Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

The House met at 2 o’clock, p.m.

Prayers.

Hon. S. B. Handleman (Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations): Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for St. Andrew-St. Patrick (Mr. Grossman), who is in Ottawa attending the first ministers’ conference, I would like to ask all members of the House to join use in welcoming, on his behalf, 50 members from the Adult Day School of Toronto, who are seated in the east gallery with their teacher, Sister Mary Alexander.

Hon. J. P. MacBeth (Minister of Labour): Mr. Speaker, in the west gallery we have some 92 students from Lambton-Kingsway Public School which is this year celebrating its 100th anniversary. I ask the House to welcome Mr. Cook, Mr. Robertson, a student-teacher by the name of Miss S. Bailey; and the students I’ve mentioned, sir.

Mr. R. Gisborn (Hamilton East): Mr. Speaker, I would ask the House to join with me in saying welcome to 40 grade 8 students from St. Eugene’s Separate School in Hamilton East, accompanied by their teachers, led by Mr. Guy Macri.

Mr. Speaker: Statements by the ministry.

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Hon. J. A. C. Auld (Minister of Colleges and Universities): Mr. Speaker, there were a number of questions in the House on Tuesday about the university admission situation as far as Ottawa students are concerned. In looking over the Hansard it became apparent the best thing to do would be to try and answer with a statement, because there was quite a variety of questions and comments.

On April 3, the Council of Ontario Universities issued a release on university applicants from areas where there has been a disruption of teacher services. A copy was delivered to the university affairs division of my ministry at approximately noon on Tuesday, April 8. The universities of Carleton and Ottawa released, on April 8, a subsequent statement endorsing the Council of Ontario Universities’ statement and detailing special considerations for the Ottawa students.

In areas of open enrolment there is no difficulty, with the exception that students may require special tutorial work by the school boards to avoid any disadvantage in starting university programmes. The final acceptance date is Aug. 15 for Carleton and July 1 for Ottawa. However, both institutions will be flexible in considering Ottawa student applications.

In those limited enrolment programmes, positions and scholarships have been reserved for students affected by the strike. Both institutions recognized the need for special tutorials to rectify possible deficiencies caused by the strike.

In connection with the statement of the hon. member for Ottawa East on Tuesday, representatives from Queen’s University denied outright the existence of any memorandum to Ottawa school boards that stated Queen’s University would not provide special consideration for the Ottawa students.

Indeed, the universities in question were responsible for issuing the statement to the Council of Ontario Universities on the need for special recognition of the situation in Ottawa. We are most appreciative of the action taken by the universities, which I believe demonstrates their willingness to provide the most equitable solution to a difficult situation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope this clarifies the situation for the hon. members and corrects any misconceptions certain members may have had regarding the universities in Ontario.

Mr. A. J. Roy (Ottawa East): Mr. Speaker, if I might rise on a point of privilege. In relation to statements made by myself on last Tuesday involving the university situation -- and which were reported in the press -- about the fact that I had had information, or there was a statement made, that Queen’s University would not give special consideration to the Ottawa students, I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that I have spoken with Queen’s University in Kingston, to Mr. Harry Stem, who is in charge of admissions. He has reported to me that the information I had received and the statement that I had made was, in fact, erroneous; and that he and Queen’s University have a list of the Ottawa students who are interested and that they will be given every consideration.

So I would like to correct any statement that was made on Tuesday.

Hon. J. R. Rhodes (Minister of Transportation and Communications): Still batting a thousand.

Mr. Speaker: Oral questions.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition?

KRAUSS-MAFFEI SYSTEM

Mr. R. F. Nixon (Leader of the Opposition): Perhaps the Minister of Transportation and Communications could tell us about his report on Krauss-Maffei? Is the minister going to table that report in the House, further to his answer to my question a week ago in which he said the government was going to make a statement as to continuing involvement in the Krauss-Maffei concept?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that statement will be made next Monday here in the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That’s better than a thousand.

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: My average is very good compared to many in this House that I know.

Mr. V. M. Singer (Downsview): Will the minister tell us how much it cost?

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DISPUTE

Mr.. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the Provincial. Secretary for Social Development if she can give her daily report on the status of the negotiations between the school board in Ottawa and the teachers in the absence of the Minister of Education (Mr. Wells)?

