Hansard Transcripts 1982-Jul-07 | Legislative Assembly of Ontario

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, there may be many others who want to rise to do this but I know that all members are delighted to see the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs back, looking hale and hearty and full of enthusiasm.

[Applause]

Mr. Speaker: Welcome back.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much. I would like to thank the House for the very warm welcome back and say I really feel good being back here. One really does miss this place when one is not here. I watched the members on television whenever I could find something about the House on television.

I would like to make two observations on my sojourn in the hospital. First of all, I do not recommend the procedure for anyone who wants to bypass the Legislature; there are probably easier ways to do it. I would like to say it has confirmed forever my belief, which I had before, that we do have the finest health care system in the world. I can recommend every hospital in Ontario, particularly the Toronto General Hospital, if members ever find themselves in the same predicament I was in.

I would also like to say, as I have said on a couple of other occasions, the real reason that I had the operation was to prove, scientifically and conclusively and once and for all, that Tories do have a heart.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: I must point out that the member for Grey-Bruce is out of order.

Mr. Sargent: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order, or I would be willing to recognize you.

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to help you adjourn the House today. I am not really out of order if you do not rule me out of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure we will give leave to hear you, but I must ask you to remove your hat.

Mr. Sargent: No. I think by law a member is allowed to wear a hat one day a year in this place, is that not so?

Mr. Speaker: I think that was revoked several years ago.

Mr. Sargent: Kelso Roberts used to wear a hat one day a year here. I brought up the old book and it says it is okay.

Mr. Speaker: I think, traditionally, when you rise to speak you must take your hat off.

Mr. Sargent: Now that I have your attention, I rise on a point of privilege, not as a member of this House but as a taxpayer, in that I received a letter today saying all 1982 funds have now been committed for youth employment programs. Mr. Speaker, I want to have you ask the Premier (Mr. Davis) -- this is not question period --

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, I have to point out to the member that this is not a legitimate point of privilege.

Mr. Sargent: Wait until you hear it.

Mr. Speaker: No, I think I have already heard enough and I must point out to you that I cannot relay questions or ask questions on behalf of anybody.

Mr. Sargent: I will ask it directly then.

Mr. Speaker: No, you will not. No, we are not at that point in the proceedings yet.

Mr. Sargent: I do not know --

Mr. Speaker: I am sure you will have your opportunity and I would be happy to recognize you at the appropriate time.

Mr. Sargent: No, your skates are a bit dull here, now.

Mr. Speaker: No, they are not.

Mr. Sargent: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: I would have to ask you to resume your seat so we may proceed. Thank you very kindly.

RESIGNATION OF MEMBER FOR YORK SOUTH

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) is a very hard act to follow.

I rise on what I think is appropriately or accurately a point of privilege. All members of the House will have been aware from the media that it is my intention to resign my seat in the Legislature as of the end of this month in order to provide an opportunity for Bob Rae to seek the spot he is entitled to in this Legislature.

Mr. Kerrio: I don't think he's entitled to it; he has to win.

Interjections.

Mr. MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, may I say to you and to the members, they are a little late. If they wanted to open a seat, they had plenty of chances but they did not do it.

Ms. Copps: We opened one.

Mr. MacDonald: And we took it --

Ms. Copps: With the wrong man.

Mr. MacDonald: We took it, notwithstanding the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps).

After 27 years and one month minus a day in this Legislature, I think members will understand why I say it is very much a part of my being. Therefore, the prospect that this will be my last day in the Legislature is one that I greet with a measure of regret and sadness. I have enjoyed my associations in this Legislature more than words can say. The friendships and working co-operation with people on both sides of the House throughout all of those years is a memory I will always cherish.

However, the time has come for ending the speculation. I hate to deprive members of the games they have been playing for the last while. I leave with not as much regret as some people are attributing to me. I am very much interested in and have every inclination and desire to be part of the legislative process.

Regretfully, and the reason for a lessened regret in leaving the Legislature, this Legislature, like most legislatures and parliaments, is becoming less and less important in the legislative process. What I say is not something new, it is something that everybody recognized when the Camp commission was established 10 years ago to see if we could find ways and means of improving the role of the Legislature and the member in it. I suppose it is one of the great preoccupations of political scientists today to take a look at what can be done to make the role of the Legislative Assembly a much more effective one.

But I have the assurance from my colleagues that I can be very much part of the continuing legislative process. As I think members are aware, my leader has asked me to become a special adviser in his office. To indicate to members that the continuity will go on, I shall proceed almost immediately -- no, not until after the by-election -- with ongoing task forces in two areas that have been my major preoccupation: namely, agricultural and rural problems and Ontario Hydro affairs.

2:10 p.m.

In addition to that, my colleagues have done me the honour yesterday of electing me chairman of the caucus and of the caucus executive, so I will be able to play a role in shaping our strategy here.

I just want to go back a bit and speak about what is happening to this Legislature. I am not going to speak at length, and I am not going to suggest that I know the answer to what we can do to make the role of the Legislature more effective. But there is one area in it that we have tackled in this province with the Camp commission and the recommendations for making the role of the average member more meaningful. We have, I would acknowledge, made some significant progress in reform around the Legislature to achieve that objective.

There are some people in this institution -- and if I may say so, on the other side of the House -- who might be inclined to reverse that process. I have a very personal plea to the Premier (Mr. Davis) that he should resist any tendency in that direction. I have no illusion that reform in this Legislature is going to solve the whole problem. But if the kind of reforms we have been achieving and that we are working on almost day to day are not pursued, we will be moving backward and not forward, and I am sure this is something the Premier would not want to happen.

When I became leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation in 1953 and of the New Democratic Party in 1961, it was in the firm conviction that the New Democratic Party, as it is now known, is the only party that can and will provide an alternative to the Tories, who have been in power too long.

Mr. Nixon: This is not a maiden speech. We do not have to remain silent.

Mr. MacDonald: It may be a maiden speech. I have seen and heard nothing, including the last interjection, to indicate that I should change my thinking on that matter. The Regenstreif polls last February indicated that the New Democratic Party had moved into second spot again, and Hamilton West confirmed those polls.

I conclude my parting fond farewell to colleagues of the Legislature by saying to the Premier and his colleagues over there: Be prepared, move over, because we are ready for 1985.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words about the decision that I know has tested the conscience and personal views of the member for York South for some weeks. I shall not on this occasion indulge in the fun I might ordinarily have, because I know that his decision was one of conscience, and I would think it was not easily developed.

I will resist the temptation, although it is present, to take issue with the member for York South on this occasion as to who may be moving where some three years hence, except to pass on this bit of personal advice, which sometimes members opposite never accept from the Premier of this province: Just do not make any plans to leave the position as adviser to one of the leaders of one of the opposition parties after 1985, because my suspicion is that that in fact is where he will be.

However, I want to say in a very nonpartisan way, speaking for members on this side of the House, how much we have appreciated over the years the contributions by the member for York South. We have some very basic philosophical disagreements, and I think it is fair to state that on a number of issues we have agreed to disagree.

I must also say on a more personal basis that I did not know the member for York South personally when I first had occasion to sit in the gallery and witness his performance as leader of the party when my predecessor once removed, Mr. Frost, and the member for York South used to do verbal battle here in this Legislature.

Having listened to those debates, and having listened to the member here, I can only say that with maturity has come moderation, and with moderation has come a measure of sensitivity and a degree of understanding I did not sense in those early days, such that on many occasions the sensitivity and the policies of the government as represented on this side of the House were in his own heart of hearts worthy of support. I say that in a kindly fashion, having listened to him berate my predecessor and effectively contribute to the affairs of this House.

This is an important occasion. There are not many members who can say they have committed 27 years of their adult lives to public service. Perhaps the member for Wellington South (Mr. Worton) and one or two others in this House can make that same statement. I can only say to the member for York South I have four years and one month to go to meet his record, which I have every intention of doing on this side of the House. Those are my present intentions.

I would also like to express to the member for York South that, in spite of our partisan differences, he has enjoyed and does enjoy the respect of members of the government on a number of issues. I wish him well in the new pursuits he will be following. I understand he will continue his interest in the party with which he has been associated for so many years. He has pledged his support and loyalty, and properly so, to his new leader, although I do not share with him the same view as to whether his leader will automatically emerge as a member of the Legislature because of the decision he made at one o'clock yesterday.

In conclusion, on behalf of the government we sincerely wish the member for York South well. I fully expect he will remain partisan and will make his contribution, but somehow I suspect that at some point in his career he may give more attention to his academic interests and his imparting of knowledge to younger people, even though it has not been totally objective, as I have said on other occasions.

On behalf of the government and the members of our caucus, we sincerely wish him well and extend to him our best wishes for whatever the future may hold for him.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of my party on this auspicious day. It is fortunate that the day we lost a good one we also got a good one back. In a sense, it netted out for the Legislature and I too welcome the minister back.

This is an historic day. It is the first time any of us have witnessed an asphalt farmer being put out to pasture, the man who coined the phrase, "You do not have to be a chicken to know an egg when you see one."

The member for York South won the respect of every single member of this House. All of us have our personal favourites from various parties, people we respect for special things. The member for York South represented that to all of us regardless of party. As a new member in 1975, it was with great delight that I watched and learned from the great parliamentarian operating in this House, although I am sure he would argue not enough. I know my colleagues who have been here far longer than I continue to have respect for this man's ability at all times.

We are seeing the patriarch go, in many ways. He is a scholar, a great parliamentarian and a fierce partisan on every single occasion. Some of us are more sensitive about his leaving, as former leader, than others are. I know my colleague the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) has a little different view of this situation than others may have.

2:20 p.m.

I hope the member will sit down and pen his memoirs, as well he should. In my view there is not enough good history on the House at Queen's Park. Some of the members here should be prepared to share their experiences with the public and I can think of no one better at that than the member for York South.

As he said, he participated in the ups and downs, the highs and lows. He came in at a low in 1955, I gather, with three members. There was a wee crescendo as they accelerated in strength and reached a high, and now they are again at a low. It is tragic that he has taken to leave in this situation. He will leave the party and this Legislature all the lower for so doing.

As he takes his seat in the New Democratic Party version of the Senate -- I am told by some that his political adviser in this matter was Jim Coutts -- I would remind anyone who would pretend to be his successor of the historical lessons of 1943 with Arthur Meighen in York South. I believe it finished off Arthur Meighen. There was another, more recent analogy in 1974, with David Lewis. So it can be a fickle seat.

I say to him that I will miss him personally. I am one of those who have a great respect for him personally. I know I speak on behalf of all my colleagues when I say we will miss him. We wish him well, not politically but in every other respect, and want to thank him again and tell him how decent he is for stepping aside to let a Liberal take his place.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the member for York South remembers the first time he and I met, 24 years ago this August. It was the third week in August at the home of Tom and Dusty Miller at 43 High Street North in Thunder Bay.

At that point the member for York South was doing what he does best. In spite of the tributes paid to him as a member of this Legislature, his great contribution to the politics of Ontario has been made on the hustings. During the dog days of August 1958, the member for York South was beating the bushes in northern Ontario for the NDP, then the CCF.

My second memory of the member for York South is when I was a young principal of a three-room school in a little village called Armstrong. I went to Geraldton, which was then in the huge riding of Port Arthur, and attended a CCF social. It was a new party social in the riding. The thing that struck me about the member is something that we do not often see about the man, and on occasions like this we tend to have obituaries, which I think are inappropriate. What I remember at that social was the member having a few rye and waters and dancing with every attractive woman in the hall, and let me assure members there were many.

Publicly, here in the Legislature, I have been very proud to have been associated with him on the select committee on Ontario Hydro affairs, which I believe was one of the great legislative contributions in this place in my time. I must also point out the work he has done on the topic of freedom of information, which is crucial in this province. We in this province owe a lot to the member for York South because of his role in maintaining an active, honest and responsible government in this province.

We in our party owe a lot to him because of the enormous energy and talent he has put into building the democratic socialist movement in Ontario. I do not want to betray any secrets of caucus, but let me assure everyone that my colleagues and I, over the 10 or 11 years that I have been here, appreciate not only his wisdom, his moderation and his knowledge but also the inspiration he has given us.

I want to assure members of the other two parties that Donald MacDonald is not going out to pasture; he will be fighting on the hustings for the New Democratic Party for many years to come, and he will be one of our great assets and one of their great political opponents.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

PROVINCIAL CELEBRATIONS

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, almost 200 years ago, as the fires of revolution --

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: I do not have a copy of the statement.

Mr. Peterson: Take mine; it's no good.

Mr. Speaker: May we have copies distributed?

Mr. McClellan: We just got one.

Mr. Speaker: All right.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Almost 200 years ago, as the fires of revolution were flying in the United States, the governor of Quebec, Sir Frederick Haldimand, decided to open up the area we know today as Ontario to large-scale immigration and settlement. Our province, at that time part of Quebec, was largely a wilderness. It was inhabited by the native peoples and by a few French and British at scattered places along the trading routes.

The first permanent European settlement here took place in 1639 at Sainte-Marie among the Hurons, near present-day Midland. A number of other communities can also trace their roots to the 17th century, including Kingston, which was founded by the French as Fort Frontenac in 1673, and Moose Factory, established in the same year by the British. In the late 1740s, French farming settlements appeared on the shore opposite Fort Detroit in what is now Essex county.

Governor Haldimand recognized the need to find new homes for some of the 50,000 Loyalists who left the United States as a result of the war. In the two centuries since, they have been followed by other people from all over the world, and together we have built Ontario into the province it is now.

The first several thousand Loyalist settlers arrived here in the spring of 1784. Their land grants were located at the east end of Lake Ontario and along the St. Lawrence, Niagara, Grand and Detroit rivers. They were a diverse group in both religion and race. Most were American-born of English, Scottish and Irish origins, but their numbers also included Iroquois of the Six Nations, Germans and Dutch.

The year 1984 will be the 200th anniversary of our first Loyalist settlements. The government wanted to mark this milestone and, while looking at how it might be done, became aware of many other celebrations and special occasions which were being planned for that year.

The city of Toronto intends to celebrate its sesquicentennial of incorporation. Other places, like Prescott and Cornwall, and the Six Nations, near Brantford, will be recognizing benchmarks of special importance to people there.

In 1984, when the St. Lawrence Seaway is 25 years old, it will be the setting for some of the sailing events planned to mark Cartier's first voyage to Canada 450 years earlier, in 1534.

The year 1984 is significant too in the history of northern Ontario. It will be the 100th anniversary of a decision of the British Privy Council to include much of the land between Lake Superior and James Bay within the province of Ontario.

Therefore, 1984 will be a special year throughout the province, not only among those communities and organizations which are well along in their plans but on the part of many others as well.

It is an opportunity to recognize the importance of our entire history and to celebrate together our rich heritage. We can also honour the achievements of all citizens of this province today.

In response to this significant occasion, I have been asked by the Premier (Mr. Davis) to chair a cabinet committee to oversee planning of the celebrations.

The committee's job will be largely one of co-ordinating support among provincial ministries and agencies for the celebrations which will take place at the community level. In addition, to encourage and assist local events and projects, the committee will foster a sharing of information on what others are doing and will help publicize these activities.

"Celebrating Together" is the theme for the occasion. In keeping with this, I ask members on all sides of this House to join with the government and with the people of this province in honouring our accomplishments, our neighbours and ourselves.

During the summer, when honourable members are back in their constituencies, they will have an opportunity to learn of the different ways in which people would like to mark this historic occasion. Our committee would appreciate hearing from members so that these celebrations will be a source of pride and satisfaction to all of us.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. McClellan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: There is a sentence in my copy of the minister's statement that she omitted to read which reads: "My government intends to restore the purchasing power of family benefits recipients who have lost 40 per cent of the value of their social assistance dollar as our contribution to the fight against" --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT BILL

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, in 1978, when the government of Ontario introduced the Securities Act, it was attempting nothing less than a major revision of provincial securities legislation.

Since it came into force, the act has revealed itself to be in need of certain modifications. This is entirely natural and the bill I am introducing today, the Securities Amendment Act, represents a necessary response to that situation.

From direct experience gained with this statute during the past few years, it has been determined, for example, that some clarification of its application to crown agencies was necessary. It has become increasingly routine for agencies of the crown to enter Ontario capital markets for publicly traded securities. The fact that crown agencies alone might not be required to comply with the provisions of the act may bring our securities markets into some disrepute. Therefore, the amendments make it clear that the act applies to the crown in the right of Canada, Ontario and other provinces when they participate in the public capital markets of Ontario.

We also determined that a number of substantive modifications were required in other parts of the act. For example, the definition of a takeover bid has been altered to include offers made for securities convertible into voting securities. In addition, the takeover bid threshold level has been redefined from 20 per cent of currently outstanding voting securities to 10 per cent of the voting rights attaching to the voting securities that would be outstanding on a fully diluted basis.

