government has introduced a program to help people who have extreme difficulty in renewing their mortgages. Since this program was introduced early last month, hundreds of Ontario families have received assistance. Little would be gained by a provincial initiative that would only duplicate a program that seems to be working."

On March 29, in this Legislature, I asked a question of the Premier (Mr. Davis). I will quote his answer:

"Mr. Speaker, I think the honourable member's initial question was whether I endorsed the federal program. If he wants me to reply to that, rather than replying to the speech he made at the end of his question, the answer to that is simply no, I shall not endorse it."

What has happened between March 29 and May 13 that makes the federal program adequate and means that his government does not have to participate in assisting the 32,500 home owners who could lose their homes this year because of mortgage renewals?

Is the minister aware that only 342 people in this province have qualified for the federal mortgage assistance program? Is that a program that is working? Is he so satisfied to piggyback on those rotten programs of the federal government that he wants to do nothing on his own?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the program was not in place March 29; it came in place during April. Many people have applied, more than 300 have been approved and many thousands remain to be approved. And I qualified my support by saying I would be monitoring it.

Mr. Cooke: Why has the Treasurer decided to help people who can already afford to buy homes, instead of helping the 32,500 families in this province who are having their mortgages come up for renewal? As he will be aware, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corp. has indicated that only eight per cent of the tenants in Ontario can afford to buy a home in this province. Why is he not helping the people in this province who need help?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, we will increase that eight per cent. Second, for the last few years, through a combination of the multiple-unit residential buildings program and direct assistance from Ontario, we have heavily subsidized the creation of some rental housing.

It was the judgement of this government that a similar assistance program, but at a lower cost, would work to induce people who could afford to buy houses, to buy them. At the same time, not only would we create the 38,000 man-years of work -- and that work is in the north, making lumber; it is all over Ontario, making furniture -- but also we would free up apartments as people moved out. It was a way of having vacant apartments at a much lower cost and of people fulfilling what the member would say is a lifelong ambition: home ownership.

10:40 a.m.

Mr. Peterson: Of course, Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer realizes that those people who have had a chance to analyse the program and how he decided to spend money say that it will probably move out some of the existing housing stock, which may be between 8,000 and 10,000 units in this province, but not create any new jobs. There is no guarantee those units will be replaced, because the builders are still very sceptical in this area.

The Treasurer has spent $75 million in a subsidy going, by and large, to the upper-middle class. All he will do with a program like this is drop the eligible income -- I am taking averages now -- and the average amount going to shelter by $2,000 or $3,000 in order for them to be able to handle the cash flow to take advantage of this program. So the bang for the buck is going to be extremely limited.

Apart from perhaps creating some psychological uplift in the market, he is not addressing the basic housing problems in this province by this program, which turns out to be probably more smoke and mirrors than substance.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, was there a question there?

Mr. Speaker: No, there was not,

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister, in his present plan, has any estimate of how many middle-income home owners are going to lose their homes in Ontario in the next six months.

Is the minister aware of the comments of Louis Greenbaum, president of the Urban Development Institute, to the effect that the only people who will be able to buy a home after this budget will be the same people who were able to buy one before the budget? Is the minister aware that, given an average house price of $94,050 in Toronto, a would-be home buyer would require an income of $53,052 to buy a home?

Why has the minister decided that middle- income people in this city and in other cities across the province should not own a home in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I hope we will continue to make home ownership as widely available as possible. I do not know how to answer all of the honourable member's questions. There were quite a few there; I may have lost track of one or two of them in the process.

The question of the people who are going to lose homes remains a critical problem. We discussed that in an earlier question presented by the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke), saying that we are watching the federal plan.

Recently, at the request of the deputy leader of the member's party, I sent a letter showing certain information on the statistics. I ask the member to take a look at those statistics on the present state of the mortgages of people who own homes in Ontario. It is surprisingly good. In no way am I saying it is perfect, but it is surprisingly good. In the main, the number of people in default is lower than average; the number of repossessions is lower than average. The fact remains that we are still monitoring the overall situation very carefully.

TAX INCREASES

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the Treasurer. Before yesterday's budget, Ontario families at the income level of between $15,000 and $25,000 were already the highest taxed in this entire country. Why, in yesterday's budget, did the Treasurer decide to raise the taxes for those people by an additional $300? Why did he decide to tax those people at the low- and middle-income levels in this extremely regressive manner?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First of all, Mr. Speaker, that is the honourable member's figure, not ours. Our figure is considerable lower; it is in the $100 to $150 range. For example, when spending went up by about $2 billion this year, it was an amount roughly equal to inflation. I have had a lot of pressure from people, like the member, to spend much more. Spending much more, I assume, would require me to raise more taxes. I think we have taken a very judicious and responsible middle road.

Mr. Cooke: I point out to the Treasurer that income tax went up on January 1 as part of last year's budget, that Ontario health insurance plan premiums went up by $96 in this budget and that we have the additional sales taxes. If one adds those items together, plus the ad valorem tax increases, we are talking of $300 in increased taxes to average families in this province.