Hon. M. Birch (Provincial Secretary for Social Development): Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge the talks are underway at the present moment with the Minister of Education and those involved in Ottawa.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A supplementary: I wonder if the minister could give any assurance to the members in this House, or the parents in the Ottawa area, that there is any progress being made?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: This morning the deputy minister told the social policy field that the situation was hopeful and that progress was being made.

Mr. Speaker: A supplementary? The member for Ottawa East?

Mr. Roy: Yes, has the minister fixed any deadline on how long he is going to talk with them? And has the government fixed a time when, in fact, it will have to accept its responsibility as a government in this matter?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, in view of the sensitivity of the negotiations at the moment, I think it would be unwise for me to comment.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. P. Taylor (Carleton East): Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. In order to rotate back and forth, I will allow a supplementary from the member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: Is the minister aware that the member for Ottawa East, on behalf of the Liberal Party, now believes there should be legislation to send the Ottawa teachers back to work -- and said so publicly last night?

Mr. Speaker: It sounds like a hypothetical question. The member for Carleton East?

Mr. P. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, that was an excellent observation.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor: Would the minister --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. P. Taylor: Just relax; relax.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order. The member for Carleton East.

Mr. P. Taylor: Would the Provincial Secretary for Social Development advise the House whether or not the Premier (Mr. Davis) has anything specific to say to the parents of Ottawa when he meets with them this afternoon at 4 o’clock.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I’m not in a position to. know what the Premier is going to say to anyone he is going to be talking with this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker: Does the Leader of the opposition have further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Yes, I have. I didn’t hear what the minister said. I presume she said there was nothing specific to be said?

Hon. Mrs. Birch: I said that I am not aware of what the Premier will be saying to anyone he happens to meet with this afternoon.

ONTARIO ENERGY BOARD

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I’d like to ask a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations. Is he going to recommend to his colleagues in the situation that all of us are experiencing -- and reading the reports of the energy conference in Ottawa -- that legislation be prepared to give the Ontario Energy Board the power to control the costs of petroleum products within the borders of this province, similar to the initiative that was taken a year ago by Nova Scotia?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of the fact that it is my responsibility to discuss that with my colleagues. The Minister of Energy (Mr. Timbrell), who reports for the Energy Board would, undoubtedly answer the question of the member on the policy of the Energy Board. I have discussed with the Minister of Energy the possibility of some kind of joint funding for those who wish to appear before the Energy Board on behalf of the consumers of Ontario. I am certainly prepared to pursue that with my colleague.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Has the minister any opinion as to whether or not the Energy Board ought to have this increase in its powers in view of the concern expressed by everyone, including the Premier, over the costs of energy as they were established a year ago now and in conjunction with the negotiations that are presently going on in Ottawa?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with the proposed increase in powers. I’m prepared to study it and report back to the hon. member.

Mr. D. C. MacDonald (York South): A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for York South.

Mr. MacDonald: A supplementary of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations: If the government believes, as has been suggested, that the existing price provides the companies with enough revenue for exploration purposes, wouldn’t it be a function of such an exercise of power here to squeeze out any excess profits for the benefit of the consumers?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, the member keeps flogging that horse; I’m not too sure whether it’s dead or not. We have not suggested there are excess profits. We have suggested there may be sufficient to do what is needed.

Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Opposition.

CARLETON BOARD OF EDUCATION

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I would like to ask the same minister about another matter which doesn’t fall directly within his purview but into which I understand he has inserted himself. Can he explain why the township of Nepean did not receive additional assistance for education costs on the same grant basis as additional moneys were made available to Gloucester and, I believe, March township by the Carleton Board of Education?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Mr. Speaker, I think the member should acquaint himself with things before he accuses me of inserting myself into a situation.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister announced the grant, did he not for the Minister of Education?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Yes. As the member for Carleton, certainly I announced the grant which applied to one township in my constituency and one township --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I’d like to ask if it is an accepted rule in this House --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The minister still has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: -- that the member for the area is --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. It is not a point of order.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: How the devil do you know it is not?