These are just two of the important and significant amendments included in the bill which I am introducing to the Legislature today. The remaining changes can be divided into five separate categories.

1. Insider trading and reporting: as it stands, the Securities Act requires insiders of a public company to file reports of their trading in securities of that company. These regulations will be amended to accelerate the filing of these reports.

2. Self-regulation of the investment industry: the proposed amendments in the field of self- regulation are intended to provide, upon application of a self-regulatory body, Ontario Securities Commission recognition of and oversight over such self-regulatory bodies. Present legislation restricts government to the oversight of rules and regulations in respect of practice and procedure on audits.

3. Timely disclosure, continuous disclosure and the disclosure delivery system: proposed amendments will result in a new offence and new rights of action when a person intending to make a takeover bid, or anyone who has a special relationship to that person, tips others as to that intention before it has been generally disclosed. The definition of a special relationship person has been extended to individuals who obtain inside information from persons they know to be insiders. This new group of persons will be liable if they trade on that information.

4. Administration: amendments will make possible an increase in the number of commissioners to 11 and bring about the creation of a deputy chairman as well a vice-chairman of the commission. These changes will enable the commission to deal more effectively with the increase in work load of the commission since our legislation of 1978.

5. Distribution and resale of securities: amendments in this area are designed to prevent people from acting as unregistered underwriters, purchasing for the purpose of immediate resale or, in other words, from effecting back-door underwriting.

These are just a few of the many amendments included in the proposed act. It is my belief that this bill will introduce changes to the Ontario securities markets that are both necessary and innovative and that will ensure the continued integrity of these markets.

BEER AT SPORTING EVENTS

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, since the advent of major league baseball in Toronto, there has been considerable discussion about the sale of beer at Exhibition Stadium for those attending Blue Jay games. The topic is popularly summarized under the heading "Beer at the Ball Park."

As will be evident, the government's approach to this issue has been relatively cautious. While some may have been disappointed with the cautiousness and the situation, the general enthusiasm of the fans for both the setting and the game has remained very high.

We believe, however, that a significant segment of the population would now accept an experiment involving the sale of beer at major league ball games and certain other professional sporting events, provided sensible and reasonable arrangements are put into place. Such arrangements, as members know, already exist in every other major league park in North America and in many jurisdictions for other sporting events as well.

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: The member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) is anxious. Can he not hang on for a moment? It will soon be Thursday and he can go home again.

A review of the experience in these other centres indicates that while isolated problems have arisen from time to time, there seems to be no serious difficulty when the matter is handled in a reasonable and clearly defined way. Obviously this has called for moderation on the part of fans, and they have responded well to that challenge.

We are very conscious of the fact that over the years many of the decisions with regard to the sale of alcoholic beverages have been determined on the basis of local options. I continue to feel that there is much merit in having the people of a community, through their municipal representatives, decide on the circumstances they wish to prevail in matters of this kind.

Mr. Conway: Are you serving it in a brown paper bag?

Hon Mr. Elgie: No. We are not going to the member's house; so it is all right.

Having considered all these matters, and subject to the formal approval of municipal council, under whose jurisdiction the operation of the particular stadium falls, the government has decided that it is willing to authorize the Liquor Licence Board of Ontario to designate Exhibition Stadium in Toronto, Ivor Wynne Stadium in Hamilton and Lansdowne Park Stadium in Ottawa as acceptable sites for the sale of beer at professional sporting events on an experimental basis for the remainder of the current calendar year and for 1983.

While the detailed regulations will be formulated and issued by the board, those arrangements must include a provision that all beer sold in these stadiums be in paper cups, be available only through the refreshment booths under the stands and be limited on the basis of two to a customer at any one time.

Through the liquor licence board, the government will monitor this experiment carefully and the matter will be reviewed again in regard to future arrangements at the end of the 1983 season.

Mr. Samis: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: In reading the statement by the minister, I note there is no commitment to the columnist of the Toronto Sun or to me as to when the minister is going to take us down for first samplings of libations at the park.

Mr. Peterson: It's overwhelming. It's the most progressive thing they have done in 20 years.

ORAL QUESTIONS

WAGE AND PRICE CONTROLS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Premier. In view of the fact that this is probably the last day of sittings, in view of the fact that the Premier had a cabinet meeting this morning and presumably dealt with the issue of wage and price controls of various types and various options, in view of the fact the Premier has been fuzzifying this entire issue since he came back from Ottawa, I would like to know his position.

Does the government have a position on wage and price controls'? Will he be developing that position over the summer? Is he going to participate in some way with the federal government? What is the position on this very important matter?

Mr. Kerrio: What a position to put you in.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hear this is the last day of the session. I am trying not to be provoked, and the member for Niagara Falls is trying to provoke me.

Mr. Nixon: Go ahead. Do your best.

Mr. Kerrio: I promise.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You promise what?

Mr. Kerrio: That's it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That is it? Guaranteed? Yes, for 30 seconds.

2:40 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition really has restated a question he asked me on Monday of this week; I gave him then, I thought, a rather full and detailed explanation of the government's position. At this moment that position has not altered. If he wishes me to reiterate my answer of Monday --

Mr. Peterson: I bet you can't.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Does he want me to do so?

Mr. Peterson: I bet you cannot repeat what you said.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, now he has challenged me. My recollection is that I said to the Leader of the Opposition on Monday last that I had participated in the discussions on Wednesday, that I had indicated our concern with some aspects that were not included in the federal budget: the question of equity investment, the question of further streamlining or altering the Foreign Investment Review Agency and the question of the capital cost depreciation allowance.

I also indicated that we had stated a point of view in this province that we were reluctant to move with respect to one sector of society rather than with a comprehensive or overall program. I think I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition that this matter is complex. It is an issue where this government, before the federal legislation, demonstrated its measure of leadership with respect to the six per cent level it had imposed on all of us in this House and on the members of the public service.

I think I went on to say, if the Leader of the Opposition really wants me to reiterate everything I said on Monday, that it was a matter that would require a great deal of consideration on the part of this government, that it was not a matter we were going to leap into and make determinations about without a very careful assessment of all the facts involved.

I think I went on to state that no one minimizes the situation that exists not only in our province but also across Canada with respect to the rate of inflation; nor are we in any way critical of some measures that have been taken to attempt to reduce the impact of inflation on all of us.

I tried to be nonpartisan on Monday and refrained from pointing out that the federal initiatives at the moment as they relate to their own public service were somewhat simpler in terms of their legislative capacity and did not include some public servants that we have here in Ontario who are not under our direct management or supervision, whatever terminology one may wish to use.

I think I pointed out to the Leader of the Opposition that I understood from his press observations, and I could not really totally understand them, that he was really echoing some of the things I had said about the public sector, which indicated to me that his party was in support of a program that would have wage and price controls on everyone. That was the obvious conclusion one would come to from the observations he made. I did not comment on that on Monday, but I assume that position is correct; and I see that he has not shaken his head, or that he is not nodding his head. The truth of the matter is that he does not know what his position is. I understand that, and I do not expect him to take one.

I only say to the Leader of the Opposition that this government is very carefully assessing the federal program. We took initiatives before the government of Canada. There has not been, and will not be in the next several days, a determination as to what further steps, if any, we may take.

Mr. Peterson: The Premier's leadership on this matter has been picayune; he really is not addressing the problem. As he himself said in his statement prior to the first ministers' meeting, it is going to demand clear, resolute and strong leadership from all sectors right across this province -- his words exactly. There is great apprehension by people right across this province. Anxiety levels are at an all-time high at present. But people are probably willing to sacrifice if those sacrifices are fairly distributed, if people are sure they are not suffering while someone else is getting ahead.

Recognizing at the same time that public sector controls pick out only one area and that the Premier probably is going to be into a full program of price and wage controls, since he controls about 80 or 90 per cent of the work force here, and given the seriousness of the situation and the desire all of us have to make a system like this as fair as possible in the circumstances, does the Premier not feel that it would be reasonable to have a committee of this Legislature sit this summer and talk with the various groups involved in these great questions to respond to what most people in this country feel is a crisis at this time to which politicians are not responding?

Is that not a reasonable suggestion? It would help the Premier provide the clear and resolute leadership he talks about but has yet to deliver.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think I have already responded to that in some detail. I will go through it once again if the Leader of the Opposition wishes, as I did on Monday. I only point out to him that he tends to oversimplify it and deals in generalizations and platitudes to a certain extent.

Mr. Peterson: Be very specific and helpful.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am just telling the member. I listened politely to what he said; it is his turn to sit back and try to learn a little bit on his part, if that is possible.

I really do not think any useful purpose would be served in striking a committee of this Legislature to determine whether there should be wage and price controls either in the public sector or in the public and private sectors. I really do not think that is a matter that can be usefully dealt with in terms of a select committee of the House. I do not say that in any critical sense but purely from a practical standpoint. I really do not think it is a workable suggestion. I am not critical of his making the suggestion, but he has asked me for a point of view and I am expressing it.

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, can the Premier tell us whether the cabinet made any determination at all this morning? Can he tell us whether the cabinet plans to make a determination before this House resumes, in its normal course of events, in October? In other words, does he plan to call us back in the middle of the summer?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I hope the honourable member will understand that this matter is very complex, and we all know it is; no one is minimizing the seriousness of the situation. I never disclose what was settled in cabinet or even what was discussed. I think the member can assume obviously there was some discussion. I cannot guarantee the member that we will not be back here, nor am I suggesting that we will. I am not equivocating; I am just telling him in a very simple fashion that there is no determination.

Mr. Foulds: On the one hand, on the other hand.

Hon. Mr. Davis: On the one hand I cannot say we will not, and on the other hand I cannot say we will.

Mr. Peterson: Given the eloquent speech we heard today from the retiring member for York South (Mr. MacDonald) about the increasing irrelevance of the Legislature; given the fact that as the Premier is thinking of these programs -- it is probably as significant a public initiative as he will ever take -- and that they would require consensus around a broad spectrum of society and would have to have support without which they cannot work; given the fact he has learned some lessons about imposing things on people after the fact without them having access or input into those decisions; does the Premier not feel it could make this Legislature more relevant as well as develop a consensus in society'? It appears we are going to have to have that because, failing that, we are going to have national warfare in society between the various groups that are controlled or not controlled.

Does he not feel we could use the legislative process somehow or other, through a select committee or through discussions in this House in the very near future, to make sure we can all assist in developing that consensus and not fracture society any more than it is fractured at present?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I think this government has made a very genuine, deliberate and successful attempt, certainly up to this point, to minimize the debates within society generally.

I only say to the Leader of the Opposition that he can talk about relevancy or irrelevancy -- he leaves himself somewhat vulnerable when he makes those statements -- but I just have to say in my opinion at this moment --

Mr. Sargent: Was Suncor relevant?

Hon. Mr. Davis: To answer the member for Grey-Bruce in simplistic terms, yes. If he wants to enter into a discussion, I will be delighted if he does so.

Mr. Peterson: What would happen if you gave it to us in complex terms?

Mr. Speaker: Back to the main question, please.

Hon. Mr. Davis: My answer is as it was to the member's opening question. No, I do not see that a select committee at this moment would be helpful.

MINE SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Premier. The Premier had a meeting with representatives from Bancroft, Madawaska Mines, quite recently. As I understand it, there was no clear resolution of that situation. Has he had an opportunity to reflect on that? Is there a resolution? Is he going to use the power of his government to keep that mine open? What is the state of those negotiations?

2:50 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be improper to describe them as negotiations, because they are not negotiations. We met again with a representative group, including the very distinguished member representing that riding, and certain other suggestions or additional suggestions were made. I assured both the local member and Father Maloney, who was sort of the spokesperson for the committee, that some of the suggestions would be assessed. I hope I sent him away with no feeling of false anticipation; I made that abundantly clear.

The two or three matters being assessed have not been finalized yet, and I cannot inform the Leader of the Opposition of any change as of this hour. Obviously, if something is going to happen, or whatever determination is made, it has to be done very shortly. I am being very frank: as of this moment, there is no alteration.

Mr. Peterson: Will the Premier comment on some very disturbing rumours that are about in Bancroft at present, that his government is negotiating on the basis that the mine will be used as a repository for the radioactive soil from Scarborough, and that in exchange he will assist in opening that mine?

The township of Faraday, I gather, has reversed its decision of a year ago, saying it now is prepared to accept that, on the condition that the Premier keep the mine open. Is the Premier or anyone in his government or in Ontario Hydro putting that pressure on the citizens of Bancroft? Is that the deal he is trying to make?

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, I can very categorically say that is not factual.

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question on the same subject for the Premier. He says he is not aware of any discussions on this matter. Might I ask him whether this subject was brought up during his meeting last week with Father Maloney and the other representatives from the Bancroft area, whether there was any question at all about them taking any of this waste from the Scarborough area and whether there has been any further discussion in any way by any of his officials regarding this matter?

Is he aware of the thing that has been drawn up by Faraday township, spelling out some of the conditions it would accept if that were moved there and if it could get the jobs back from Ontario Hydro?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specifics. I am aware that there has been some discussion in Faraday township. I can only reiterate what I said to the honourable member's leader. That matter was not a subject of "negotiation." The matter was discussed; there is no question about that. It actually arose, and I was not aware of this, because the mine was processing certain material, I believe from Port Hope -- I forgot the technical name of the material --

An hon. member: Raffinate.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Raffinate. It was processing that. They were saying to me, as a rationale for the continued operation, that this was a useful instrument to have available. Then the subject of other waste material came up. That is how the matter emerged.

Before they left, I made it abundantly clear that in any discussion of this being a possible site -- incidentally, there were some there who thought it would be an excellent site for the disposal of the material from Scarborough, and there were some who did not; I will not tell him who did and who did not, because I do not think it would be fair -- whatever decision was made relative to the mine itself would not be conditional upon the acceptance of this material from Scarborough.

Those who were present would substantiate that. It was discussed -- there is no question about that -- but it was not a part of any negotiation.

MUNICIPAL ASSESSMENTS

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Revenue. As the minister knows, a number of members of the Legislature and a number of press people went on a tour of homes in Metro Toronto this morning, sponsored by a group called Tax Reform Action for People.

As a result of that tour, has the minister been made aware that because of the unfair, arbitrary and helter-skelter nature of the reassessments being implemented, 75-year-old Mrs. Grace Granger will lose her home at 428 Wellesley Street East, because her taxes have been tripled from $450 to $1,150 per year, when no substantial improvements have been made in her home? What is the minister going to do to help her keep her home?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the specific situation the honourable member refers to has not been drawn to my attention. I presume this woman probably appealed under the normal appeal process. If she did not, this government and I saw fit to bring forward legislation now known as Bill 60 that allowed every property involved in the reassessment in the city of Toronto to have its day in court, so to speak, in front of the assessment review board as it is now called. If there has been an injustice done in terms of equality with neighbouring properties of similar value, obviously that will be addressed.

In terms of the specific situation, there are many other programs this government has initiated over the years to assist seniors, particularly in regard to the payment of a good part of their property taxes. Those programs have been well received, well accepted and do the job. As to the numbers used, I suggest the deputy leader of the third party check his arithmetic. To me, that did not add up to a threefold increase.

Mr. Foulds: It was virtually a threefold increase. Is the minister not aware that he has had correspondence with this woman? Is he not aware that these people have to pay their taxes while they are waiting for appeals? This family has an income of $750 per month. She has to take an extra $60 a month from her food budget to pay her taxes while the appeal process goes through, and goodness knows when that will be heard. Why should she have to rob her food budget to pay her taxes and to pay for the government's mistake?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: A few inaccuracies were just brought forward and I would like to correct the record.

As far as the numbers used are concerned, again I think they were put into proper context. The property tax rebate for seniors has already paid a significant interim payment earlier this year.

As far as the delay in the appeal court hearing procedures is concerned, I might say it is because of the delaying tactics of the third party that Bill 60 was not enacted at least three or four weeks sooner. If it had been enacted sooner, the scheduling of the hearings in front of the assessment review court could have started sooner. If there is any problem or any blame in terms of the time taken, I suggest the member stand in front of the mirror and look into it, because it was the third party that caused that delay.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, in a press release on March 29, 1982, the minister said, "I can report that the assessors did review the assessment of every renovated property of which they are aware through building permits, earlier inspection of properties and their knowledge of the neighbourhood."