Why did the minister decide to tax such items as personal hygiene and household cleaning products, classroom supplies, student supplies, buses and repair parts, and clothing patterns? Most of those are basic items that ordinary people need in this province. Why would he add a regressive tax on those items for ordinary and middle-income people in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: First, the member uses a word like "regressive" and it becomes the Holy Grail. I do not think sales tax is as regressive as the member believes it is.

Second, I have to ask, why should one item like a paintbrush have tax on it and another item like a cleaning product not have a tax on it? The truth is we did not exempt necessities in total. Many of the things to which tax applies have to be consumed in one way or another. What we did was continue exemptions on the very basic necessities of life, such as food and children's clothing, and certain other commodities, such as home heating oil and electricity.

I suggest to the member that there are no fast and easy answers in an inflationary age except to have nominal increases. The increase in spending from $20 billion to $22 billion could be argued by many economists to be a stand-pat budget.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer will realize that he is raising an extra $656 million through personal income tax this year, an uncanny similarity to an amount he recently expended and thereby helped to affect the price of the Canadian dollar.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That's Suncor, in case you missed it.

Mr. Peterson: In addition, he is raising $825 million through increases in retail sales taxes; through gasoline tax, increased revenue of $172 million; through motor vehicle tax, increased revenue of $43 million; through Ontario health insurance plan premiums, increased revenue of $223 million. Those five categories alone total $1,919,000,000, which he is extracting out of the individuals' hides in Ontario. Does he realize that this translates in daily expenditure, depending on one's lifestyle, to an additional 50 cents to $2 a day in that range per family? Does he not feel that is just bad economics at this time of high inflation and recession?

I know, and the Treasurer knows, he got a lot of advice from economists saying he could not whack the already overburdened taxpayer at this time. Will he not admit that he does not understand the plight of some of these people and that he responded in an incorrect manner to the economic problems in the province at this time?

Hon. F. S. Miller: On that last point, I suggest that I understand the plight of those people a lot better than does the Leader of the Opposition. I have been through it. He has not. There is a big difference that way.

Mr. Peterson: You caused it; that's why you understand it.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Oh, no. It is very easy to come from a relatively comfortable life and always speak about the plight of the poor. Do not give me that baloney. I have enough faith in the system that allows one to do well in one's lifetime, and I am going to keep working on it. That is the fundamental belief I have, and I think it is shared by a lot of people in the member's caucus too.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I have a lot more faith than my friend does. At least I am sticking to it and not looking like a hypocrite and a sellout to the people who originally supported me.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Treasurer a question. I am sure he is aware that Ontario is one of the three provinces that charge health insurance premiums, another form of regressive taxes. Does he not realize that this increase in OHIP premiums means that a family on a $15,000 income is still going to be paying higher OHIP premiums than it pays in income tax in this province? Why should those people at the lowest end of the income scale be forced to pay for doctors who are going to be earning more than $100,000 because of his generous settlement?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to table shortly the actual statistics on the coverage for people who have OHIP premium coverage, but it was much higher than the figures we used in the House recently. I think the honourable member will be encouraged to see it is.

While we proposed in the budget a paper showing alternatives, through payroll tax, to OHIP premiums, I really believe most Ontario citizens believe the one fifth of the cost of health care they are currently paying is good value and is a good way to identify their contribution for health care.

10:50 a.m.

BUDGET

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, as I went through this budget yesterday, I tried to find something that would sum up the meanness and pettiness of the Treasurer's budget. A little phrase popped into my mind which goes like this:

How much is that doggie in the window,

The one in the old pet store?

Well, because of Frank and Willy,

It's now seven per cent more.

Mr. Speaker: And now to the question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The question is, did you like it?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know who composed it for him.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I did. I was up all night.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, you did not.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I certainly did. Some of us cannot afford all the writers the government has. I do not have a Hugh Segal in my back pocket.

This budget is completely misdirected and unfocused. The Treasurer talks about hypocrisy. I will talk about hypocrisy and contradictions. How does the Treasurer explain his prediction that there is going to be four per cent real growth between now and the end of the year when everybody else is predicting that there is going to be at least a 2.1 per cent drop in real growth in the province?

How can he talk about a long-term job creation program on page 5 of the budget and then come up with a lousy temporary job program? How can he spend thousands of dollars promoting "Preserve it, conserve it" and then slap a seven per cent sales tax on all the conservation materials, such as insulation and doors?

How can he criticize the federal government about the huge outflow of capital when the government, with its purchase of Suncor, allows $325 million to flow south to Radnor, Pennsylvania? How can he talk about equity in the budget when he is hitting the people at the bottom of the income scale? All these are contradictions in the budget.

He says he is promoting public transit and then he comes along and taxes them seven per cent not only on new vehicles but also on repairs.

How can he talk about the federal government cutting him back when he has served notice on every school board, social service agency and everything else that he is cutting down? His cents on the dollar to local school boards, local municipalities and social services is being cut, and yet he says he is helping those people who need the most.