Mr. Speaker: The minister has not yielded the floor yet.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, order. The minister had not yielded the floor. Has he completed his answer? Has the minister completed his answer?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Will the member for Brant (Mr. R. F. Nixon) take it easy?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: If the member is familiar with the situation, it goes back about four years. There was an appeal to the Ontario Municipal Board concerning the allocation levies of the Carleton Board of Education. The decision of the Ontario Municipal Board resulted in two municipalities, one March township and the other Gloucester township, being assessed, retroactively, large sums of money. The Minister of Education, who can undoubtedly answer for this, under the powers vested in him through the Education Act was enabled to make grants to the Carleton Board of Education, not to the municipalities, to prevent undue burden on the ratepayers of those two municipalities; and that’s exactly what was done.

The township of Nepean, which I have the honour to represent in this Legislature, was not in any way prejudiced by that decision nor was it asked to pay additional levies to the Carleton Board of Education, as were the other two townships.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any further questions?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary. Wouldn’t it be true to say -- and surely the member for the area would know this -- that the ratepayers in Nepean township had been paying additional amounts for education by virtue of the inadequacies of the distribution of the costs previously? Wouldn’t the minister then agree that while the payments to Gloucester were fully justified there should be a similar prorated payment to Nepean?

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Of course Mr. Speaker that’s exactly what was happening. That’s the reason that money has been paid.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Nepean did not get a special payment.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Neither did March nor Gloucester, Mr. Speaker. The Carleton Board of Education received funds to credit to those two townships. They were ordered by the OMB to credit Nepean. In fact, that’s exactly what they have done. Now the Reeve of Nepean would like to take that money to use to lower the municipal rate. What will happen is that the credit will be allowed to the ratepayers of Nepean to reduce the educational rate, which is exactly what the OMB intended.

PRESENTATION OF GRANT CHEQUES

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a question of the Chairman of Management Board. Can he make it clear to the members of the House if it is government policy to always make announcements of grants across the province through the elected member in that area, as was indicated by the minister, or just if he is a Tory member?

Mr. MacDonald: Just if he is a Tory.

Mr. A. Carruthers (Durham): How about the member’s federal counterparts?

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): I don’t think that that’s so. The implications of the question aren’t so. However, as far as the Chairman of Management Board is concerned, it is left to the discretion of the operating minister.

Mr. Hoy: Supplementary to that question, Mr. Speaker: How then does the minister justify it that when grants and cheques are handed out in my riding they are given to the member for Ottawa South, the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Bennett)? How does he justify that?

An hon. member: He is a bona fide member.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They can’t say they are cheap politicians, that’s for sure.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member would repeat his question?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sarnia, a supplementary.

Mr. J. E. Bullbrook (Sarnia): May I ask, by way of supplementary, is it indicative of the importance of members of this Legislature when my colleague, the member for Lambton (Mr. Henderson) gives the mayor of Sarnia a cheque for $2 million and I get notice today of a grant of $216.84?

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: All those are relative.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Wentworth.

HOUSING STARTS

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister of Housing give some statistics to bear out the claim by the government of 90,000 projected housing starts in the Province of Ontario in the year of 1975; given that in the first quarter of this year, January starts were 63,950, February starts 57,531 -- that’s the annual rate of start -- and March 45,802; and that the likely number on that projection would be about 57,000 housing starts in the province, given that we already know what kind of programmes he has in mind?

Hon. D. R. Irvine (Minister of Housing): Mr. Speaker, I’m very well aware of the figures the member has quoted. I think all the members of this House follow the figures for housing starts not only in Ontario but all of Canada. There is nothing to say that January, February and March figures will apply the same throughout the rest of the year. It is our indication from the private sector that there will be many more housing starts in the second, third and fourth quarter than we had originally expected. Therefore, the federal anticipation of 85,000 housing starts in Ontario may be exceeded somewhat; we don’t know at this time.

Mr. Deans: Given that after three months of 1974, the projection was for 123,200 housing starts and the actual figure was 85,000, and given that the minister pumped all of his efforts last year into trying to get more housing starts and failed by 40,000 to reach his target, how then can he claim that after three months of 1975 he is going to be able to reach a target higher than his actual in 1974, when he is down by approximately 60,000 in the projections at this point?