The minister is aware that at 428 Wellesley Street East, Mrs. Granger did not have her house reviewed by an assessor. No one came there. There is always someone at her house, because her husband has Parkinson's disease. There was no on-the-spot assessment by anyone. The procedures the minister presumes are operating are not operating, resulting in the inequity that has been brought forward. What is he going to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I have reiterated on more than one occasion what we are going to do about it, and that is Bill 60. The assessment review court, now called the assessment review board, is in place. After we have gone through those procedures we will see, I think, it will back up what I have said on more than one occasion. We are not perfect, contrary to the views of some members opposite who think they are always perfect, but overall and generally, I think the procedure was fair and equitable and the court hearings will so indicate.

Mr. Foulds: At least I can look at myself in the mirror every morning. I am not sure the minister can when he has cases like this and does nothing about them.

Can the minister not understand that his bureaucratic response does absolutely nothing to help Mrs. Granger, who is 75 years old, her husband, who is 80, and their ill son, who is 50, keep the home they have owned for 32 years? They are in real danger of losing that home because of the minister's callous neglect and attitude. Can he tell me why he takes refuge in a bureaucratic procedure which has not yet been used, when people such as this are losing their homes?

3 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That bureaucratic procedure referred to by the honourable member happens to be an act of this Legislature. If he feels that is a bureaucratic procedure then he should not have been a party to that particular legislation when it was first enacted. That is exactly what we are talking about: even in those cases where there have been minutes of settlement on the appeal questions and valuations, they cannot be changed -- I want to re-emphasize that -- they cannot be changed by the minister or by the ministry until they have been officially recognized by the assessment review board.

It is not a matter of bureaucratic problems or of the minister being insensitive. It is an act of this Legislature that we intend to abide by. If the member's party had not held up Bill 60, probably some of the hearings would already have taken place.

Mr. Charlton: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: The minister has accused this caucus of delaying the bill and consequently delaying assessment hearings in the cities.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Charlton: It is, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: No, it is not, with all respect. Let us fully understand what a point of privilege is. That is not a point of privilege.

Mr. Charlton: He is imputing motives.

An hon. member: What is a point of privilege?

Mr. Speaker: I have explained it several times and I shall be happy to do it again if you so desire.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Foulds: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. This is a wrap-up question for the session.

Would the minister care to comment on his own report card during this session? In particular, would he care to comment on the questions we have raised in the last few months on matters of health and safety?

For example, can the minister explain why, as Minister of Labour, he was unaware of the high incidence of miscarriages in government offices using video display terminals, why he was unaware of the problems of lead poisoning at Wilco Canada Inc. in London, why he was he unaware of a serious worker injury and the 72 violations of the Occupational Health and Safety Act at Rothsay Concentrates and why he was unaware that orders were not issued against Westinghouse in Hamilton regarding high levels of chemical solvents in the paint lines?

Mr. Boudria: Question.

Mr. Foulds: Why did the minister admit an administrative error in the case of a janitor in the Sudbury library, who was ordered to clean up asbestos without a respirator? Why was the minister unaware that there were problems of excessive wood dust at Gothic Store Fixtures in Mississauga and why was he unaware of the cleanup of asbestos at Surrey Place, where workers were working without protective equipment?

Interjections.

Mr. Boudria: Why you were unaware, period.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foulds: How does the minister justify his ignorance on all of those crucial issues during this session of the Legislature?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, with the greatest respect for the member opposite, I think if he looks at Hansard very carefully he will find that after the first couple of weeks of this session there was not an issue I was not aware of. There were some issues brought to my attention in the first couple of weeks, but not from that point on. I believe the record will bear that out.

The member brings to mind the matter of the lead situation at Wilco Canada Inc., the Rothsay situation, Westinghouse, and the administrative error in Sudbury. In the case of the administrative error in Sudbury, I readily admitted it. I am not going to hide behind a cloak of bureaucracy at any time. I will answer honestly, frankly and candidly in this House, as I have attempted to do. If an error is made, and there was an error made in the Sudbury case, I will be the first to admit it and the first to take steps to make sure it does not occur again.

As far as Surrey Place is concerned, again the record will show that I was aware of it.

Mr. Speaker: I want to assure those honour- able members who were questioning the length of that question that it was indeed properly phrased.

Mr. Foulds: Can the minister explain why he has failed to introduce coke oven emission regulations but instead has simply made the same progress that was made by the former Minister of Labour, the member for York Mills (Miss Stephenson), some six years ago, and still there has been no regulation? On June 19 he indicated that he was hopeful such emission standards would be brought before the House before it adjourns.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: The member brings up an excellent point. It gives me an opportunity to say in this House that every commitment I have made to him or to any of his colleagues, I have fulfilled to the fullest. As far as the coke oven emissions are concerned, that went through the regulations committee yesterday. It went through cabinet today. It will be implemented before the end of this month, as promised.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I will give the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party a minute to recover.

I would like to ask the minister, while he is giving us this report card, if he could report to us why so many of the promises that were made in the throne speech, specifically new equal pay legislation, and improvements to the very inadequate severance pay legislation, have not yet even been introduced.

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a legitimate supplementary, with all respect.

Ms. Copps: It is a supplementary; it is the report card.

Mr. Speaker: That is not. He may ask a supplementary to the main question.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, the deputy leader of the New Democratic Party --

Mr. Speaker: I might remind the honourable member that the rulings of the Speaker during question period are not debatable. You must ask a supplementary on the main question please.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I must abide by your ruling; but I would simply ask you to review Hansard because I think you will find that the statement by the deputy leader did refer to a report card of the Minister of Labour. I am simply asking about my part of the report.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps it did but it was dealing with a very specific topic, I would ask you to keep on that topic.

Mr. Foulds: Given the fact that there are some 25,000 confirmed toxic substances and some 35,000 suspected toxic substances in the work place, and up until this time we have regulations governing two, maybe three, how long is it going to take to get those regulations in place so that we have standards?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, the honour- able member has said we have two in place and possibly a third. I would like to tell him that in addition to coke oven emissions, also approved today by cabinet was vinyl chloride.

Mr. Foulds: Four.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I would also like to tell the member --

Mr. McClellan: You should be ashamed of yourself. I was there when the promise was made.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I have two options. One is to get angry and the other is to answer in the manner in which I usually attempt to do. That brings up a very important point. Every single issue that has been raised by the third party in this House to the attention of this Minister of Labour, has been responded to within 24 hours, every single issue.

ACID RAIN

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Energy. He is aware that part of Ontario Hydro's program to reduce acid gas emissions is to install scrubbers at two of Hydro's 27 coal-fired generating units. Is the minister aware that due to either severe financial conditions resulting from Hydro mismanagement or whatever other reason, Hydro is now considering scrapping this program to install these two new scrubbers? Furthermore, given this fact, has the minister informed the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton) of this development, which will have severe implications in acid rain negotiations with our neighbours in the United States?

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Welch: Mr. Speaker, Ontario Hydro will meet its commitment under the order with respect to those emissions.

Mr. Kerrio: Then how does the minister answer the fact that the plans and specifications for those scrubbers have been put back, and the 12 people who have been waiting out there to bid on the job have been told it is not sure when it is going to go ahead? It appears the minister does not know what is happening at Ontario Hydro. Does he not think it is about time he did?

Hon. Mr. Welch: Ontario Hydro will meet its commitment.

PLANT SHUTDOWNS

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Can the minister tell the House if he is aware that almost 300 men and women in the city of Cornwall have lost their jobs at a plant called Cornwall Spinners, a modern and efficient textile mill? Can he tell the House what he intends to do about it?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the circumstances, but I cannot tell the honourable member what we can do about it. It is the same very sad circumstance that is arising each and every day. There is not a day goes by when I do not have a memorandum on my desk relative to a plant closure or a layoff. It is the market and the economic times we are going through. If I had all of the answers, I probably --

Ms. Copps: You would not be on that side. You would be sitting on this side.

An hon. member: You could be Premier.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I probably could be Premier if I had all the answers, that is right.

Mr. Samis: I think the race is crowded enough as it is. The member should stay in his present capacity.

In view of the fact the loss of 300 jobs has a considerable impact on a community the size of Cornwall, would the minister be prepared to make a commitment to establish an emergency task force in conjunction with his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade (Mr. Walker) to explore the alternatives for the plant? It is only eight years old and underwent a major expansion two years ago. It is modern, it is efficient and it employed 300 people. Would he be prepared to make that commitment to those people?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Three hundred jobs in Cornwall is a very serious situation. The layoffs in Sudbury are a very serious situation. Three thousand people are off work in my own riding of Sault Ste. Marie and that is a very serious situation.

I will give the member a commitment. I am not prepared to give him a commitment that I will set up a task force, but I will discuss the matter with officials from the Ministry of Industry and Trade and, if there is anything we can do, we will be happy to try to do it.

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, given the fact the member for Cornwall (Mr. Samis) has just reminded the Minister of Labour that it is a fairly recent, high technology plant, and that he has asked him to consult his colleague the Minister of Industry and Trade, has there been any consultation with his colleague the minister of industry with respect to retraining those 300 workers so that, if that plant is renovated for some other purpose, those workers would be ready to fit into that new purpose?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, it is my understanding some discussions have gone on. I have not been involved in them personally so I cannot tell the member what has transpired.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question of my good friend the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

I do not want to be unduly harsh his first day back but will the minister recall that during the 1981 election campaign, when his poor candidate in Ottawa East was in deep trouble, the minister decided, in an attempt to see if he could garner more votes from Franco-Ontarians, to establish a commission?

The Premier (Mr. Davis) would not remember this because, "Keep the promise" was in his vocabulary then and he has not done so since. The minister established a commission to look at French-language services in Ontario and this commission reported back in December 1981.

Considering his deep commitment and the haste with which he set up the commission during the election campaign, can the minister explain why he has not accepted the recommendations of this commission, a commission very favourable to the government?

It suggested the Premier make a clear statement on French-language services in this Legislature. Second, it said: "Cabinet should approve incorporation of a manual of administration." As far as I know, neither of these recommendations have been accepted.

Will the minister confirm that the lateness in accepting these recommendations may lead some people to conclude that this was an unsuccessful attempt on the government's part to garner Franco-Ontarian votes?

Hon. Mr. Wells: No, Mr. Speaker, the member may not make the last assumption. That was a very important report. We were very happy to have it. It was made public, I believe, about the third week in May. I think I tabled it in the House.

Mr. Roy: You have had it since December.

Hon. Mr. Wells: It was not ready for printing and distribution, so everyone could have it, until some time in early May. It is under very active consideration. All the reports are under consideration. The member may recall that as the minister responsible for the Franco-Ontarian affairs, I made a fairly full statement on that matter in this House some time in May. That statement forms the basis and the ground for the kinds of actions we are considering. These things will all be considered in due course.

Ms. Copps: In the fullness of time?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Yes, in the fullness of time.

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the minister on the topic of French-language services. Could he tell us at what state we are with the report entitled, The Joint Committee on the Governance of French-Language Elementary and Secondary Schools, for which I understand legislation is necessary? Will this be implemented in time for the fall municipal elections?

Hon. Mr. Wells: That question should be directed to my colleague the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson).

Mr. Speaker: Is the member redirecting?

Mr. Boudria: Can I ask for redirection?

Mr. Speaker: No. Order.

A point of privilege from the member for London North.

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on June 30, I directed a question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope), in the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). The question was --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a question. I thought the member was rising on a point of order.

Mr. Van Horne: A point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: A point of privilege. I would have to rule the member out of order. I would ask the member to raise the point after the oral question period. I recognize the member for Hamilton West.

AUDIO LIBRARY PROGRAM

Mr. Allen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Education on a subject of rather critical importance to secondary and post-secondary blind students across this province.

For the past few years, an agency known as the audio library program operating out of Trent University has been assisted by the Ministry of Community and Social Services, by the Provincial Secretariat for Social Development and by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities in preparing educational materials widely used by secondary and post-secondary blind students in Ontario.

Can the minister confirm the announcement that her ministry is pulling out of this program at the end of 1982-83? Can she indicate to the House from which financial sources the program should seek funding in order to continue to provide the educational materials essential to blind students who have achieved post-secondary levels of education, if this withdrawal is the case?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Ministry of Colleges and Universities has legislative authority to transfer funds to post-secondary institutions for educational purposes.

An innovative and imaginative program was developed at Trent University which is providing service to students, and to institutions, the institutions in which those students study, as a result of the audio service which has been developed.

Over the past several years funds have been allocated, in addition to the enriched grant which is provided to Trent University, in order to ensure that the service would be maintained.

Trent University has been informed that this service should be a matter of its own responsibility, that the funding which is provided may be used for that purpose if the university feels it is appropriate, or it may seek the assistance of its sister universities to provide some funding for the services which are developed for students within those institutions.

We have had ongoing conversations with the president and with the board of that university and those conversations and discussions will continue.

3:20 p.m.

Mr. Allen: In light of the answer, which suggests that individual universities ought to take on what is a province-wide responsibility in this area, and considering that the Ministry of Education funds schools for the blind and that in the past the audio library program has been funded by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities through contracts to provide such materials for post-secondary and secondary blind students, does the minister not agree that the continued funding of this program really does fall directly within her jurisdiction?

Does it not smack somewhat of buck-passing to suggest that the program should seek piecemeal assistance from individual universities when its recognized benefits touch secondary and post-secondary students across this province?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I suggested very strongly that if we were purchasing service and materials developed by this portion of the activity of Trent University it would be the Ministry of Education's responsibility to pay for those.

The materials which are developed through our schools for the blind are made freely available to all school boards in the province in order to assist the students whom they have within their jurisdiction. That is a service which has been provided traditionally. If the audio materials are useful to secondary students and if our schools for the blind and other schools feel they are appropriate, we would obviously purchase them from the university.

I do not think this is buck-passing. I believe it is the development of a sense of responsibility on the part of all of us who have some area of concern in education.

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, the minister knows full well that this program offered by Trent University touches students across Ontario, in particular through a volunteer program that was operating out of York University.

I realize that either the Minister of Education or the Minister of Colleges and Universities may be facing tough economic times. With that in mind, I wonder if the minister might seek assistance from her colleague the Premier and take some of that $20,000 that was spent so lavishly to celebrate the new Ontario Human Rights Code, and put that money where it really counts, to those blind students, so that they can continue to be educated across Ontario.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a silly question but we will most certainly continue our efforts to ensure that handicapped students in this province are provided with the best materials that can be developed. That has been the case historically in Ontario and I do not believe that any other jurisdiction has done it better than this province has.

CHRYSLER PLANT

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade in view of his avowed purpose to create more jobs, particularly in the community of Windsor. I know the minister is aware of the tenuous position of the workers at the Chrysler spring plant because of the company's desire, which has been stated repeatedly, to close the facility.

Is the minister aware that on June 29, Chrysler Canada offered to sell its spring plant to Local 444 of the United Auto Workers for the price of $1 and that the offer was conditional on many complicated aspects? The condition of most immediate concern, however, is the fact that the offer expires 30 days after presentation.

My office spoke with the president of UAW Local 444 this morning. The union leadership expressed its interest in the proposal in principle but says because its membership is on vacation and, indeed, its leadership is on vacation, it cannot possibly convene to fully discuss the matter let alone respond to the offer in the 30-day time limit. Inasmuch as the matter would require the involvement of the Canadian government and perhaps, because of loan guarantees, the American government, the offer could not possibly be returned in that short period.

Given the minister's concern for jobs, is he prepared to take part in the situation, after consultation with the union and the federal level of government, and at least try to prevail upon Chrysler to extend the offer to 90 days?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, not only that, I would be prepared to see the Ontario Development Corp. become involved and perhaps even extend a grant that might help them purchase it.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear the minister indicate that. Could he indicate in some specific detail what action he has taken so far to intercede by getting involved in this offer in a creative manner? Has he consulted with the union on this matter? Has he indicated that he is prepared, for example, to discuss issues such as helping to find markets for the plant products, partially underwriting the initial cost of maintaining plant production, joining in research towards development of better products and co-ordinating with other levels of government to facilitate the acquisition of the plant and its continued running? Can he indicate what he has done so far?

Hon. Mr. Walker: I would have to indicate to the honourable member that the comment I made about the Ontario Development Corp. being involved was in respect of the purchase price, which he had indicated was $1, and ODC would be prepared to get involved directly with that, I am sure.

My understanding, having reviewed the information on it, was that the union has rejected it. I read the comments of the union at the time, which were sort of: "Oh, no. You don't expect us to take it over for $1, do you? You don't expect us to have all those problems you are having with respect to that place?" That was the interpretation I placed on the union's reaction.

If the union feels it needs some more time to make a decision, yes, I will be glad to contact Chrysler personally and suggest that the offer to sell it to the union for $1 is extended for a further 60 or 90 days. I am sure they would agree with that. It is part of some overall picture and does perhaps relate to the overall question of Chrysler Perkins and how that fits into the equation, but I would be glad to communicate with the union and communicate directly with Chrysler in respect of its interest.