Does he not agree that is all contradictory, all unfocused and all undirected in this budget of his?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will almost have to wait for Instant Hansard to make sure I can remember the order and number of those questions.

Mr. T. P. Reid: There's a whole bunch more.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I am sure there are. The honourable member must be afraid he will not get on his feet once more this term; he got them all in at one shot. I really will have trouble keeping track of them. The member may even want to refresh my memory as to the order, doing away with editorial comments as we go through them. Could he give me the first one?

Mr. Speaker: I think the question was, with all respect, "Would the Treasurer not agree?"

Hon. F. S. Miller: Would the Treasurer not agree? No.

Mr. T. P. Reid: That was very helpful, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps you will allow the Treasurer to respond this time.

Mr. Speaker: It is not for me to limit anybody.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Then if you would not interfere, Mr. Speaker, that would be fine. You probably could answer better than the Treasurer.

I want to know quite simply, how can the Treasurer stand there and give us a budget in which he says he is trying to do all these things? He is preserving it, conserving it. He is promoting public transit. He is helping those at the local school board level and social service agencies. At the same time as he pretends he is giving, he is taxing everything away that he is giving to the local levels of government, to the people at the lower end of the economic scale, to public transit and so on.

The Treasurer's whole budget is contradictory. How does he explain the contradictions in those areas?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I will go back to the first question in the honourable member's list; that is, my estimate of what will happen to the economy in the balance of the year. That is where he had a contradiction in terms of periods reviewed. It is true that people like the Conference Board of Canada have shown an overall decline in gross provincial product in Ontario for the 1982 year; that is for a 12-month period. We have said that we will have an annualized growth rate of four per cent from here on.

Mr. J. A. Reed: What's that based on?

Hon. F. S. Miller: That is based on the best economic forecast we can currently make of the direction in which the economy is moving and the potential to create new jobs. Whether it will continue, I cannot be sure. I am in the hands of reasonably competent economists, who in the past have turned out to be more accurate than the people the member is quoting.

They say we will see 125,000 more people at work on December 31 than we have right now. We have already seen, in the month of April, the first increase in employed people in Ontario in a number of months. There were 9,000 more people at work on April 30 than there were on April 1. That is a small change, but it is an encouraging sign.

We do believe the American economy is starting to firm up. We do believe the inventory rundown, which was in large measure the cause of the decline in industrial manufacturing, has gone about as low as it can, and companies will have to start manufacturing to meet current orders.

On the basis of all that, and allowing for the fact that we are stimulating the economy, we believe there will be 125,000 more people at work in Ontario on December 31 than there were on May 1.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I have a new question for the Treasurer. It is about his redneck attack on the public sector, which can be found on page 17 of the budget statement, where he seems to lump together and blame inflation on civil servants and, I presume, hospital workers, guaranteed annual income system recipients, the disabled and the aged.

At the bottom of the page, he threatens, "I now serve notice to all recipients of provincial funds that they should not count on future funding at or above inflation rates." My question is, does that include Gains recipients? Does that include welfare recipients and the aged? Are we to believe what the Treasury officials told our Treasury critic that it does? Or will the Treasurer deny that it does and guarantee that at least they will get cost-of-living increases, if not catch-up increases?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to guarantee what rate they will get, but they were not included in that statement; it was aimed at the transfers to institutions.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: It is interesting that there is no mention anywhere in the budget this year about the general welfare recipients or Gains recipients.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Never has been.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: There was last year. A guaranteed annual income system for the disabled was mentioned last year. Do not say it was not.

I remind the Treasurer and his sense of priorities in the class budget he has brought down -- not a classy budget but a class distinction budget -- that under his administration a mother with one child has already lost 23 per cent since 1975 under general welfare and a mother with one child has lost 16 per cent on family benefits.

Will the Treasurer guarantee them a catch-up as he did the doctors? Or is he just going to say, as he said to one of the members of the official opposition here, that he is not going to sell out to the people who elected him, that he is not going to sell out to the rich and successful businessmen and the doctors, but that he is willing to sell off the poor?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I hardly think so. I would say this, though. If we did not tackle, and I believe we did, the fundamental ills in the economy and get people back to work to create wealth, then the money we would be passing on to those welfare recipients would be about as worthless as confetti.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, since the Treasurer has said, at least in the past, that he believes in tax expenditure studies and in trying to understand what the effects of his various tax concessions and programs are, does he not feel he has an obligation now to study the effect of his new round of high tax increases in the personal areas on various segments of society and those it is affecting the most?

If the minister does that, will he not agree that probably he will determine that the poorest in our society are going to pay a much higher percentage of their disposable income to satisfy the government's greed or its need for money out of the public purse? With this budget, is he not really punishing the people at the lower end of the income scale far more than at the higher end? And is that not just wrong?

11 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, this is where I think my friend should really look at the tax rates in other provinces and discover, much to everybody's surprise, that we do spend less, and that is the part we can control most. When I say this the opposition benches will applaud in an ironic way because they think we should spend more. The member tells me I spend too much. We in fact spend less.