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): How indeed?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the member for Wentworth’s arithmetic isn’t too good. Our figure was 100,000 for the year 1974-1975, and the actual figure was 85,000. So that’s 15,000, if I can add, and I think I can, of a shortage, not 40,000 as the member was saying. We had a real booming industry in the year 1973-1974 and that is why we had some 120,000 starts.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The very poor fiscal policies the federal government had for the last year and the year before finally caught up with the housing industry and caught up with a lot of other industries.

Mr. Cassidy: Don’t forget to blame the municipalities as well.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: We have a problem now whereby we will all have to work together to make sure we get 85,000 or 90,000 starts.

Mr. Deans: Why didn’t this government spend the money it had from the federal government?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I think the federal government has realized this. Mr. Turner is coming in with a mini-budget in May and it will be helpful to the Province of Ontario, I hope, in regard to this.

Mr. Deans: Supplementary: Is it possible for the minister to explain how, if the federal government is responsible for the mess, this government didn’t spend all of the money, to the tune of $103 million that it had available to spend in the Province of Ontario, and that it fell short? What I’m saying is that the government fell short by 40,000 houses in the actual number of housing starts in the Province of Ontario for the whole year over what the projected number would have been had the rate during the three-month period in the early part of 1974 been carried through the year.

Why didn’t the government spend the money it had?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the member for Wentworth if he would repeat what he said our shortage was, because I didn’t hear? Did he say $102 million?

Mr. Deans: What I said to the minister was this: That based on the three-month projections in 1974, the government should have had 123,000 housing starts. It had, actually, only 85,000 housing starts. I don’t care what the minister projected. I’m telling him what his figures said. In the first three months of 1975, the minister has a projection of 45,802 housing starts. That’s down some 80,000 from what was projected in 1974; the minister is not likely to hit 60,000 in total in 1975, even based on his most optimistic projections.

Mr. Speaker: Is there a question in connection with this?

Mr. Deans: That’s what I’m telling him. Where is the housing programme?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Deans: Where is the housing programme?

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, there is neither a question nor is there any truth in what the members says.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Deans: On a point of privilege, the minister has said that I am lying. He said there is no truth in what I said.

An hon. member: He didn’t say that.

Mr. Deans: He said there is no truth in what I said.

An hon. member: There probably isn’t.

Mr. Speaker: My interpretation is not that the member deliberately misled the House or lied or anything like that. Did the hon. Leader of the Opposition have a supplementary?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: I have a supplementary, yes; thank you, Mr. Speaker. Since the Treasurer (Mr. McKeough) in his budget on Monday said that he expects 90,000 new units will be started in Ontario this year, can the minister square that with his more optimistic statement that was made just about six weeks before? Is it that the programmes that were enunciated in the budget are going to fall short of what the minister was going to accomplish, even without the new initiatives that evidently were a part of the budget?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, as the member for Wentworth has tried to say to the House and the Leader of the Opposition is saying now, the figures all depend upon the actual output by the private sector. The private sector has indicated just recently that it is prepared to start building housing.

Mr. MacDonald: They’ve let the government down before and they’ll let it down again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: They didn’t build many houses in the last part of the calendar year of 1974 but they are going to be building housing, in Ontario at least, in the second and third quarters of 1975.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): Why doesn’t the government start treating housing as a social necessity?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we are saying is that we had originally anticipated 85,000 starts for this year because of the very poor economic climate that we have in Ontario and throughout Canada. But we think maybe now it could be 90,000. The member for Wentworth is saying it could be 45,000. I say there is absolutely no way that he can say there are only going to be 45,000 starts in Ontario for this year. This is what I meant when I said there is no truth in the statement that we think there will be 45,000 starts.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The minister said 100,000 starts in January. What has happened since then?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: It wasn’t that the member was misleading the House. I just said that there is no truth that there are only going to be 45,000 starts.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I have just a final question of the minister, Mr. Speaker. In view of the kinds of figures and variations that the minister is talking about isn’t it time we treated housing as a public utility, as a public service, and ensured a planned level of starts year after year, rather than leaving people’s housing needs to the whims of the private market?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the hon. member for Grey-Bruce have a supplementary question?

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Supplementary: If the key to housing starts is the cost of mortgage money, does the government have any plans to give us six per cent money in the housing field?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. That is not really supplementary to the original question.