Am I to take from the member's comments that the union is now saying, "Yes, we are interested in it"?

Ms. Copps: This is our question period, not yours.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Don't get your pigtails in a tether there.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed by the minister's comments. He tries to put the blame on the union for the problems that particular plant is having.

Interjection.

Mr. Cooke: You will have your chance to respond.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: The member has no right to impute motives. I did not say that. He is imputing motives, and I do not wish him to do that.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, does the minister know that part of the offer this company has made -- and it is an offer that he should realize is simply public relations on the part of the company to try to squeeze concessions out of Local 444 -- part of the deal that is being negotiated between his government, the federal government and Massey-Ferguson and Chrysler is the Perkins engine deal? That is all part of this thing, and it is a negotiating ploy on the part of the company.

Is the minister further aware they have told the union that if the union buys this plant Chrysler will not agree to buy the production from this plant, that the plant will have to compete with plants in Korea, where they pay the workers 75 cents an hour, or in the southern states, where they pay them $1.25 an hour? Is he aware of that, and does he really believe that Chrysler is being fair and honest with Local 444?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, is the honourable member suggesting that Chrysler has not made the offer? I do not think that is the case. They have made the offer and it is up to the union to decide whether it wants it. The member suggests it is a negotiating ploy; whatever it might be, this is the situation that exists.

We understand there is an offer, a proposal, that the union might wish to take up. I would think it probably not unreasonable that this plant would be required to be competitive with other elements in the world. I would not consider that to be totally unreasonable. It seems to me a rather strange situation that they would close themselves in entirely for purchase.

On the other hand, Chrysler might be prepared to negotiate a purchase price and, with respect to the purchase of the goods that are produced there, would be prepared to negotiate that with the union if the union were to take over the company. I am sure it would be on a competitive basis, though.

UNEMPLOYMENT IN NORTHERN ONTARIO

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Trade. I wonder if the minister has seen the headline in yesterday's Sudbury Star, Tuesday, July 6: "UIC Sudbury's Top Employer: Area Office will pay $4.7 Million a Week in UIC Benefits." The area economist is predicting that we are facing a 30 per cent unemployment rate in Sudbury later this year.

3:30 p.m.

Does the minister also recall the March 9 throne speech, to which he listened so attentively, and the ringing words of the Lieutenant Governor when he said on behalf of his government, "In northern Ontario, specific social and economic activities will be pursued to enhance the quality of life and the breadth of economic opportunity to that important region of Ontario"?

Could the minister put those two quotes together -- the headline from the Sudbury Star and the promise of his government read by the Lieutenant Governor -- and tell us very specifically what it is he and his government intend to do in order to enhance the quality of life and the breadth of economic opportunity in the Sudbury area?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, the member has asked me if I read yesterday's Sudbury Star. The answer is no, I have not had a chance to read yesterday's Sudbury Star. We are not on their normal subscription list. At least it comes a few days later in our office.

I will say we have in our government the Northern Ontario Development Corp., the Eastern Ontario Development Corp., and the Ontario Development Corp. This morning the Northern Ontario Development Corp. was meeting and it will no doubt make approvals that will result in a number of jobs being created.

The Ontario Development Corp. met a few days ago and made a number of submissions that were accepted by cabinet. In fact, the total acceptance will result in 239 jobs being created. I would just like to read those to the member, keeping in mind this is the Ontario Development Corp.

In the riding of York Centre, an export support loan of $250,000 was established that will create four jobs. In the riding of Huron-Middlesex, approval was given for a $500,000 loan and 30 new jobs will be created in Goderich. That is something the member should keep in mind.

In Grey county, a loan of $350,000 --

Mr. Foulds: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The member asked specifically about the Sudbury basin. These figures, interesting and minuscule though they are, do not apply to the Sudbury basin.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you. The question was to answer specifically what programs were in place for northern Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, what I was indicating was the nature of the Ontario development corporations. The Northern Ontario Development Corp. was meeting this morning and in a few days will have a list of the approvals that will go through cabinet and will result in a number of jobs being created there.

To give the member some indication of the kinds of things we are doing, I am reporting on a number of jobs that have happened as a result of approvals that were made this morning, and we can identify many, that come out to 239 jobs just today, created by the approvals given by the Ontario Development Corp. That is something to keep in mind.

Those fellows continue to talk about all of the negatives. They create all of the negatives in this world and I am sick and tired of them continually being negative. When are they going to be positive for once?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: I guess when the minister has nothing to say he blusters.

Does the minister not think it is about time that his government told the federal government, rather than spending $4.7 million a week for people who are not at work, to put up the equivalent kind of money to put people back to work and rebuild the economy of this province?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Yes, I am prepared to say that to the federal government.

CHEMICAL SPILLS

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The minister is no doubt aware of the numerous chemical spills that have taken place in the Junction triangle area. The latest one happened on June 18. On that day I asked the Deputy Premier (Mr. Welch) to check into the spill and I thought he had indicated to this House that a statement would be forthcoming. But none has been forthcoming.

Can the minister tell us today whether indeed there were three spills on June 18? What kind of chemical substances were found? Which was the polluting industry? Is he prepared to do that today?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I do not have a statement as such that I can deliver. I can assure the honourable member that the investigation into the spills -- we believe it is plural -- on that particular date is still under way. It turned out to be a very complex situation, because as the investigation proceeded we became convinced there were as many as four spills during the course of the evening and the early morning of the following day. Without being specific at this point, because we have not yet determined whether sufficient evidence exists to lay charges, the investigation is substantially complete on two of the spills. On what we believe to be the third and the fourth, investigation is still going on.

One of the problems we have encountered, not only in this instance but in others, is the timing of the notification the ministry has received. For example, on one occasion I understand the first call was not to my ministry but to Environment Canada. We were called and our staff went to the scene as quickly as possible. But on a number of occasions, by the time we arrived the fire department, often being first on the scene, had flushed the chemical down the sewer. That has made it very difficult for us to come to any firm determination in some instances, especially if the quantity involved was small.

All I can say at this point is that the investigation is continuing. I am not yet in a position to determine whether there is sufficient evidence to lay charges. There are four outstanding charges against Nacan relating to the earlier spill in the spring. I believe those charges are to be brought before the court this week. The date of July 8 sticks in my mind, but I am not sure whether that is correct. I met with the mayor of Toronto towards the end of last week, at which time we discussed, among other things, improved communications to ensure my ministry would not be one of the last to be notified in instances where a spill is suspected, but rather would be notified very early so we can be on the scene and get the necessary evidence readily.

Mr. Ruprecht: I must admit I am fairly disappointed, as I hope the minister can understand, that immediate action has not taken place.

As the minister knows, Bill 24, which imposes increasingly severe penalties on proved polluters, received third reading in December 1979. The minister has had more than ample time to draw up the regulations for the enforcement of the bill. Since I am having another meeting with the residents of the Junction triangle area tonight, can I tell the residents who are exposed to chemical spills just when the ministry will act to proclaim this bill as law? Can I tell them tonight when the minister will do that?

Hon. Mr. Norton: If I know the bill the member is referring to, and I think I do, a commitment has been made that the regulations, prior to their enactment, will be taken before the standing committee on resources development. We have not had an opportunity to do that at this point, because the committee was late in beginning to deal with the estimates this year. To the best of my knowledge, it has not had any time to deal with this matter. I hope we will get a dispensation to bypass the committee and not honour that commitment. Otherwise, we will presumably have to wait until the fall to honour that commitment.

I can understand the member might say he was disappointed, but I suggest to him, with great respect, that his disappointment arises largely out of his lack of comprehension of the complexity of the problem.

3:40 p.m.

EMISSARIES OF DIVINE LIGHT

Mr. Philip: Mr. Speaker, is the Solicitor General familiar with the reports about the way in which the Emissaries of Divine Light are allegedly trying to attract children to the cult's Kingsview Centre in Aurora? Will he inform the House of what action his ministry has taken to investigate it?

Can he explain what his government is doing to ensure that cults are identifying themselves honestly in their literature, particularly when they are trying to attract children into camps through programs such as birthday parties and the other programs that have been reported?

Hon. G. W. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, other than through the news media, I am not specifically aware of the group called the Emissaries of Divine Light. As I think the study by Dan Hill on cults stated previously, if they are not involved in a criminal activity then the police departments or the law officers of the crown would not be acting on any matters. One cannot judge a cult other than by its activities in the area of a criminal activity. If it is not involved in criminal activity then it would not be under surveillance by the police or attract any criminal charges as such.

Mr. Philip: Is the minister not even investigating the allegations of the parents in that neighbourhood? In particular, is he as concerned as the people in Aurora about the boy at Devins Drive Public School who distributed leaflets on the camp to his pals, which show a note written as follows: "Dear Friend: Here is a special invitation to join a summer exploration."

The leaflet does not indicate what particular organization is sponsoring the camp. There is no mention that it is the Emissaries of Divine Light.

Hon. G. W. Taylor: On the facts the member has given me, I would suspect that if a piece of paper had no indication as to who it was from one would have some difficulty labelling that it came from that particular organization.

Be that as it may, I will inquire as to what, if anything, the local police force is doing in regard to that particular area and report back to the member as to what might be happening in regard to the cult he has named and its activities.

I might remind the member that if it is not within the confines of a criminal activity then we would not find that the police are investigating, nor would this ministry investigate. I suspect many pieces of literature go out. There is particular legislation under the Criminal Code with regard to particular types of literature, but there are many pieces of literature that are disseminated throughout the community that bear no labelling as to what they are in regard to. Indeed, I think some of them even have a political connotation, but we do not go about investigating, either through the police force or in any other manner, as to what those pieces of literature happen to be.

If someone is putting forth a piece of literature, one would hope it is not being used for the purposes suggested by the member, but we will have the police force investigate in regard to that matter.

ONTARIO RENTER-BUY PROGRAM

Mr. Kerr: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Has the minister some general information on the number of applications to date for the $5,000 loan under the Ontario renter-buy program? If he has information on that, possibly he also has an idea of how many applications have been approved up to now, and particularly how many of those are outside Metropolitan Toronto?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, I have had a daily record of the events taking place under the renter-buy program. I am delighted with the member's question because it gives some indication of the interest that has been expressed in the program throughout Ontario. There have been more than 18,000 --

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just to set the record straight: In view of the fact this is a rather set-up question, I might point out to the Speaker that we are already five minutes past question period. Will you extend to this side of the House the same privileges you extend to the other side for set-up questions?

Mr. Speaker: That is hardly a point of order. I might say as a result of this, however, that the same privileges were extended to everyone.

Ms. Copps: We are six minutes over.

Mr. Speaker: In actual fact, we have not gone over by six minutes. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing may answer the question.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The member for Hamilton Centre believes this is a set-up question. I have said all along that I have had these statistics for the last number of weeks in anticipation there would be some interest on that side of the House in a program introduced in the May budget that has produced something rewarding for the economy of Ontario. I am delighted somebody has decided to ask the question.

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister answer the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Indeed I will, Mr. Speaker. There are at present 2,200 applications that will qualify for the $5,000 interest-free loan under our renter-buy program.

The question asked was, what is the relationship between Metro and outside of Metro in this program? Of the applications received to date, about 1,230 have been from Metro and there are just short of 1,000 from outside the Metro area who will qualify.

One of the interesting statistics I would like to leave with the House and in a public position is that when we were contemplating the program we were looking at renter-buy as having a significant impact in opening up a number of rental units in various areas of the province. We felt about three quarters of the applications would likely --

Ms. Copps: This is a ministerial statement; come on.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Would the member just sit and listen for a moment? It might be rewarding.

Ms. Copps: You are already 10 minutes over time.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: She takes her time asking questions and opening up her --

Mr. Speaker: Would the minister just address himself to the question, please?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Yes, I will, without using some of the verbiage the member uses on occasion. The applications we are dealing with at present --

Ms. Copps: You are using the verbiage, not us.

An hon. member: Sheila has to exercise her screech before the end of the session.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I agree.

About 1,240 renters have made applications that will be approved. There are just short of 1,000 first-time buyers, which is the other interesting part of the program. The program has been positive and there are a number of other applications coming forward at present through the lending institutions.

I will be meeting with the federal minister, Mr. Cosgrove, on July 19 to review with him the compatibility of some of the programs introduced by Mr. MacEachen a week ago Monday in the federal budget as to whether we can expand provincial or federal programs to make them even more conducive to stimulating activity in the housing industry in this province.

FIRE TRUCK LICENCE

Mr. Van Horne: Mr. Speaker, on a point of personal privilege: Last week, on June 30, I directed a question to the Minister of Natural Resources (Mr. Pope) about a licence fee for a fire truck in an unorganized community in northern Ontario. In response, he promised to get back to me yesterday. I still have not had a reply from him or from the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier). I wonder if it is appropriate to bring that to his attention.

Hon. Mr. Bernier: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to respond. The Minister of Natural Resources did pass the member's question on to me. I want to assure the member that members of my staff have been in touch with the people in Aweres township and are working out the problem with the Ministry of Transportation and Communications.

MUNICIPAL ELECTION REFERENDUM

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday, in response to a question by the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon), the Premier (Mr. Davis) indicated he was going to make a statement today with respect to private member's Bill 133. The Premier was in the House earlier but he did not make that statement. In his absence, does someone have a statement to make with respect to the termination of that bill?

Mr. Speaker: I have no idea, but I would think it would be taken note of and that some kind of answer will be given you.

3:50 p.m.

RESPONSE TO WRITTEN QUESTION

Mr. Sweeney: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleague the member for Essex South (Mr. Mancini). You will know that my colleague is in hospital.

The member for Essex South put question 203 on the Order Paper on June 2. There was an interim answer on June 7; the answer itself, as printed in the Order Paper, was to be available on June 30. I do not want to anticipate the acting House leader, but we are wondering if he has the answer available today.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Yes, I do.

PSYCHIATRIC HOSPITALS DISPUTE

Miss Copps: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Yesterday the Minister of Health (Mr. Grossman), in response to a question I posed with respect to the negotiations with the psychiatric institution doctors, stated that these negotiations are handled by a different committee headed by the Civil Service Commission. In fact, it is my information that two of the members of the committee are employees of the Ministry of Health and that negotiations are reported directly to cabinet. I would suggest that the minister has inadvertently been misinformed and that he should take the time to correct the record in view of the fact that there is the potential for mass resignations by the doctors pending shortly.

LEGISLATIVE PAGES

Mr. Speaker: Just before proceeding, I am told that we may not be here many days longer. I would just like to --

An hon. member: Why not?

Mr. Speaker: It is just a rumour. I would just like to extend thanks on behalf of all members to the pages, who have voluntarily extended their time -- well, not voluntarily, really, but they did see fit to stay with us -- and we very much appreciate it.

[Applause]

Mr. Nixon: Does your reference to voluntarily mean that we are not paying them?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, I corrected that. I said "not quite voluntarily."

PETITIONS

QUEEN STREET MENTAL HEALTH CENTRE

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions. Two of them are from residents who live in the immediate vicinity of the Queen Street Mental Health Centre. The first one reads:

"To the Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario: We are petitioning for more care of the patients at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in order to keep them from wandering at random throughout the community. Patients who get out into the community are causing property damage, harassing people and, in some instances, frightening both children and adults. As well, the patients are in danger of personal injury caused by their own acts.

"We feel that at the present time the hospital is not fulfilling its duties to the community or the patients. We do not want to see a secure unit in operation at this hospital until such time as the hospital has rectified its problems due to inadequate staffing and programming.

"We feel strongly that the community should be allowed to participate in setting any major policies at the hospital level that will in any way affect the community." It is signed by over 350 residents who live in the vicinity of this provincial mental health centre.

The second petition is also signed by over 275 residents living in the vicinity of the same provincial mental health centre:

"To the Honourable Lieutenant Governor and Legislative Assembly of Ontario: We the undersigned beg leave to petition the Parliament of Ontario as follows:

"1. We condemn the construction of the secure unit at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre and want it dismantled immediately.

"2. We insist on a moratorium on any further changes at the Queen Street Mental Health Centre.

"3. We demand a community board of control which will properly represent the interests of the local community, patients and ex-patients."

Mr. Speaker, a number of citizens from this committee are visiting in your east gallery.

TAX ON CLOTHING REPAIRS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, the third petition is familiar to all of us. It is a petition by members of the Dry Cleaners and Launderers Institute (Ontario) and its customers at Russell Cleaners, 576 St. Clair Avenue West, in the great riding of Bellwoods:

"We, the undersigned customers, support the protest of the June 14 expansion of the Ontario provincial sales tax that imposes this tax on charges for repairs and alterations to clothing by dry cleaners and launderers. We urge the Honourable Frank S. Miller, the Treasurer of Ontario, to withdraw this application of his May 13, 1982, budget since it is unfair, inequitable, inflationary and an added hardship, especially on the elderly, the unemployed and the working poor."

RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. Ruprecht: Mr. Speaker, I have two petitions. One, from my constituents of Parkdale, reads very briefly:

"We, the undersigned citizens, are strongly opposed to the unfair seven per cent added tax on fast foods, chocolates, soft drinks, ice cream, personal hygiene items, etc. We strongly urge the Davis government to withdraw this senseless tax."

There will be hundreds of these petitions handed in at a later date, but I will give you this one for now.

TAX ON CLOTHING REPAIRS

Mr. Ruprecht: The second petition is the one you are familiar with, and it comes from the Dry Cleaners and Launderers Institute (Ontario) and its customers:

BUDGET

Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 133 residents, mostly of the Scarborough area. The petition was brought to me by Mr. Bill Widdowson and reads as follows:

"The budget that was brought down this week by Frank Miller is an insult to the Canadian citizen. It is time to stop reaching into the pockets of the working people every time our government makes mistakes when spending budget money we can ill afford to squander. The Suncor deal and the jet that is used for government joyriding are just two examples of the waste of tax dollars by the Tory government.

"The ineptitude of the budget minister only goes to show the inability of the PC provincial party to supply the answers. They have put the working individual into such a quandary as to where the extra money for this tax will come from. Let us tell them to resign and allow the proper people to do the job that is required."

Of course, we all know who the proper people are.

REPORTS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON REGULATIONS AND OTHER STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Mr. Eves from the standing committee on regulations and other statutory instruments presented the committee's second report, 1982.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Mr. Harris from the standing committee on resources development presented the following report and moved its adoption:

Your committee begs to report the following bill without amendment:

Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: Shall the report be received and adopted?

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.

Ordered for third reading.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE

Mr. Treleaven from the standing committee on administration of justice reported the following resolution:

That supply in the following amounts and to defray the expenses of the Ministry of the Solicitor General be granted to Her Majesty for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983:

Ministry administration program, $6,216,500; public safety program, $22,626,000; policing services program, $9,920,000; Ontario Provincial Police, management and support services program, $50,502,000; operations program, $195,299,000.

4 p.m.

MOTIONS

STANDING COMMITTEE ON GENERAL GOVERNMENT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the standing committee on general government be authorized to meet during the summer adjournment, during the time allotted to the committee under the schedule of meetings agreed to by the three party whips, to consider Bill 159, An Act to revise the Planning Act, and Bill 194, An Act to amend Certain Acts in respect of Planning and Related Matters.

Motion agreed to.

STANDING COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that the standing committee on resources development be authorized to travel to Windsor, Sudbury and Thunder Bay during the week of September 14, 1982.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, is it permissible to speak briefly to that motion?

Mr. Speaker: Yes, go ahead.

Mr. Laughren: I was surprised at the wording of the motion that specified the three cities that would be travelled to and the dates, because in the committee, of which I am a member, my understanding was that it should be left up to the committee and not to a motion in the House.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: What? The dates?

Mr. Laughren: The dates and the particular cities.

Mr. Speaker: It is not the specific dates; it is just the week of.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Having read it, I do not remember what the dates were.

Mr. Speaker: The week of September 14, 1982.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: The chairman of the committee tells me that was what was planned by the committee. It was the week of September 14.

Motion agreed to.

SUMMER RECESS

Hon. Mr. Gregory moved that when the House adjourns today, it stands adjourned until Tuesday, October 12, 1982, provided that if it appears to Mr. Speaker, on the advice of the government, that the public interest requires the House to meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and that should Mr. Speaker be unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of committees of the whole House shall act in his stead for the purposes of this order.

Motion agreed to.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MALVERN WASTE REMOVAL ACT

Hon. Mr. Pope moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Wells, seconded by Hon. Mr. Bernier, first reading of Bill 174, An Act to provide for the Removal of Certain Waste from the Malvern area.

Motion agreed to.

SECURITIES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 176, An Act to amend the Securities Act.

Motion agreed to.

MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 177, An Act to amend the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing for first reading amendments to the Motor Vehicle Accident Claims Act. These amendments include a mechanism to allow motorists who have had an automobile accident in Ontario, with a claim or judgement against another motorist who has insurance with an insolvent insurance company, to make a claim against the motor vehicle accident compensation fund up to the mandatory third party liability limit in force at the time of the accident. In addition, they will eliminate the necessity of a claimant taking court action in every instance to make a claim against the fund.

Most important is the fact that these amendments will protect policyholders from being held personally responsible for paying back the fund if a claim is paid out on their behalf. Under existing legislation, these policyholders would be obligated by the same rules that apply to uninsured drivers and owners who may have writs of execution filed against them. These drivers are obligated to repay the fund in a lump sum or by way of monthly payments to avoid suspension of their drivers' licences. The fund will, of course, reserve to itself the right to be reimbursed by the receiver out of the realizable assets of an insolvent insurance company for any funds paid out.

It should also be made very clear that these amendments apply only to companies which are not paying claims or which the Lieutenant Governor in Council determines cannot pay claims on judgements. If this is his opinion, he will formally declare these companies designated insurers.

PENSION BENEFITS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Gregory, first reading of Bill 178, An Act to amend the Pension Benefits Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce for first reading certain amendments to the Pension Benefits Act which are necessary to fully implement our earlier commitment to the increased security of employees' pension benefits in Ontario. Other amendments will also allow for pension income to be used to meet otherwise unsatisfied orders for support or maintenance following separation or divorce.

While serving as Minister of Labour, I was one of many observers concerned by the number of plant closures and layoffs and the ensuing potential for loss of pension entitlements. It was apparent that some form of pension guarantee fund was needed.

As a result of those concerns, the then minister, the member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Drea), moved quickly to amend the Pension Benefits Act by introducing Bill 214, establishing the basic principle of the fund, with the details to be set out later by regulation. During the writing of these regulations in 1981, however, it soon became clear that the act would require further amendments to allow us to carry out its original intent.

The first group of today's amendments makes up the housekeeping changes needed for us to do what we set out to do in late 1980; that is, to guarantee pension benefits following the windup of a defined pension benefit plan. These amendments will clarify the ways in which we can attain that goal.

In Bill 214 the employees were given a lien on the employer's assets for employee contributions to a pension plan collected by the employer, as well as accrued employer contributions. These provisions were modelled on section 15 of the Employment Standards Act, which provides similar protection for vacation pay.

Unfortunately, this protection has resulted in different legal interpretations on the extent of the lien. An argument has been advanced that the amount of the lien includes an employer's potential future liability on the windup of a pension plan. This was never intended and is not necessary to provide the required protection. The amendment to section 23 clarifies the intent of Bill 214.

4:10 p.m.

The final set of amendments, which are new and are put before the House today, make up the only real expansion of the Pension Benefits Act; they propose changes that will allow for the attachment of pension benefits to satisfy an outstanding support or maintenance order enforceable in Ontario.

At present, pension income cannot be used to satisfy a court order for support under the federal Divorce Act or another province's orders for support or maintenance that are otherwise normally enforceable in Ontario. In 1978, a single exception was made to this principle, allowing pension plan income to be used to satisfy court orders made under the new Ontario Family Law Reform Act.

It does not seem logical that pension income can be used to satisfy support orders made under the Family Law Reform Act, but not orders made under other federal or provincial legislation across Canada. This state of affairs is confusing to the public and clearly unfair. Today's amendments will enlarge that exception to include all orders for support or maintenance enforceable in Ontario, including those issued under the Divorce Act.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the answers to questions 95, 143, 144 and 145, 203, 219, 229 and 251 and the interim answer to question 226 standing on the Notice Paper. [See appendix A, page 3586].

ORDERS OF THE DAY

MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY NEGOTIATIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Rotenberg moved, on behalf of Hon. Mr. Bennett, third reading of Bill 62, An Act to amend the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, this bill was referred to the standing committee on administration of justice for one day's hearings, where we had a number of representatives, both from Tiny township and from Vespra township, and from the town of Midland, and one representative from the city of Barrie.

Most of those people at the hearings yesterday were in opposition to Bill 62 for a number of reasons. One of the reasons they gave was that under the present Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, municipalities may proceed and have some kind of negotiations and then eventually go to the Ontario Municipal Board, if the minister permitted it, and have some resolution of their problem there.

In the present situation, Midland made an application to annex some property from Tiny township. Obviously, Tiny township objected to that. Now Midland wants to withdraw that application and go another route. The way it stands, Midland has everything going for it. First of all, they can either go the route which they originally chose and go through an Ontario Municipal Board hearing and then appeal from there if they do not like the decision, or they can go through the Boundary Negotiations Act, if this bill passes. The same thing applies to Barrie.

We feel very strongly that there is no option for Vespra. First of all, they have to spend their money on legal costs and everything else to object to somebody taking their land. Second, the town of Midland and the city of Barrie may go any route they wish. We feel that both these townships are clearly being raped by the municipalities next to them and that the government of Ontario is a party to that rape. They are a party to that, and they are bringing in special legislation to have it occur. We very much object to Bill 62.

Another basis for objection is that the parliamentary assistant indicated to this House on December 17 that any application or proceeding before the Ontario Municipal Board would stay there and they would have two years to resolve that. After that period of time, they would have to proceed under the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, otherwise known as Bill 147 last fall. If they proceeded under that act, they should remain under it.

Tiny township and Vespra township both want to follow that procedure, which was clearly laid out for them. Now the government of this province is accommodating a few other municipalities. They have found another way of proceeding which they think is going to be more acceptable to those municipalities.

We have no objection to the procedure that is outlined in Bill 147. We were proponents of that procedure, we supported that procedure and we support it today. We have absolutely no objection to that procedure. Our objection is that the act, which was originally Bill 147, the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act, permitted municipalities which had not proceeded to the municipal board at that time to go that route. The parliamentary assistant clearly indicated last December that municipalities which wanted to go the old route and had proceeded that way could go that way, through the Ontario Municipal Board.

Now the government is changing the tune. They are changing the way that procedure should occur for those municipalities, and they are putting everything to the advantage of the larger municipalities, the urban municipalities, which want to raid some of the territory of the smaller municipalities. We object to that.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, just briefly, I want to say that in the course of the committee hearings yesterday, I was impressed with the quality of the debate and argument presented to the committee by representatives of both Tiny township and Vespra township. Members who take the time to read the Hansard will see clearly that in both instances those representatives felt very strongly that they had been deceived, and I agree with them.

They felt there were clear assurances given by the parliamentary assistant that those two disputes, which already have been before the board, would have been excluded from that Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act and that they would be given their day in court and in due course would be served. Both are prepared to proceed in that manner and are prepared to live with the rules as they understood them when they entered into the argument.

I regret very much that the members of the government party on the committee refused to pay much attention to those arguments. In fact, they chose for the better part of the afternoon to ignore them. When it finally came time to vote, they chose once again to carry on with some kind of a vendetta against these two small rural townships.

I regret that this is the case. I think they found an unfortunate lesson in politics in Ontario yesterday afternoon. I regret that this bill treats those two municipalities, as I believe, unfairly; it changes the rules in midstream. They did get their day in court, for which we should be grateful and we are. Unfortunately, it was hardly an occasion on which the members listened and responded to a reasoned argument.

It appeared to me yesterday when the votes were cast that the decision had been made a long time ago, for whatever reason I cannot fathom; that these two townships were given some kind of special attention by the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett), attention which they do not deserve. They have not been given a rational response by the government, and this bill is an unfortunate answer to a question that really needs no further embellishment. They thought they had a set of rules. They thought there was a clear understanding, and clearly that understanding has been broken.

Mr. Rotenberg: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. The member for Oshawa (Mr. Breaugh) is correct. Lawyers are not "the people." The lawyers for Vespra and Tiny -- the high-priced lawyers the member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) always refers to -- put on a great show yesterday but, unfortunately, they misinterpreted the remarks I made last December and misinterpreted that purport of the bill.

It is very plain and very clear that municipalities which bring an action always have had the right of withdrawal and have the right to withdraw under Bill 147. But because other lawyers tried to interpret it differently, we brought this bill forward to clarify the law. That is the only reason it is here before us. I resent such remarks as a --

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order. They could proceed and they could withdraw, but they could not proceed before last December 17 under another act. They had to go right back to the Ontario Municipal Board. The parliamentary assistant obviously is inadvertently misleading this House by saying they could withdraw and then proceed again.

Mr. Speaker: With all respect, that was not a point of order.

Mr. Rotenberg: I did not say that. I said they had the right to withdraw, and they always did. As I was trying to say, we brought in this legislation to clarify the law. The remarks about rapes and vendettas are, quite frankly, totally out of order and totally without foundation.

What I said last year was not what the member for Waterloo North (Mr. Epp) said. I did not say last year that those before the 0MB would stay there. That was the quote from the lawyers. I did not say that. The member for Waterloo North, who is a lawyer, must have read Hansard very carefully. What I said was that those before the municipal board would play by the old rules, and the old rules allow them to withdraw. Those are the rules they are playing by.

This legislation is to clarify the law. It changes nobody's position. It is no reflection on taking sides with anybody, small or large. As a matter of fact, it is my opinion that the small municipalities are better off under this legislation. I commend the bill to the House.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Rotenberg has moved third reading of Bill 62.

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.

LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Welch moved second reading of Bill 168, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I have examined the bill carefully and in detail and I am authorized to tell you and the other members of the House that we intend to support it.

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I want to say on behalf of my colleagues in the New Democratic Party that we also intend to support it.

Motion agreed to.

Third reading also agreed to on motion.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Ashe moved third reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk.

Mr. Cooke: Wherefore art thou, members?

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: I beg your pardon?

Mr. Nixon: I said, "Darn it."

Mr. Sweeney: That's not what he thought, but that's what he said.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Just a clarification before beginning; perhaps it will give him time to get his member in.

We had agreed among the House leaders to share the time on this bill. I understand that still holds true. Each opposition party will have 40 minutes and the government party will have 20 minutes. Is that agreed?

Some hon. members: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Agreed.

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, this is the culmination of a long discussion that started about a month and a half ago. Of course, we in this party will be voting that this bill not be read the third time for a number of reasons that have been discussed at great length in the committee and in this House.

I want to make a few remarks today about the process and about the budget. It is not my intention to thresh old straw or to go into all the details of why we are against it. That has been discussed eloquently and well by members of my party. I commend to the members the speech in committee today of the deputy leader of this party, the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway), who articulately and passionately laid out the position of this party --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: And lengthily.

Mr. Peterson: Lengthily indeed, and well worth listening to. That was coupled with the remarks of the finance critic, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), and the excellent work done on the committee by the member for Kitchener (Mr. Breithaupt) and the member for Ottawa East (Mr. Roy). I do not want to go into all those matters again.

If I may, I just want to speak of what has transpired since the budget date of May 13. Members will recall we read the budget with great alarm that evening. I suspected the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) went through a variety of his options and made the worst judgement he could have in the circumstances. He decided to forgive taxation in certain areas but to extract taxation in certain other areas. One recognizes that for every time one bestows a benefit in society, that generally costs someone else. There are some winners and some losers. In my judgement, the people the Treasurer decided to punish, through taxes in his new budget, have every right, as they have right across this province, to express in the most forceful ways possible their complete disapproval of this taxation philosophy.

What we saw in that budget was a change in the philosophy of taxation. We saw a move away from the progressive system which we, as Liberals, believe in passionately, taxation that is based on the ability to pay, and we saw a major move towards flat consumption and regressive taxes. We saw this shift to tax the municipalities; as a result of this, we are going to have higher property taxes.

We saw a shift on to the poor, the lower-income families who have less capacity to deal with these taxes than people at higher income scales. I suspect to people at higher income levels a lot of these taxes are just a nuisance, but a large sector of society today, an already beleaguered population, will be adversely affected. Mr. Speaker, in your capacity as a constituency politician, which ultimately all of us including the Premier (Mr. Davis) are, you will know literally thousands of individuals and families who are adversely affected by this unfair budget.

We understood that on May 13. At the risk of being a trifle immodest, we were probably a wee bit ahead of the rest of the population in seeing that. As a party we chose, as the rather dramatic signal of our displeasure, not to show up to vote for a couple of days. Even though the bells rang over the weekend, and I know the Speaker did his share of sitting in the chair, in the final analysis we held up House business for some five and a half hours.

Some people felt that was the wrong thing to do in the circumstances. There is no question that a number of editorialists across the province felt it was an improper use of House rules. A number of those same editorialists in hindsight are now saying we used the rules intelligently and fairly. We did nothing illegal. We violated no rules. What we did was we used the limited weapons we have available in opposition to show a population that did not yet clearly understand the implications of that budget, that this was far worse than they originally suspected.