We have to remember that the federal government -- and we do not mind this -- has traditionally used Ontario to transfer funds to everybody else in need in Canada. Therefore, the Ontario taxpayer, through the federal system, pays not only for the services he gets here but for services in Quebec, the Maritimes and some of the western provinces. That is a part of the total tax load on our citizens. Within that context the money used here in Ontario for our purposes is the lowest in Canada.

BUY-CANADIAN POLICY

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is not for the Treasurer. My question is for the Minister of Government Services.

The minister will no doubt recall that a week ago yesterday I had a private member's resolution debated regarding the buy-Canadian policy. During the debate on that resolution the member for Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) brought to the attention of the House several types of office supplies that are purchased outside Ontario; in fact, outside Canada. I just wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to review that situation and, if so, what he is planning to do to reverse it.

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Mr. Speaker, I think the House should realize that of the 1,100 items or so my ministry purchases, about 95 per cent are manufactured by and purchased from Canadians; only about 50, or about five per cent, are purchased offshore. We are trying to encourage the purchase of this five per cent here in Canada, but many of these items are purchased in small numbers, and it is not really worthwhile for Canadian manufacturers to tool up for such a small number.

There is the odd case, and I think one example that was given by one of the members last Thursday was scissors. In that particular case we have to be competitive or, as I know, being a retailer myself, people will go and buy elsewhere. In that case we can buy for $2.11 offshore. I would really like to see them bought in Canada because the only scissors company in North America is in my own riding. They are much superior scissors, but they cost $6 and something a pair. So we buy the ones at $2.11, to cut string and so on. The managers are under a budget and they are going to buy where they can buy most cheaply. So we have to fill the need as any retailer would.

But we are looking into that. I have had meetings with my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker). We are going to set up a procurement officer within our ministry to highlight these items. At trade and industrial shows we are showing merchandise that cannot be purchased in Canada in the hope that they will pick it up.

There is one area in which we are working quite closely, and members should be aware of it. That is in the mechanical and the electrical end. We found that a large percentage of these products cannot be purchased in Canada at the present time, and my colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade is looking into that, trying to encourage our factories to go into that.

Again, as a retailer myself, I am very interested in this and will work towards 100 per cent; but we are at 95 per cent at the present time.

Mr. Barlow: I thank the minister very much for that answer. Will he be reporting to the House at some future date, in perhaps six months' time, some change in direction that has taken place?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: I have mentioned that we are working quite closely with the Minister of Industry and Trade. We will continue to do that.

The estimates of my ministry will be discussed in committee early in June. Perhaps at that time we can fill the members in a little further on what we are doing.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it may be that certain items are uneconomical to manufacture in this province, but does the minister not feel it is a disgrace to see a pen with the government of Ontario logo on it, also including the words, "Papermate, Made in USA"? Is that not an example of items which are available right here in Toronto, let alone in Canada?

Further, this stapler -- again with the crest of the government of Ontario on it -- shows "Swingline Inc., Made in USA." Is there not a way in which officials of his ministry could ensure that such things do not occur, at least in so far as the items which bear the Ontario logo are concerned?

Hon. Mr. Wiseman: Those are a couple of the items that the honourable member mentioned last Thursday.

We have been trying to encourage Canadian producers to manufacture staplers, staple removers and so on. Some of the items he has mentioned, once you have one of them, last for a long time. This is an area where we cannot get people to tool up for items like that.

Regarding the Papermate pen, that is another area where we are trying to fill the needs of the people who ask for them. They seem to like that particular make.

We are still working towards getting that other five per cent made in Canada. The member can rest assured we will keep on trying.

JOB CREATION

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to the Treasurer.

I draw his attention to the chart on page 23 of his budget. He has made quite a point of job creation being one of the priorities of this budget. Yet it clearly shows here, comparing 1981 with 1982, that there is going to be an increase of only 10,000 jobs in Ontario. It also shows that the people looking for work will be increased by 61,000. Does that not mean that the net effect will be an increase in unemployment of 51,000?

That certainly does not indicate this budget does anything for job creation, using the Treasurer's own figures. I direct his attention to his own chart. It is right there.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The honourable member's arithmetic is pretty good. The fact is that most of the job loss, as I pointed out earlier, occurred in the first half of the year. The 125,000 projected increase is in the balance of the year. I can only deal with the situation as it stands today.

By the way, that is something our federal friends did not do. They came ahead blindly with a budget, totally ignoring the realities of the marketplace. We at least have allowed for it and say we are going to create, to make up for the job losses which have occurred.

Mr. Sweeney: I am using the Treasurer's own figures for the year 1982; not my figures, his figures.

The Treasurer also made quite a point in his budget of increasing funds for youth employment in this province. I draw to his attention that they had funded $30 million for the Ontario youth employment program in 1980; in 1982, they are funding it at $30.4 million. That is a one per cent increase over two years.