Then, as members will recall, we had to use other parliamentary devices to bring our concerns to the forefront of the Legislature and the people of this province, not once doing anything that was improper or that violated the rules of this House. Let me say that had we been a little more subtle or had we decided to just do what the government would have us do in the circumstances, the budget, which the government will ram down our throats today in the form of the Retail Sales Tax Act, would have been worse than it even was at the beginning.

We used our power to bring these matters to public attention. As they understood it, they agreed with us and they started to show their visible support right across the province. We have had many representations from many groups everywhere.

4:30 p.m.

The government knows our position. Today, we moved to exempt meals under $6, hygiene products, energy conservation and alternative energy devices, labour and the passing of taxation to municipalities and school boards, periodicals and magazines, as well as certain lowpriced confectionery items. The government used its majority to defeat our amendments.

But it did at least do something extremely constructive for the parliamentary process. It was the first time in parliamentary tradition, as I understand it -- and I have not searched all the precedents -- that a tax bill was forced to committee after the fact.

I am proud of that small step forward, because I remind members that we were fighting two fights: we were fighting a bad budget, which was the focus of our venom; but we were also fighting the process, we were trying as constructively as we could in the circumstances to use this budget to prove why we had to improve the budgetary process. Indeed, in that regard we have a number of very constructive proposals.

I do not believe that the Treasurer is alone in his deficiencies in this regard. We have also used the budgetary process at the federal level to prove again why we must bring some sunshine into the entire process.

We put these proposals forward. We believe that the Treasurer could seize this opportunity to bring to this House a white paper on budgetary reform that we could discuss through one of the committees here, that we could have far more public input, that there is no reason for the old secrecy which one used to argue protected the integrity of the stock market or whatever.

We believe that people in a democratic society should have a chance to make their input, particularly in areas that affect them. As a result, we have laid before the members of this House for their consideration a plan whereby major tax changes could be published in a white paper. It would go to a standing committee of this House and people potentially affected could have their say before the fact.

How constructive is it to utilize the majority of the intellectual energy of this House trying to clean up a bill after the fact? How intelligent is that really? If we had had some idea of what the Treasurer was going to do before the fact -- that he was going to tax summer camps, Meals on Wheels or students in residences -- those people could have come forward and said: "Mr. Treasurer, do you realize what you are doing? If you are going to do it, at least let us work on the regulations this way or the other way. But let us at least allow you to fully understand the implications of what you have done."

It is my contention, yet to be proven wrong, that the bureaucrats and the deputy minister -- who just walked in and is a new bureaucrat, known for some competence, I guess, as an administrator but obviously incompetent as an adviser on tax policy -- came in here with a budget that has substantially embarrassed his minister, did not think it out.

I know there was conflict between certain officials of the Ministry of Revenue and certain officials of the Ministry of Treasury and economics. They said, "You cannot do that; you cannot administer it." We know about those discussions; we are not stupid. We are familiar with the back talk over there as well as what their own back-benchers say privately. We know about those discussions saying: "You cannot implement this. This is silly." And still the regulations, a month and a half after the fact, are not forthcoming.

It is a joke to phone the Ministry of Revenue and ask: "How am I supposed to apply this tax? What are the rules?" You get three or four different answers. It is one cookie this, four cookies that and six cookies something else. They make a mockery of the system. And then we talk about a lack of faith in the parliamentary system or in the laws we pass, presumably as reasonably intelligent people.

People ask: "How could you do such silly things? How does what you are doing build respect for the law?" Then we bring people to the committee who say: "We are going to cheat on the law. You are just encouraging people to cheat." And you know what? The Treasurer laughed. He probably said, "They have cheated before." What kind of a Treasurer would openly brook that kind of conduct?

It seems to me that when a law, particularly a tax law, is brought in, it must be clear and it must be enforced. Obviously, if a tax law or any law enjoys a wide degree of public support, the Treasurer is going to have a much easier time enforcing it. But when blatantly unfair laws are brought in a lot of people do not feel obliged to follow them and cheating is encouraged. When cheating in tax laws is encouraged -- and there are certain elements of society, certain economists, who now suggest that some 10 per cent of our economy is the so-called black economy that runs outside the normal tax jurisdictions -- then we encourage the erosion of faith in our system.

I use this retail sales tax law as an example of the Treasurer having contributed to a further erosion of the system: one tiny clod being eroded off the island in the John Donne sense of the word. That is what he has done. Even today, we still do not know the regulations and I suspect the government does not know the regulations. Its response is, "We will be friendly with these people: we will work with them." But when government passes silly or unenforceable laws it invites cynicism, cheating and derision; and that is what it has done.

I say to the Treasurer and this House, if we look ahead to some of the possibilities, we have to include the input before the fact, and use that process to develop a consensus in society. Then, not only will there be fairer laws but there will be more respect for the institution we are all trying to serve communally. That was the big fight we had and it was not an easy one to fight.

There is a school of contemporary political philosophy which believes that the process is as important as is the product and that our efficacy as politicians depends on our capacity to draw more and more people into the process, to make it part of their lives, not irrelevant to their lives. When we slap on a silly tax which is unenforceable in many ways and then do not even tell people how to collect it, we further erode the process, as I said.

That is what the big fight is about. They are going to hear more from us about that. We use this particular bill as an example of budget-making at its silliest, its most superficial and most wrong-headed. We talk about the regressive nature of it. We fundamentally disapprove of this tax.

I know the Treasurer was anxious to put a good face on his budget. I know for a fact that Treasury officials phoned several people and institutions who they felt would be friendly to the budget, who would not really talk about the Retail Sales Tax Act but about some of the other aspects, and that is what they did. They came and they said it was not a bad budget and that he was going in the right direction. They used that opportunity to criticize Mr. MacEachen, which is fair enough; they are entitled to do that if they want to and to take attention away from the imposition of this Retail Sales Tax Act.

Let us not put it out of proportion. About $350 million is going to be raised from the public hide, roughly what was paid for Suncor last year. It is not terribly dissimilar to the small business tax holiday over the next year or two, which is a constructive move, but the Treasurer has yet to say how many jobs that will create. He denies the restaurant association's claim that the tax is going to cost them 7,500 jobs. He denies the figures used by various other groups which came before the committee to say how many jobs it would cost them, saying, "You are being alarmist and are overreacting." But when one asks him how many jobs his tax holiday on small business is going to create, he has yet to come up with a figure.

It is no wonder that we have to fight a tax like this. The stated budgetary intention, the thrust, was to create jobs. In fact, apart from some temporary jobs there is absolutely no definition to what he is doing.

4:40 p.m.

A couple of years ago I brought a private member's bill into this House asking for more discipline in the budgetary process. Every time someone created a tax expenditure, as, for example, with the small business tax holiday, there would have to be a budgetary examination of it: macroeconomic projections of what it is going to do, how many jobs it will create; if they give it to one hand, they have to take it from someone else; how are they going to finance it, so we understand the side effects of every major budgetary thrust.

That bill actually got second reading in this House; the Tories were too embarrassed to vote against it because of the fundamental correctness of the proposition. However, the House leader never called it forward, although in certain mini-budgets subsequent to that noises were made that they were going to launch into tax expenditure studies.

I do not want to belabour this; it has occupied so much of the House's time over the past six weeks. Our position is known, and I think, as I said, that my colleagues have put it forcefully and well.

I could talk about jobs, I could talk about the hardship on the mobile caterers, about driving jobs to Quebec to fix the trucks and all of that kind of thing. It is clear to us that the Treasurer was not particularly interested in listening.

Oh, it sneaked out in little ways. The member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) said, "The whole thing has really been a sham." The member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson) said, "The hearings are too short, and it does not matter if we take 300 hours or 300 days; except for a few minor items the province is not going to budge."

There is a certain arrogance in that which I do not like. I understand that the Treasurer's political ego is on the line; I think I understand that phenomenon. But bigger men than he have backed down. Darcy McKeough backed down and John White backed down when it was impressed upon them that they were fundamentally wrong. And we believe he is fundamentally wrong.

He went through the charade of the committee after refusing to do it. I gather that the Premier (Mr. Davis) and the House leader said he must do it, and so he went and sat there. And let me tell members, the things he heard would have been very deeply disturbing to a more sensitive man.

He has moved off on another two or three minor points, and now we can give a list of six or seven points that he has backed off on: Meals on Wheels, charitable summer camps after my colleague from Ottawa East (Mr. Roy) raised the issue, and institutional meals for students in residences. But there are still so many inequities, still so many contradictions and still so many things that are out of sync with other stated public policy aims that I believe this bill is going to continue to haunt this government. It is wrong in almost every respect, and we are going to vote against it.

The Treasurer set up the phoney argument that if he had not broadened the base -- which he did as a result of a poll he took, if members will recall, even though the Treasurer denied it -- he would have had to raise the tax rate from seven to eight per cent.

Again, a phoney argument. He has lots of options. If he had not given away money, he would not have had to raise money. You always have to look at your expenditure side if you are going to look at your revenue side. There are many tax options he had. He did not have to go to a regressive, flat, consumption sales tax in order to raise that revenue.

It is my belief that he has dramatically underestimated that revenue so as to diminish the perceived impact on a number of sectors. Over the years that is going to raise billions and billions of dollars for the government. He is betting on it, and the Premier, without shame, stands up and says: "Well, we get a little heat today. People will forget about it in two or three years or in six months."

They are used to taking a little flak, because before the next election you will see another no-tax-increase budget. That is the way the government works: The major distortions are around election time; you always see no tax increase, and then you get whacked a year or two after.

There is no integrity of fiscal policy or fiscal philosophy. The only integrity demonstrated is an integrity to get themselves elected. They distort in the billions of dollars and are prepared to use unlimited taxpayers' funds to subvert them to public purposes. That is why people in opposition, those of us who see their shenanigans daily, get a little bit cynical.

I will not go on. I know some other members want to speak. I regret this is the final chapter of this discussion we have had. In some ways I think we have all learned a lot. I am extremely proud of my party in regard to the way the members were all committed from the time they read that budget to try to do something to change it as best they could. Everybody decided to fight together.

I want to say, Mr. Speaker, we would have sat here all summer, we would have sat here until Christmas or next summer, if we had not had at least that minor concession from the government to hear and have some small public input on this matter. It was, in many ways, a fraction of a loaf; it was not the whole loaf. It was not what we wanted, but in the circumstances, it seemed to us to be the best compromise.

I just wanted to make those two points. The budget is a bad one. We are going to vote against it but, as I said, the more important point is that the process is deficient. I think that somehow we could rise above partisanship and each apply our minds to some of the questions to make sure we do not foist upon an unsuspecting public another flawed bill, as this one has turned out to be. I am sure some of my colleagues will have some things to say.

I wanted to make that contribution on the final day in the House for this session. I believe very strongly that we, in our party, have served the public process well. I am proud of that. As I said, subtle things do not work with that government. One can jab it in the heart with a rapier and it will not feel it. Sometimes one has to club it over the head with a two by four, and that is what we had to do; but we are prepared to do that.

There is another session next fall, and we intend to be back in full strength for that. We intend to exercise, as best we can, the prerogatives of the opposition. The government is just a trifle more honest today than it was when we started this whole process. The bill is a little bit better than it was when we started. I believe we deserve the credit for that. I only wish it had been more.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to comment on what has happened over the last few weeks and use this opportunity to talk about the committee process. Before I begin, even though we, in this party, had very serious reservations --

Mr. Boudria: What does the member mean by "we." There are just two of you.

Mr. Cooke: -- even though the two of us in this party had very serious reservations about the time limits put on the committee, I do want to congratulate the committee chairman. I think, with the large number of groups that came before the committee, he did an excellent job, the best job that could possibly be done, in ordering the various groups and giving them as much time as possible, along with an adequate sharing of time between the three parties for questioning.

Over the last 30 hours or thereabouts, we heard from over 60 groups. There were an additional 24 groups that wanted to speak to the committee, but were unable to because of the time restrictions. But I do think the groups gave us a pretty good idea of how ordinary people in this province feel about the sales tax legislation. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), this morning, attempted to say that those in the know, the investors and the consultants who appeared before the committee, had taken a balanced approach to his budget. But I suggest those people are not the ordinary citizens in this province. They do not represent the middle- and low-income people in this province who are going to be hit hard by this bill. They simply are not the working people of this province who are hit so hard by the regressive, unfair taxes of this Conservative government.

The people who represented the vast majority of the Ontario citizens were groups such as the Ontario Federation of Labour, which represents working people, the individual citizens who came before us, some of the fast-food operators, the caterers, those people who are out serving the public daily and know how the people of this province feel in reaction to Bill 115.

4:50 p.m.

I think the committee could have been better served had we sat longer. We would have been better served if the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) had been able to table the regulations asked for on the first day of the committee. It was rather amazing that when we asked him the first day the committee sat if he would table the regulations the next day, he said he would consider that.

Obviously, he did not know that the regulations were not even in draft form. The Minister of Revenue did not even know in what state his own regulations were. Better than anything, that reflects the utter confusion that has existed as a result of this bill and as a result of this government's policy to nickel and dime the people of this province.

I also believe there are certain aspects of this bill that really do reflect and symbolize the philosophy of this government, one of those aspects being the tax on meals. There are other items in this bill that upset me even more, such as tax on the personal hygiene and cleaning products; but when it comes right down to the idea of lowering the tax from 10 per cent to seven per cent on meals for the wealthy, and then raising the tax from zero to seven per cent on meals for middle- and low-income families, I think that symbolizes this government's attitude towards middle- and low-income people better than anything else.

It is unfair but it is in line with its philosophy, a philosophy enunciated by the Treasurer the night of the budget and several times since. The philosophy is, "We are a government that helps the winners and to hell with the losers." That is a philosophy I am sure the Minister of Revenue feels comfortable with.

I am sure the main reason the Treasurer sat in the committee was because he is the policy maker when it comes to the budget; but the other reason was to keep an eye on the Minister of Revenue. It is more as a result of the statements of the Minister of Revenue than anyone else that this bill has got him into trouble.

When the opposition asks a question or points out an inequity in his bill his immediate instinct is to say: "You guys are nuts. We are right and we are going to implement it. Those are the words of the bill and we are going to do exactly what we said we were going to do." There was no effort to compromise or to be reasonable. It was simply, "This is the way it is and if you do not like it, you do not understand the realities of March 19, 1981."

The fact of the matter is this bill is unfair. The consequences were never realized by this government, not just the political but the economic consequences.

The restaurant people came before us and said 7,500 jobs are going to be lost; the auto repair people came before us and said several jobs were going to be lost; the dry cleaners came before us and said many jobs will be lost; municipalities and school boards have been hit and will have to lay off workers. All these facts mean that in addition to the lack of any aid in the budget for small businesses that are unincorporated, small businesses that are not making money, those aspects of the budget will result in 30,000 jobs lost because this government's attitude is, "We help the winners and we forget the so-called losers."

I want to refer to a few briefs: one in particular, a brief presented by a group that was before us last night. It was presented by Mr. Burton of the Ontario Hotel and Motel Association. Mr. Burton symbolizes again the Tory philosophy better than anyone and I am sure he was invited to appear before the committee by the Treasurer or the Minister of Revenue.

One of his comments was along the lines of: "If you can't afford to go out for a meal, you shouldn't go out for a meal. If you can afford to go to McDonald's, then you should damn well pay tax on McDonald's food." He also said: "I'm in touch with the people who work for me but of course I don't go to the restaurants they go to. I go to the ritzy restaurants." He made that very clear as well.

I would really like to believe -- and I hope that I am correct -- that Mr. Burton in no way represents the vast majority of the people in that industry. He cannot possibly. I cannot believe that all the people who belong to that particular association are that hard, that crass and that they lack understanding of the ordinary people in this province.

My colleague the member for Hamilton West (Mr. Allen) said to me after hearing that presentation last night, "Has this man never heard that sometimes single parents who are on mother's allowance or other forms of government assistance, or people on low incomes, do get tired once in a while and when they come home from work, or after taking care of the children all day, they may just want to go out and get some take-out food and take it home rather than spend a couple of hours cooking a dinner?" Mr. Burton cannot understand that, the Treasurer cannot understand that, and the Minister of Revenue cannot understand that.

It is a sad commentary on this government that it has decided -- and I think the budget shows it -- that in the 1982 budget we are going to reinforce the class system that exists. The Treasurer is going to help the wealthy and the upper-income families by lowering their tax on high-priced meals; but is going to tax those on middle and low incomes.

The other thing he is trying to do with Bill 115 is he has decided, in order to cover his political -- no, I can't say that, but he knows what I mean -- to put a provision in Bill 115 where the tax-included price will hide his tax. There were examples given this morning by the member for Renfrew North (Mr. Conway) of what happened at one particular restaurant.

I certainly intend to get the Treasurer's people on to them if a restaurant I go into is including and hiding that tax, because I think it is important that the people of this province, every time they go and buy a meal, understand that the Treasurer has added a seven per cent inflation factor and that they are going to remember that for three years.

I have just a couple of other points. One of the craziest parts of this bill is one that was brought to our attention by the dry cleaners. I point this out because it shows how silly a bill or a tax will get when they start nickel and diming. To this point the dry cleaners have never collected tax on either the dry cleaning or the minor repairs. Now they are going to have to add tax on the minor repairs they charge for.

It used to be that they paid the tax at the wholesale level for buttons and thread and other kinds of material. Now, however, they will not have to pay tax at the wholesale level for the materials they tax at the retail level. The Treasurer has encouraged the small dry cleaners that are by and large owned by individual people, not by chains, to break the law. He has said to them, "If you can hide your tax, if you can put all your repairs into one section you say are being done for a price, then you will not have to pay tax on any of that stuff at the wholesale level."

One dry cleaner we talked to said that he paid more at the wholesale level than the Treasurer will ever see at the retail level. There is evidence that would suggest in that particular sector the Treasurer is going to come out behind; he is going to get less revenue out of this. Perhaps, because of the silliness of this tax, what is going to happen is the major job creation aspect of this budget will be the hiring of people in the civil service to check and see whether people are paying the tax, or not collecting the tax.

This is a silly tax, a silly bill, and it should have been withdrawn in its entirety. This morning in committee our party presented no amendments. The reason we presented no amendments is because we do not believe that any single amendment or group of amendments could have improved this silly, regressive and mean-spirited bill. We voted against it on second reading. We opposed every section on a recorded vote in the committee today.

We will oppose it on third reading and we will certainly do our best to remind the people of this province, through our riding reports, through our canvassing and everything else we do in reaching out to the people of Ontario, that the Minister of Revenue, the Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Davis) are responsible for this seven per cent inflation.

5 p.m.

I want to make one final comment and it has to do with the process. I agree wholeheartedly with the comments made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson). They are not new ideas. They are ideas we also have placed in the past. We intend to put forward some very concrete ideas when we return this fall, and over the summer, of how the budget process can be reformed. I think the most positive aspect to the hearings was when we had some of the consultants, tax lawyers and so on, come before us. While I did not agree with them philosophically, I found the discussion we had with them on basic economic principles, on budgeting principles, very useful.

I think that kind of a budget committee or finance committee should be a standing committee of this Legislature, so we can look on an ongoing basis at how various policies of this government are functioning, what options are available when the next budget comes down, and what consultation should occur, consultation of a kind that did not occur on this budget, as is evident in the testimony we had from municipalities, from colleges and universities and school boards, that were really hit hard by this budget. They were not even brought in to a prebudget meeting with the provincial Treasurer.

In summing up, I do feel rather disappointed that the Treasurer did not present even a symbolic amendment this morning in committee. I would have thought he could have introduced some kind of a minimum charge for meals, even if it was only the $4 that some of the groups suggested, some kind of a gesture to the people of this province who came before the committee and to the opposition, who represent well over 50 per cent of the people of this province. It would have shown that the government was listening, that it did realize it had made a mistake, and the committee hearings were not just a process it went through in order to shut this place down now instead of later. The government decided not to do that and I think -- I will restate it again -- it will live to regret this tax and the way it failed to respond in the committee that examined Bill 115.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, the process some of us have participated in over the last two weeks has been an interesting one. In my years in the Legislature, I have not had an opportunity to sit in on this type of process, in a situation where we have the budget and people are coming in, in relation to one of the major planks of the budget, Bill 115, dealing with an increase in the sales tax, or at least an extension of the base, and registering their complaints about how they were affected by various measures in the budget.

I want to say as my colleague, our leader, has said -- and I do not intend to repeat what he said -- that some of this process obviously should take place before the budget. But as one who has been around here for the last 10 years, I thoroughly enjoyed it. I thought it was absolutely delicious to hear these people come in and take on the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) and his subalterne, as we say in French, the lackey, the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who occasionally would come forward with some very rough and tough comments to try and bring some of these witnesses in line or correct some of the things they had said.

I thought it was a delicious process, especially because there is so much fanfare when the budget is presented. In the process of budget-making or in the process of this assembly, no event draws such a crowd, draws such press, and no event so focuses on one individual as the budget process does. When the minister comes in, especially this minister, who has taken advantage of the opportunity to come in with his plaid jacket, it all focuses on him.

I was interested to see the contrast in the whole process of that evening. The Treasurer gets all the press and all the accolades, then after the budget he goes off to the Albany Club, they have a big cocktail and everybody has a good time. All the Tories are there and they shake his hand and say what a great guy he is and how great he is to them. Then we sit for two weeks getting all these people, even 11-year-old boys, coming over and just letting him have it, all sorts of people coming in and telling the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue what they think of his budget. I thought it was interesting and I thoroughly enjoyed the process.

I must say that the chairman of the committee, the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris), did an excellent job in controlling and processing the groups. There was a whole lineup of people who wanted to come in. Had we had time, I suppose, or had we kept the doors open, it could have been a regular 24-hour show with people coming in from all over the province telling the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue how bad this budget is or how they are affected by it. But the chairman processed these groups through in the limited time. I thought the co-operation from all members, including the government members, made the process work, and I would like it to continue.

It struck me as I saw the parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer sitting there that there was a terrible conflict of interest throughout the process as well. It will be some time before the Tories on that side understand the purity of the division of powers among the executive, the Parliament and the judiciary.

This was supposed to be a parliamentary committee where the Parliament is supposed to have some form of independence. In that committee, very often the person leading the charge to defend government policy was the member for Oriole (Mr. Williams), the parliamentary assistant to the Minister of Revenue. I think his enthusiasm even got on the minister's nerves once in a while, and only the wisdom and restraint of the chairman was able to control the parliamentary assistant. The parliamentary assistant to the Treasurer was low key; he was not nearly as aggressive.

My colleagues on the other side should understand that when we talk about a parliamentary committee and we talk about some form of independence, they establish a terrible conflict by having two parliamentary assistants there. I mean when you have the two who are involved, the parliamentary assistants to the Minister of Revenue and the Treasurer, to give the impression that if one is on the committee one has some form of independence is pure sham. It is a mockery, and they are really not fooling anyone. They should understand that when we have a parliamentary committee the least they can do is show some form of independence and not put the parliamentary assistants in there.

I could dwell on that much longer, but I have to carry on. The other matter I thought was offensive in the process was that the two ministers came in there on the superficial and phoney pretext that they were prepared to listen. Frankly I, like other people, had some hope that after listening to all of these briefs, listening to some of these submissions, some of which were very sensitive and very logical submissions which I would have thought carried weight -- such as the caterers, the universities, the school boards, the municipalities and those in regard to the tax on hygiene, on tampons -- I would have thought there could have been changes for some of these people.

5:10 p.m.

But, to my disappointment, this morning the Treasurer confirmed what some of his caucus colleagues have been saying all along, that this has been a hollow process. Whether it took 30 hours or 300 hours, the exercise would show they had no intention of acceding to any of the submissions. He has said about the caterers, "We are sympathetic that you have spoilage," and he said something else, but it is nickel and dime stuff. It is really nickel and dime and it is consistent with his whole budget.

The other point that surprised me is that they would affect municipalities and school boards without any prior consultation. I could not believe that. I suppose if we are to judge this government and this budget and put a proper light on it, the conclusion we can come to is that this is a budget from a government which is prepared to waste taxpayers' money on Suncor and on a jet. To raise the revenues for these expenditures, it is prepared to tax things like tampons and meals under $6. My colleague could talk about puppies, candies, young people and all the rest.

If one is to judge, a good badge for this government is that in 1982, when the people of Ontario are suffering, those people on that side are still prepared to waste $10 million for a jet. To do that, they are prepared to tax senior citizens and people at the bottom end of the scale and to lower the tax for their friends who are having the high-priced meals. There is some measure of the consistency of these people.

I would trust that even three years will not be sufficient time to wipe out the hardships the Treasurer has caused with this budget.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I have not been a member of the committee that heard the submissions. Since I was replaced by our Treasury and our Revenue critics, I did not have the pleasure of hearing all those enlightened, progressive submissions from the industry before the committee.

I was there during the debate when we were trying to get the committee established and trying to get advertising across Ontario so that there would be representative submissions made to that committee in terms of geography in Ontario. I was absolutely astounded when my Liberal colleagues decided advertising should not be done. I still believe that party made a bad decision not to support us in that regard because I believe, if we are setting up committees like that, everybody in Ontario should be equally informed about the opportunity to appear before such a committee. Despite the bell ringing and the filibuster, guess who did not want advertising to inform all of Ontario the committee was meeting and that they were encouraged to appear before it?

As it turned out, there was time to have heard other groups before the committee. I believe the committee adjourned at noon today. It could have gone on all day today. It could have gone on this evening as well and perhaps even into tomorrow, and still have fallen within the agreement struck by the three House leaders. I find it passing strange that our Liberal colleagues decided enough people knew about the committee and they would prefer not to do any more advertising.

I do not know why some of the members are shaking their heads. That is exactly what happened.

There are many strange things about this sales tax. I will not repeat what the member from Windsor said. He made very fine comments about the bill. I guess the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) had to decide where he was going to get some money. I understand the predicament of a Treasurer in these times; he looks to see just where he can find money. But there are other ways in which the Treasurer could have raised money. Our caucus put before the Treasurer some suggested areas of sources of money and he chose to ignore them.

I find it very strange that as this session winds down, the focus of debate is on the expansion of sales tax to a wide variety of items, given the serious problems we are trying to cope with in the province. I look at the number of layoffs and shutdowns and at the problems in mining, manufacturing and forestry. We are trying to stem the flood of imports of manufactured goods, but what happens is that this government brings in a tax to divert the attention of a lot of people in the province to the expansion of sales taxes and it fails, in every single case, to deal with the major problems facing Ontario.

This afternoon when I read the headline in the Sudbury Star which says, "UIC Sudbury's top employer: Area Office will pay $4.7 million a week in UIC benefits," members of the cabinet on the other side had not a single response to make about how they felt or what they could do about it. Despite promises in the throne speech, their response when problems arise is to increase sales taxes. That is leadership of a kind I find words difficult to describe. To think that is providing fiscal leadership in Ontario when we are facing these problems is an insult to the intelligence of people of Ontario.

This government is riding on the luxury of 40 years of rule, but that is going to be this government's undoing. They simply cannot govern in Ontario today as though it was the 1960s and that is what they are trying to do. This government is responding in its grants to the private sector and in its taxation of the public sector to make sure organized labour and unorganized labour in this province is put in its place and to make sure that low- and middle-income people are put in their place once and for all in this province. This is not simply endemic to Ontario; it is a North American move. This government knows precisely what it is doing and the Treasurer is the ideal vehicle by which to take this message of Friedman economics to the people of Ontario.

We in this party have always tried to make sure we avoided an elitist-type society in this province, but this government is making that extremely difficult. It is no accident or coincidence that after they get a majority, they take actions they did not have the courage to take under a minority government. There is absolutely no question about that. This Treasurer was Treasurer under a minority government and he is the Treasurer now in a majority government and his behaviour is completely different. Suddenly he has the courage of numbers to take whatever draconian tax measures he decides are appropriate.

I know the argument that the Treasurer makes and that the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) makes, that it is necessary to reward the winners so that they will create jobs, and those people who work will then pay taxes and the government will have the revenues to deliver necessary services. It is the old trickle-down theory. I am very happy to see the Minister of Revenue nodding his head sagely as though that is something profound. That is exactly the theory they had in the 1930s. The government is repeating the very same mistakes that were made 50 years ago.

We understand very well the need for revenues if we are going to provide services. We know we cannot just snap our fingers, revenues appear and we provide services. We understand that. What we do not understand is how this government, in power for almost 40 years, could end up being in such difficulty, how it provided the kind of stewardship that has put us in such an impossible situation with regard to employment in Ontario, when it has spent so much money and has invested so little. The government has not invested in Ontario. It has taken the money that has come in through revenues and parcelled it out in order to provide ongoing services. It has not provided an investment for the people of Ontario and the future generations of Ontario.

5:20 p.m.

If the Treasurer needs any further evidence of that I ask him, if there is still such a thing, what province has been the manufacturing heartland of this country? It has been Ontario. What has this government done? It has allowed the manufacturing sector to deteriorate to the point where now, that is where the most serious problems exist. We had it all.

If he were to go to any eight million people in the world and say, "Here is a piece of real estate for you to live on and provide for future generations," I would ask the Treasurer, what he would give them that Ontario does not have? I want to tell members that Ontario has had so much and done so little with it that it is an absolute disgrace.

We do not have oil and gas, that is true, but we have virtually all the other natural resources plus the capacity to manufacture, plus proximity to major markets and an educated work force, and what has the government done with it? It has sat back and frittered away opportunities that are going to be judged in the future very harshly. I would venture to guess that in the next generation and in the next century, when historians write about Ontario they are going to write some pretty devastating things about the Tory administration in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s; perhaps even farther back. They have allowed it to deteriorate. They have allowed this very fine machine to run down. They have not done their job.

The other point I wanted to make is that I disagree with some people who claim that by broadening the sales taxes to a wide variety of items the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue have blundered. I believe they know exactly what they are doing. I do not mind putting this on the record and repeating it again in perhaps a year or two, because I understand the way the Treasurer thinks. He is going to broaden the base now so that when he bumps it up one or two per cent, he is doing it from a broader base. One does not have to be terribly clever politically to see that.

The Treasurer could have bumped it up to eight or nine per cent this year but he would be doing it on a narrow base. Why not expand the base now, three years before an election, and then next year or the year after, bump up the entire sales tax package and then the revenues come in in a much more satisfying way to the black heart of the Treasurer? That is the way the Treasurer thinks.

He is not the kind of Treasurer who is able to stand up and say: 'These are my intentions. We are going to broaden the base; in the future the sales taxes will be increased." He does not have the courage to tell us about the hidden agenda. I think I understand the way the Treasurer works in these matters. I do not think he would even tell the Minister of Revenue; that minister might blunder and let it slip during one of his responses during question period. That would not do. Oh no, this has to be a hidden agenda. The Treasurer is a master at that.

I conclude by saying that we in this party reject the kind of regressive tax measures that have been taken. We understand the game that the Treasurer is playing. I suggest to members that he may get away with it now -- he has his majority -- but the chickens will come home to roost and we will be there to pick up the eggs.

Mr. Breithaupt: Mr. Speaker, I too should commend the member for Nipissing (Mr. Harris) in his handling of the variety of delegations which appeared before the committee which dealt with Bill 115.

I have to say I was somewhat disappointed with the comments by the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) because, as I understand it, his House leader had agreed that the committee would deal with some 30 hours of hearings and that the bill would be reported today.

There were already some 50 delegations to be heard, as I recall, before that arrangement was even entered into. Now the member for Nickel Belt suggests that a few more hours would have made the difference.

I ask him to what end would those few more hours have been? We have heard from the member for Oxford (Mr. Treleaven) and the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Peel (Mr. J. M. Johnson), from reports that have been given to us, that there were not going to be any changes anyway. Perhaps they were only pretending otherwise to see the variety of delegations. They would have let even more people down if we were dealing with a situation that was not going to be amended.

It has been some time since I have spoken on a bill dealing with the revenues of this province. In the earlier years of my tenure here, from 1967 to 1973 as the finance critic for the opposition, I dealt with a variety of Treasurers, Charles MacNaughton, John White and Darcy McKeough, and I recall on occasion that changes were made when things that were particularly unfair were pointed out.

I suggest that the approach we have taken to this bill has set out some of the concerns which we still have, even though the bill was approved in principle by this House. At the committee stage, a variety of persons spoke to these themes, albeit they were consistently rejected by the government majority on the committee. Time after time they voted unanimously to support the position of the Treasurer.

The finance critic for our party, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid), suggested in his opening statement to the committee that there were five themes we were going to refer to. That was expanded to six. I am going to briefly mention what they were, so members will know the particular things we think the Treasurer should still be mindful to change.

We believe the exemption of sales tax on prepared meals costing less than $6 should continue.

We believe the exemption of sales tax on hygienic products, such as sanitary napkins, toilet paper, soap and those other items, should continue.

We believe the exemption of sales tax on energy conservation and alternative energy products, so well advertised on behalf of this government by other ministries in every media we can think of, also should continue.