For the Experience '82 program, they funded $13.3 million in 1980; in 1982, they are funding only $12 million. That is a decrease of one per cent over two years.

For junior rangers, they are increasing only from $4.4 million to $4.7 million over two years. For summer replacement, they are increasing from $20 million to only $22 million over two years.

Can the Treasurer honestly expect us to believe he is serious about youth employment with those kinds of increases over a two-year period and, in some cases, actual decreases?

11:10 a.m.

Hon. F. S. Miller: The answer is I would like to think I could convince the member I am serious. He has to recall a couple of things. The peak unemployment period for youth is no longer summer. In fact, that is the minimum unemployment period for youth.

To begin with, most of the programs we aimed at youth were aimed at students in the summer period. Today's problem is with people who are not at school any more and is in the off-peak periods, the off-summer period. I think it is the Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay) in particular, who heads the group of ministers looking at the youth package, who concluded that our program should start accentuating other times of the year and other target groups.

We are realizing there is beginning to be a shortage of youth in the summer period. One has to recall that the demographics are putting fewer teenagers through in that period. They are not there as they were a few years ago. They have become the 20-year-olds and 22-year-olds. We are trying to tailor a program to changing conditions.

Mr. Mackenzie: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious we are paying the price of last March 19 in this budget. I wonder if the Treasurer realizes that since his last budget we have managed to steal the jobs of another 117,000 people in Ontario, 55,000 of them in the manufacturing sector. Where is the help for auto and steel in this budget? Does the minister realize that, in terms of the 31,000 temporary jobs, if the entire amount allotted for that was used for the 31,000 jobs based on a year, the workers would be getting less than $106 a week or not even the minimum wage in Ontario?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has assumed the 31,000 jobs are for a full year period. I think if he checks through the background he will find they are not. They are short-term jobs at rates --

Mr. Martel: You said they are not make-work projects.

Hon. F. S. Miller: They are not make-work projects. They are jobs that have to be done. I assure him that if somebody is putting on a new roof at a university in his home town, he or she will be paid at the union rate. They will be paid at whatever competitive rate they would have been paid for any other job.

The member talks about the disappearance of industrial jobs. Our country has a problem. Relative to the United States, wage increases in Canada have exceeded their norm. We are losing our competitive edge, and with it jobs are moving to the United States.

Mr. Mackenzie: I guess from the Treasurer's answer the 31,000 jobs are not even for anywhere near a full year. Can the minister tell us how many more jobs are going to be lost because of the taxes he has put on labour? There are higher costs for home repairs, higher costs for auto repairs and not only a tax on a pizza, but a tax on the delivery if it is delivered to one's house. How many more small business people are going to go out of business because of these additional taxes? How many more jobs are going to be lost because of these labour taxes?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I guess one of the reasons I succeeded in small business is because I went out optimistically, not full of all the reasons I could fail, as the member is.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister wanted to know about the member for Hamilton East's home town. I will tell him about that member's home town. We have 29,000 people unemployed. We are among the top 10 of the hardest hit communities in Canada. How can the minister talk about short-term job creation when we have people in this province who need real jobs?

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is ignoring what I said. I happen to have done something to help her city in my budget. I was talking on radio station CHML for half an hour this morning explaining the budget to people who called in. I found them generally supportive.

What we did with our resources was to undo as far as we could the stupid moves the federal government made that virtually crippled the steel industry in Canada through its changes in capital cost allowances and through its change in the depletion allowance for resources. They almost emasculated it, almost made it necessary to go off shore to procure --

Ms. Copps: Short-term job creation; building a roof on a building. Let's talk about real job creation.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Would you be quiet and let me talk?

We did those things because we believe the federal government was totally wrong. I know I can only undo perhaps a third of the damage it did. I did so at great cost, but I believe it is important to show we disagree even if it costs us money. The member does not like that. What would she have me do?

Ms. Copps: Create some real jobs.

Hon. F. S. Miller: That will create the jobs, my friend.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Treasurer. There are at least 85,000 new housing units across the province that are vacant. In view of this, will the Treasurer not agree that the main purpose which will be served by the Ontario renter-buy program will be to clear builders' existing inventories? It will neither create any significant number of new jobs nor will it have any great impact on the number of housing starts across the province.

Hon. F. S. Miller: Mr. Speaker, I really hope the member is not that naive. I really hope he does not believe that if the existing stock or inventory of sold homes disappeared, no one will build up any more inventory. I have to tell him that while we may see some reduction in inventory, we will see a stimulation in the marketplace.

A couple of years ago, the members opposite said the small business development corporation system would not work. I have to say I do not know if this will work, but having talked to people and having listened I believe it will work. I am going to be willing to be flexible enough to make sure it does work.

Mr. Epp: Given the fact that, at page 23 of the budget paper, we find the figure in billions of dollars is 50.2 for housing starts for 1981 and only 50 for 1982, does it not appear to the Treasurer, and to everybody else, that the number of new housing starts and the amount of money that is going to be spent in 1982 is going to be less than in 1981, and that this program really is not going to reflect any new jobs over last year?

Hon. F. S. Miller: The member can go back on many industries that way. If he asks me if it does any good to get the 125,000 people back to work because I have made no progress, if that is his logic it is rather convoluted. The truth is, if we had not had this program there would have been a lot less than 50,000 starts, somewhere between 35,000 and 40,000 starts. I hope I have underestimated the impact of the program. I hope it overruns its budget. There is no limitation on the number of dollars. If 30,000 people buy houses, we will be delighted to give 30,000 people grants.

BUDGET

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, did the Treasurer have McLeod Young Weir do an evaluation of his budget ahead of time? How can he justify and explain and expect people to believe his "Preserve it, conserve it" ads and his energy conservation programs when he slaps a seven per cent sales tax on thermal insulation, storm windows, storm doors, heat pumps, heat recovery units, chillers, solar cells, solar furnaces, windmills, wind-powered generators, timer-controlled thermostats and wood-burning stoves? What has changed since 1980 when he endorsed the conservation program in his budget and said so explicitly? Is it because since that time he has bought 25 per cent of Suncor and, therefore, has a vested interest in the home heating market in this province?

Hon. F. S. Miller: I can see now why the member is in the opposition and shall stay there forever.

We do not have a tax on home heating oil. The member knows that. I can simply say this to my friend --

Mr. Foulds: I didn't say that.

Hon. F. S. Miller: I will tell him why. The tax was re-imposed because government has done what it should have done. The government created an awareness of the savings which could be made through the use of those heat-saving devices. The seven per cent is no longer the catalysing factor; people are saving enough to go ahead and do it without the seven per cent. But this ministry, the Ministry of Energy, needed a year or two to get that message out there and sell the idea. It is working so well that we no longer have to do it. But the real energy savings are in off-oil. Off-oil was where we stuck to it and broadened the exemption for propane-fired vehicles.

11:20 a.m.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, would the Treasurer not agree that the tax breaks given to the oil and gas industry still exceed the tax breaks given to the soft energy or the conservation energy industry quite substantially so that the true costs are not yet there? Does it not make sense for the Treasurer to keep the sales tax off those energy conservation measures if we are going to become anywhere close to self-sufficient in oil, which is the alleged aim of the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch)? Why is this? Is it because now that he has bought Suncor, he profits from people using increased oil instead of conservation methods?

Hon. F. S. Miller: No.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY RETIREMENT ALLOWANCES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Wells moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Welch, first reading of Bill 109, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Retirement Allowances Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, this is a housekeeping bill. It changes two provisions. One is in regard to survivors' benefits for those who are covered in part 1 of the bill, and the second changes the words "three fiscal years" to "36 months."

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ramsay moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Ashe, first reading of Bill 110, An Act to amend the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the amendments are of a technical nature and are aimed at improving the administration of the Occupational Health and Safety Act.

As members know, this act has been in force since October 1979. Since then the ministry has found that changes are needed to facilitate the notification and consultative process for designating a biological, chemical or physical agent by regulation. In addition, the bill clarifies the definition of a new chemical substance under section 21 of the act. This provision requires mandatory notification of new agents. The proposed amendment will assist parties in understanding their obligations to notify the ministry and proposes a mechanism to settle disputes where they may arise.

CONSOLIDATED REVENUE FUND CREDIT ACT

Hon. F. S. Miller moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 111, An Act to authorize the Raising of Money on the Credit of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Motion agreed to.

TOBACCO TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill 112, An Act to amend the Tobacco Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains those changes to the Tobacco Tax Act which were announced in the Treasurer's budget.

The changes include an increase in the ad valorem tax rate for cigarettes and cut tobacco to 40 per cent of the taxable price. As well, maximum compensation, which designated tobacco tax collectors may claim in any fiscal year beginning April 1, is increased to $2,000.

In addition to compensation, each designated collector may claim a shrinkage allowance of not more than 1/10 of one per cent of the tobacco tax collected and remitted. An administrative amendment is also included in the bill.

PROVINCIAL LAND TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill 113, An Act to amend the Provincial Land Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill contains changes to the Provincial Land Tax Act announced in the 1982 budget, as well as some administrative amendments.

The rate of provincial land tax payable on pipelines will increase effective January 1, 1983. The current schedule of rates for pipeline assessment will be replaced by one schedule for gas pipelines and one for oil pipelines, both corresponding to the schedules used for municipal taxation as set out in the Assessment Act.

The assessment of telephone and telegraph wire mileage will be discontinued effective January 1, 1983. The tax imposed on land of telephone and telegraph companies will be established at five per cent of gross receipts. The definition of gross receipts will parallel that in the Municipal Act.

This bill also contains a number of administrative amendments, many of which are made to parallel provisions contained in the Assessment Act.

CORPORATIONS TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill 114, An Act to amend the Corporations Tax Act.

Motion agreed to.