We believe the exemption of sales tax on items purchased by municipalities, boards and agencies for public purposes should continue, or at least that there should be a proper and appropriate opportunity to phase in those changes, recognizing that the budgets have been set and a variety of those organizations are not allowed by law to have deficits or, indeed, are in difficult positions, particularly on the university scene, and that this would put additional pressures on them.

We believe the exemption of sales tax on labour for repairs and for the maintenance of personal property is something that should continue. That particularly has been brought to the attention of the government by the petitions that have come especially from the variety of dry cleaning establishments across the province. These petitions have been tabled in the House. Many members have received them and have sent them directly across to the Treasurer.

Finally, we believe the exemption on publication and magazines, not only for reasons of encouraging Canadian publications in difficult times but also because of the general educational value that these have traditionally served in our community, should continue.

Those are the particular six points we have raised. I believe it is not too late to encourage that changes should be considered. They may occur right now. I recognize that the government majority is probably going to stand by the Treasurer, but I do believe these exemptions have value to the people of the province, and that they deal with particular things that can be attended to without upsetting the budgetary process and the needs of the province.

I commend those exemptions to the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe), who does not set the policy but who does run the cash register of the province, as it were. I commend them particularly to the Treasurer with the hope that he will reconsider those themes because I believe, in doing so, he will have a better budget and he will serve the people of this province in a much better fashion than his program now does.

5:30 p.m.

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few words on this final chance to oppose this bill. In our caucus anyway, we have on many occasions exercised the opportunity to oppose this bill on first, second and third reading, as well as on each clause as we went through clause-by-clause this morning.

Our opposition to the bill is wholehearted. There is nothing in here to be saved. There is nothing in here that is of any merit. This is a mean-spirited piece of business the Treasurer is bringing forward.

Although some were a little critical that I did not have a lot of optimism that the series of public hearings would be terribly successful, I do not think there should be any question left in anybody's mind on the process itself.

We did not have any staff on that committee. There was no attempt made, nor was there any time, to do any real analysis of the legality of the process itself, even though the question has been raised several times. There has not been a proper answer given as yet -- only the government's side of the story. There has been no real attempt made to identify carefully the impact in terms of the unemployment that will be caused by this bill. We are left using the often imperfect estimates made by those who are directly affected by it.

Therefore, I recommend to the members here that they take another look at the standing committee on procedural affairs report on committees where a model was provided in some detail. I must point out as well that, in our federal House, all parties now agree some reform of the budgetary process and the parliamentary process is absolutely essential.

Those of us who have had a chance to see other jurisdictions and how they go about it really do see that there is a marked difference in many other jurisdictions in North America, and particularly in the American jurisdictions, where there is a wealth of information presented to the public and to the members of the legislatures. There is a common set of statistics and a common analysis done. The budgetary process is far more sophisticated than the rather ancient and, unfortunately, rather simplistic process used here in Ontario.

The hearings did give an unusual opportunity or two for the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). For example, there were two or three occasions when an individual citizen came before the committee and put to the Treasurer what an ordinary person sees in a bill like this. They stated how cruel it is to them and how it has a negative impact on the few little joys they have left in life.

They stated how people at the lower end of the income scale have a totally different perspective on something like this than somebody who is a Bay Street lawyer, someone who is a member of the corporate world or someone who has an income level which means he can say: "An extra seven or eight cents on something I buy is something I will not even see. I will not even count those pennies." Yet, unfortunately, at the other end of the economic scale there are people who have to count those pennies. This sales tax will have an impact on them in a way that few of us, as members of the Legislature with a reasonably steady job, can really understand.

What I thought was interesting as well in clause-by-clause this morning was that the Treasurer waxed a little eloquent on his ideas about what is and what is not a fair tax. He said in clause-by-clause debate this morning that he understood this was a regressive kind of taxation but he did not care; he had no concerns about that.

He said much the same thing when a gentleman by the name of Mr. J. McMillan came before the committee. The Treasurer chose not to answer him, but with a little prodding he did respond to that ordinary citizen. In essence, he said: "So what? Things are tough. This is a sales tax. It may be not the best kind of tax, but you have to pay it."

I was looking for two or three things which I thought might have happened during the course of the committee. I was a little disappointed when, on the first day, we particularly asked the Minister of Revenue to table the draft regulations. His first response was, and I think the quote is accurate: "No problem. Just let me take a look at that." Yet the next day, when he came back in and we pursued the matter a bit more, all of a sudden there was a problem. He was not prepared to table that. They were not ready. They had not been drafted yet. They would be put together over the next several months. A legislative committee asked him for a simple piece of background information and was told, "That's none of your business."

The Treasurer of Ontario again was prepared to put his views forward this morning and he repeated the cliché that his faith and his hope is in the private sector; that somehow the private sector, and a little more specifically the winners in the private sector, is suddenly going to cure the diseases that face this country and this province. That is a pretty cold and hard approach to it all, particularly by a government that from time to time purports to have some kind of a social conscience.

It got so bad in there this morning that one listening to the comments of the members would have sworn that Darcy McKeough was some bleeding-heart Liberal, that McKeough had a great social conscience in comparison to the present Treasurer. The only difference I could see was that McKeough was a man you could respect, because at least he was straightforward and when he made a mistake he had the guts to admit that it was wrong and he should not proceed with it. That is the only distinction.

I am afraid that what we were treated to this morning was a lesson in the crass politics of Ontario. Just before an election, this Treasurer was happy to run around saying: "I am going to start dropping the sales tax on big-ticket items like cars, because I want to do something good to stimulate the economy." But after they had their majority for a year or so, one saw that the Tories had come back full cycle and then the name of the game was, "Sock it to 'em." Of course, I think we are all reasonably accurate in predicting that just before the next provincial election, they will suddenly develop a social conscience once again and that some things will be done to ease the pain.

We could go through all the ramifications of this bill and have a lot of discussion, as we did during the committee stage, about the stupidity and unfairness that is there, the impracticality of it all, but I am sure that some time during the course of this summer the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue will huddle somewhere and devise ways to get out of some of these holes.

There is nobody in the world who can convince me that the Minister of Revenue is going to follow the coffee trucks around and try to grab that tax. He cannot do that. He knows that. He is going to have to weasel out of that, and there is no question about it; it is only now a matter of how that will occur. He knows, as well, that the Treasurer has made a major gaffe by taxing feminine hygiene products. He knows too that this somehow will get resolved quietly in the back rooms somewhere and then, of course, an announcement will be made.

If we go through a quick rundown of what this does, it tells us very clearly the priorities of this government, who are its friends and who it deems to be its victims. We went through it this morning, and I was a little surprised to see the Liberals proposing an amendment in this regard. E. P. Taylor and his racehorses are exempt from this tax, but a kid who buys a guppy in a store is the victim of the tax. If you go to La Scala, you are saving a little money these days. If you go to Pizza Pizza, they are going to get you.

The Treasurer went on at some length this morning to describe his definition of winners and losers; that is a phrase that has been recurring through all of this debate, and it is probably true. Those small businesses that survive will get some help from the Treasurer. The trick, of course, is survival. Those that go out of business, those that are driven out by a decrease in sales -- and there was a whole list of them that appeared before the committee -- and those people who lose their jobs, they make up the group that the Treasurer of Ontario says are losers; and he has no time for them.

Anybody who survives the process will get a tax holiday; that is his definition and, in the complicated world in which he lives, that is how he sees things. There are friends out there to be listened to, to be catered to, to provide assistance to, and the rest of the world are victims and people to be taxed. Those are the people that the Treasurer is going after consistently and regularly.

The attitude of the Treasurer and the Minister of Revenue is right-wing to the extreme. I sense that if there had been free votes in the committee, there would have been some changes made. I sense that if any legislative committee, consisting of however many members of this Legislature might sit on it, took a look at a bill like this honestly and sincerely and its members voted with their own minds and their own consciences, we would never get this kind of legislation. We would never see a bill of this nature appear before this House, because it is clearly wrong. It clearly taxes the wrong people.

5:40 p.m.

In fact, there is an argument to be made, and I would be prepared to make it, that if they were really concerned about getting revenue they have even screwed up in that regard. If they had moved to lower the retail sales tax or eliminate it and stimulate small business, they would have got considerably more revenue.

The only problem with that from their point of view is that more people would have been working, and it appears clear to me that this government had set its course. It does not give a damn about the unemployed. It does not care about low-income people. It sees them as victims to tax and nothing more. It has made its alliances clear. We will see the shifting of the sands of politics in Ontario just before the next election and not sooner.

This is a regressive tax and, sad though it may seem, the Treasurer admits it is a regressive tax. It is a mean and cruel blow to a lot of people in this province who right now deserve some help from this government, and instead of getting help they are getting taxed; and that is wrong.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there has been much said, both this afternoon and over the past number of days in the committee, about the process that took place in the committee three days this week and three days last week and about the people and representations that came before the committee.

I will add only that many responsible individuals and groups came before the committee on both sides of the issue, quite rightly and quite fairly. I think that is one of the things that made the process reasonably fair, or as fair as it can be in that kind of a situation. Let us not kid ourselves. Those opposed to something are more likely to want to be heard than those who support it, but I think it was very beneficial that all members of the committee, regardless of which side of the House they may sit, were able to hear some of the issues in a broader context.

I think that is really the important issue before us today: not looking at Bill 115 in isolation, although that is the bill we are dealing with specifically and the bill we are going to be voting on in a very few minutes, but looking at it, as many of the representations did, in the context of our economic times, in the context of the narrow area that was available to the Treasurer in bringing down his budget; that is, in the overall situation of the budget itself, which I think was a very responsible and reasonable document.

Much has been made, again on both sides, of the budget document itself vis-à-vis the job creation implications. I think time will show that many of those initiatives were beneficial and will help our economy. On the other side of the coin, we had several representations which suggested there would be a great amount of job loss coming out of the implementation of Bill 115.

Nobody can challenge either set of statistics at this time with any authority. I agree that only time will tell who is correct. However, I suggest to the members that many of the horror stories of lost jobs and lost job opportunities that were predicted were perhaps taken somewhat out of context and taken in the extreme. I think history will prove that not all of them will happen. I am sure there will be the odd lost job that can be very specifically referred to in the future, but I think the Treasurer had to make those kinds of decisions very consciously.

We all know, and I think it has been alluded to this afternoon and in the committee, that contrary to the view held by one or two representations, and I can think of one in particular, there was recognition of the fact that money does not come out of the air or out of the sky: in one way or another it comes from the taxpayers' pockets; and, in turn, it is those same dollars which deliver the services that are demanded by the taxpayers, all 8.56 million people within this province who want services from this government. The money has to be there to deliver those services, including the job creation initiatives contained within the last budget. The Retail Sales Tax Act amendments will provide one relatively small part of the total in expanding the tax base.

Putting the whole issue in context, I think it only fair, once again, to point out that if the Treasurer had not had a significant reduction in the anticipated transfer payments from another level of government, we might not have had to pass on a relatively small part of that impact, again to the municipalities and school boards. It is relatively small compared to the nearly $300-million shortfall coming forth in the transfer payments from the federal government to the province.

I also wish to put some of the numbers into their context of actual impact. I appreciate, understand and accept that there is no actual median situation as to what the total impact of Bill 115 will be. That will differ from this person to that person and this family to that family; there is no doubt about that at all. But if one listens to some of the members opposite, if one listens to some of the numbers brought out in the presentations made to the committee, it would seem the Treasurer is not going to get some $330 million out of this, but he is going to get at least $1 billion. I know he would be very pleased with that extra revenue, but I suggest it will not come forward.

In fact, what are we talking about in terms of the total implication of the changes in the Retail Sales Tax Act in this fiscal year? If we look at the estimated revenue growth that is going to come forward, divided by the number of people in Ontario, the actual impact is something less than $40 per capita. I acknowledge, as I did a few moments ago, that will not be $40 per person as such, but on average.

I suggest there was no other form of change in the tax revenue necessities within this budget that could have had relatively less of an impact upon the average family in Ontario and yet provide the dollars needed to help stimulate the economy, help create the jobs and help create an atmosphere and a climate conducive to investment and expansion in this province and to offset to some degree the very negative atmosphere that has been created by other governments in the past number of years.

Mr. Speaker, with that, I would like to close the debate on Bill 115, so we can get on with the business of voting on it. I think what came out of the process itself was helpful. It was helpful if for no other reason than that it accelerated what happens after every budget, that is to say, before the regulations are actually written to implement it. There is some criticism of that, but I can go back to every budget in recent history and each had changes of this nature. The actual writing and filing of the regulations take, quite properly, some significant period of time to make sure that the spirit and the intent and the recognition of the administrative problems out there are understood before they become indoctrinated and embodied in the formal regulation itself.

Nothing changed this time. We did accelerate some of the concerns through the opportunities of the committee, and that is fine. As was indicated this morning by my colleague the Treasurer, we will be looking further at some of those concerns in an administrative sense, and we will continue to accommodate them wherever it is reasonable, wherever it is responsible and wherever it carries forward the spirit of this budget.

Bill 115 is a responsible document that deserves the support of all sides of this House.

The Acting Speaker Mr. Cousens): Mr. Ashe has moved third reading of Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. Foulds: Unless you want to refer it out to the committee again on this one.

The Acting Speaker: No, I accept the assistance of the House.

6 p.m.

The House divided on Hon. Mr. Ashe's motion for third 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, Elgie, Eves, Fish, Gillies, Gordon, Gregory, Harris, Henderson, Hennessy, Hodgson, Johnson, J. M., Jones, Kells, Kennedy, Kerr, Lane, Leluk, MacQuarrie, McCaffrey, McCague, McLean, McNeil, Miller, F. S., Mitchell, Norton, Piché, Pope, Ramsay, Robinson, Rotenberg, Runciman, Scrivener, Sheppard, Shymko, Snow, Stephenson, B. M., Sterling, Stevenson, K. R., Taylor, G. W., Timbrell, Treleaven, Villeneuve, Walker, Watson, Welch, Wells, Williams, Yakabuski.

Nays

Allen, Boudria, Breaugh, Breithaupt, Bryden, Charlton, Conway, Cooke, Copps, Cunningham, Di Santo, Eakins, Edighoffer, Elston, Epp, Foulds, Grande, Kerrio, Laughren, MacDonald, McClellan, McKessock, Miller, G. I., Newman, Nixon, O'Neil, Peterson, Philip, Reed, J. A., Roy, Ruprecht, Ruston, Samis, Sargent, Spensieri, Swart, Sweeney, Van Horne, Worton, Wrye.

Ayes 62; nays 40.

6:10 p.m.

ROYAL ASSENT

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor of Ontario entered the chamber of the Legislative Assembly and took his seat upon the throne.

Hon. Mr. Aird: Pray be seated.

Mr. Speaker: May it please Your Honour, the Legislative Assembly of the province has, at its present sittings thereof, passed certain bills to which, in the name of and on behalf of the said Legislative Assembly, I respectfully request Your Honour's assent.

Assistant Clerk: The following are the titles of the bills to which Your Honour's assent is prayed:

Bill 5, An Act to amend the Corporations Information Act.

Bill 12, An Act to amend the Municipal Act.

Bill 13, An Act to amend the County of Oxford Act.

Bill 15, An Act to amend certain Acts respecting Regional Municipalities.

Bill 21, An Act to revise the Toronto Stock Exchange Act.

Bill 26, An Act to amend the Highway Traffic Act.

Bill 29, An Act to amend the Municipality of Metropolitan Toronto Act.

Bill 30, An Act to amend the Development Corporations Act.

Bill 38, An Act to establish the Ministry of Industry and Trade.

Bill 46, An Act to amend the Education Act.

Bill 62, An Act to amend the Municipal Boundary Negotiations Act.

Bill 92, An Act to amend the District of Parry Sound Local Government Act.

Bill 105, An Act respecting the Mortgage Financing of Rideau Centre in the City of Ottawa.

Bill 115, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax.

Bill 119, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Bill 120, An Act to amend the Certification of Titles Act.

Bill 124, An Act to establish Technology Centres.

Bill 140, An Act to amend Certain Acts in respect of Assessment Appeal Procedures.

Bill 142, An Act to protect the Health of Pupils in Schools.

Bill 143, An Act to amend the Operating Engineers Act.

Bill 168, An Act to amend the Legislative Assembly Act.

Bill Pr19, An Act to revive the Calabogie Asbestos Mining Company Limited.

Bill Pr23, An Act to revive Peer and Smith Limited.

Bill Pr26, An Act respecting Co-operators Insurance Association.

Clerk of the House: In Her Majesty's name, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor doth assent to these bills.

The Honourable the Lieutenant Governor was pleased to retire from the chamber.

The House adjourned at 6:15 p.m.

July 7, 1982