11:30 a.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, this bill includes the changes to the corporations tax announced in the 1982 budget as well as some administrative amendments. Of great interest to small businesses is the suspension of the Ontario corporations income tax for small business for two taxation years ending after May 13, 1982, and before May 14, 1984. The bill also provides for the refund of instalments that have been made on account of the first taxation year ending after May 13, 1982.

Other items include a clarification of the circumstances in which the add-back relating to certain payments to nonresidents would apply, as well as some capital tax changes.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. McCague, first reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: Is it the pleasure of the House the motion carry?

All those in favour will please say "aye."

All those opposed will please say "nay."

In my opinion the ayes have it.

Call in the members.

11:32 a.m.

MONDAY, MAY 17, 1982

5:52 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ashe's motion for first reading of Bill 115, which was agreed to on the following vote:

Ayes

Andrewes, Ashe, Baetz, Barlow, Bennett, Bernier, Birch, Brandt, Cousens, Cureatz, Davis, Dean, Drea, Eaton, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Grossman, Harris, Havrot, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Kolyn, Lane, Leluk;

MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Taylor, J. A., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Wiseman.

Nays

Boudria, Bradley, Bryden, Cassidy, Charlton, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Haggerty, Johnston, R. F., Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, Mackenzie, Martel, McClellan, McEwen, McGuigan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon;

O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Reid, T. P., Renwick, Riddell, Ruprecht, Ruston, Sargent, Spensieri, Stokes, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 63; nays 46.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) in his budget announced a number of changes in the Retail Sales Tax Act. This bill contains the amendments necessary to effect these changes.

The tax base to which the retail sales tax is applied has been significantly altered through the withdrawal of a number of exemptions to the tax and by changing the composition of other exemptions. In addition, the tax will now apply to insulation, repair and maintenance labour performed on articles which are not, or will not, become part of real property.

All prepared food becomes taxable at the lower rate of seven per cent. The previous rate of 10 per cent on meals over $6 is being removed; similarly, the exemption for meals up to that level.

As well, the rate of tax applicable to charges for transient accommodation is being reduced to five per cent. This bill also contains a number of administrative amendments.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day, I would like to table the answers to questions 105, 117, 120, 124, 125, 127 and 135, and the interim answer to question 106 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, May 21].

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before the adjournment of the House, I would like to indicate what the business of the House will be for the remainder of the week.

Tuesday, May 18, in the afternoon we will deal with the opposition budget replies, followed by Bill 60. In the evening, we will carry on with Bill 60.

On Thursday, it has been agreed that we would not have private members' hour but have the opposition budget reply followed by budget debate; budget debate in the evening and budget debate on Friday morning.

The House adjourned at 5:59 p.m.

APPENDIX

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

PLANT EMISSIONS

64. Mr. Elston: Would the Minister of the Environment provide data on emissions of SO₂ in metric tons per year for the years 1979, 1980 and 1981 for the Algoma Steel Corp. Ltd. plant in Wawa, for the Falconbridge Nickel Mines Ltd. facility in Falconbridge, for the seven individual petroleum refineries in Ontario, and for the seven individual sulphite pulp plants in Ontario? [Tabled April 7, 1982].

98. Mr. Elston: Would the Minister of the Environment provide data on the expected and the maximum quantity of emissions of SO₂ NO_x from the Ontario Hydro export of 400 megawatts of electricity for 50 weeks to the Niagara Mohawk Power Corp. of Syracuse, NY?

See sessional paper 98.

ADULT BASIC EDUCATION

103. Mr. Grande: Would the ministry explain the reasons the school boards are not also given permission to enter into an agreement to provide adult basic education as is specified in the agreement for colleges of applied arts and technologies, given the recent adult basic education funding changes and the proposed amendments to the Education Act, which states in section 45 that, "Subject to approval of the minister, a board may, in respect of persons who reside in the area of jurisdiction of the board, enter into an agreement in writing with a college of applied arts and technology for the area in which the board has jurisdiction under which the college of applied arts and technology provides for the board such adult basic education as is specified in the agreement"? [Tabled April 27, 1982].

Hon. Miss Stephenson: School boards already are permitted under the Education Act to provide adult basic education. The proposed amendment to the Education Act (section 45 of the Education Amendment Act, 1982, or Bill 46) is to extend the power of school boards in this field so that a board may provide such programs through agreement with a college of applied arts and technology.

WATERMAIN CONSTRUCTION GRANTS

107. Mr. Ruston: Would the Minister of the Environment indicate the number of Up-Front Grants to municipalities for water main construction over the past three years and the percentages of total cost paid by the province for each project? [Tabled April 28, 1982].

See sessional paper 100.

AIRCRAFT CHARTERS

109. Mr. Bradley: (a) What was the total cost of aircraft chartered by the government of Ontario from April 1, 1982, to the present for ministers, government members and government officials for travel on government business? (b) Who chartered the aircraft? (c) Who travelled on each trip? (d) What was the total cost per trip? [Tabled April 28, 1982].

Hon. Mr. Pope: (a) The total cost of aircraft chartered by the Ministry of Natural Resources Malton Air Operations Office for the month of April 1982 was $35,078.37.

(b) The aircraft were chartered by the Ministry of Natural Resources following requests from persons authorized to requisition aircraft as per the following list:

Personnel authorized to requisition aircraft:

(1) cabinet ministers, deputy ministers and persons with deputy minister status in the Ontario government; (2) personnel of other ministries, boards, commissions and agencies authorized by a minister or deputy minister to requisition aircraft; (3) assistant deputy ministers, executive co-ordinators, branch directors, regional directors, district managers, Ministry of Natural Resources, and heads of boards and commissions reporting to the Minister of Natural Resources.

(d) This information is not readily available from expenditure control summaries. Based on 20 flights, average cost per trip is $1,754.

110 Mr. Bradley: (a) What was the total cost of aircraft chartered by the government of Ontario from April 1, 1981, until March 31, 1982, for ministers, government members and government officials for travel on government business? (b) Who chartered the aircraft? (c) Who travelled on each trip? (d) What was the total cost per trip? [Tabled April 28, 1982].

Hon. Mr. Pope: (a) The total cost of all aircraft chartered by the Ministry of Natural Resources Malton Air Operations Office for the 12-month period April 1, 1981, to March 31, 1982, was $254,958.

(b) The aircraft were chartered by the Ministry of Natural Resources following requests from persons authorized to requisition aircraft as per the list in (b) above.

(d) This information is not readily available from expenditure control summaries. Based on 166 flights, the average cost per trip is $1,536.

114. Mr. Bradley: In the period April 1, 1982, to the present, which government ministers, government members and government officials made use of government of Ontario aircraft? What was the purpose of each trip, and what was the cost in addition to the normal operating cost of the aircraft? [Tabled April 28, 1982].

See sessional paper 102.

116. Mr. Bradley: In the period April 1, 1981, until March 31, 1982, which government ministers, government members, government officials made use of government of Ontario aircraft? What was the purpose of each trip, and what was the cost in addition to the normal operating cost of the aircraft?

See sessional paper 103.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING

115. Mr. Bradley: Who co-ordinated the Ontario government advertising in the Globe and Mail Report on Business, April 26, 1982? What advertising agency prepared the advertisements? What was the cost? [Tabled April 28, 1982].

Hon. Mr. Walker: (1) Advertising was not co-ordinated on behalf of the government for specific ministries. Advertisements were solicited independently by the Globe and Mail, and each ministry's decision to purchase space was based on independent judgement of the value of the special Report on Ontario supplement to its own marketing objectives.

(2) Advertisements were prepared by the following advertising agencies:

Ministry	Agency
Labour	Foster Advertising Ltd.
Environment	Case Associates Advertising Ltd.
Northern Affairs	Foster Advertising Ltd.
Agriculture and Food	Case Associates Advertising Ltd.
Intergovernmental	Foster Advertising Ltd. Affairs

(3) Advertising costs: $19,195.22.

GOLDFARB REPORT

118. Mr. Foulds: Would the ministry list which government ministries have ordered, purchased or obtained a copy or copies of the third annual Goldfarb report? Would the ministry table the report? Would the ministry table any analysis of the report done by ministry personnel? [Tabled April 30, 1982].

Hon. Mr. Wells: The Ministry of Intergovernmental Affairs purchased a copy of the third annual Goldfarb report on behalf of the government.

A copy of the summary was forwarded to the Premier's office, the Ministry of Industry and Trade, the Ministry of Energy and the Ministry of Treasury and Economics.

The ministry has made no analysis of this report.

OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH REPORTS

121. Mr. Martel: Will the Minister of Labour table the report Occupational Health Implications of the Use of Formaldehyde in Ontario by J. F. Henderson, M. G. Holliday and A. Homes? [Tabled April 30, 1982].

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: A copy of the report was placed in the ministry library on April 30, 1982.

122. Mr. Martel: Will the Minister of Labour table the report Occupational Health Implications of Acrylonitrile in Ontario by M. G. Holliday, J. W. Sifton, F. L. Engelhardt and A. Homes? [Tabled April 30, 1982].

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: A copy of the report was placed in the ministry library on April 30, 1982.

123. Mr. Martel: Will the Minister of labour table the report Occupational Health Implications of Benzene in Ontario by M. G. Holliday, F. R. Engelhardt, J. F. Henderson and A. Homes? [Tabled April 30, 1982].

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: A copy of the report was placed in the ministry library on April 30, 1982.

INTERIM ANSWERS

95. Mr. Renwick: Hon. Mr. McMurtry -- The information requested is currently being compiled in this ministry. We shall be in a position to table our response on or before May 21, 1982.

108. Mr. Peterson: Hon. Mr. Grossman -- Due to the amount of information requested in the above question, it is not possible to provide a response prior to the end of the current legislative session. I anticipate that my answer will be tabled on or about October 15, 1982.

May 14, 1982