Mr. Sargent: I’d like to know -- it’s very important, it’s the key to it.

Mr. Speaker: The member may ask it in his turn. The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Sargent: Does the minister have an answer?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Yes, I do.

Mr. Speaker: This will be a new question then.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to answer the member if I could --

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): He doesn’t very often have an answer.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- if it’s in order.

Mr. Speaker: We’ll wait until his turn comes.

The member for Wentworth.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Deans: I have another question for the Minister of Housing. Given that he claims the private sector is going to engage in the house-building field this year to an extent far exceeding last year’s involvement, how then does he propose to provide housing when their own records show that they are unable to provide housing for people who earn under $12,000 per year? How does the minister propose to provide housing for people who earn the average wage in the Province of Ontario, which is $9,400 per year?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, both the federal government and ourselves have rental accommodation available for those making less than $8,000. I don’t believe, as I have said before in the House, that it’s possible for a family with a total income of $8,000 or less to have its own home; I think it must have rental accommodation.

As far as the provincial government is concerned, we have accepted tender proposals in the amount of $42 million in Metropolitan Toronto, Oshawa, Hamilton and Thunder Bay. We are also quite confident we’ll be able to call for more proposals in the very near future for limited dividend projects which will have rent stabilization and, in my opinion, will provide the rental accommodation that is necessary in those areas where there is a very low vacancy rate.

Mr. Deans: A supplementary: Given that 60 per cent of the population earn less than $10,000, could the minister explain to me how many homes we’re going to build to meet the needs of that 60 per cent of the population? How many would we have to build in any given year in order to meet their needs?

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Doesn’t the member know the answer to that question?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the 60 per cent arc not without homes right now. The people of Ontario are the best housed people in all of Canada. Let’s start with that as a fact which we all know and recognize.

Mr. Foulds: How about the universe?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: What we’re going to do is try to provide additional accommodation to the best of our ability, and I’m sure that the programmes we now have in the Ministry of Housing, along with the co-operation we expect to get from the federal government, will provide rental accommodation and new housing for those people who want to have their own home --

Mr. R. F. Nixon: The federal government has given $480 million to Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- and I’m very confident the private sector will build theirs.

Mr. Cassidy: The government is wrong, and the electors will tell it so.

Mr. Singer: Get the member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener) to make another speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Sudbury wants to ask a supplementary question.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): Is it the position of the Minister of Housing that 60 per cent of the people in Ontario will have to resign themselves to the fact they will never own a house?

Some hon. members: No, no.

Mr. Deans: That’s what the minister is saying.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: More than that own houses now, my friend.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, that is a typical confused NDP statement.

Mr. Speaker: Any further questions?

Mr. Foulds: It was a question. Why didn’t the minister answer it?

Mr. Deans: I have a further question --

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for St. George with a supplementary.

Mrs. M. Campbell (St. George): Do I understand that the new housing the government is proposing in the Metropolitan Toronto area will be exclusively limited-dividend housing, with the fiscal policies of that programme at this time?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: No, Mr. Speaker. I was addressing myself to the part of the question by the member for Wentworth dealing with rental accommodation. I expect we will have senior citizen accommodation in Metropolitan Toronto in the coming fiscal year, as well as some HOME developments and other developments besides rental accommodation, but I was merely addressing myself to the part about rental accommodation.

Mrs. Campbell: Could I ask a supplementary on that question? What I’m asking is whether the rental accommodation for families in the Metro area is to be exclusively by way of limited dividend in this programme. Are we going to be building family accommodation for rental on a rent-geared-to-income basis?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we would be delighted to build as many units as possible of the type the member has described if we get municipal and community acceptance of the family rental units --

An hon. member: Blame somebody else!

Mr. MacDonald: The minister is evading the question again.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: The problem last year was that we weren’t able to fulfil the number of housing units we wanted for family accommodation because of a lack of acceptance by municipalities.

Mr. Germa: Why doesn’t the minister resign now?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Does the member for Wentworth have a new question?

VALPORT HOMES

Mr. Deans: I have a further question of the Minister of Housing. Can the Minister of Housing indicate what action he plans to take against Valport Homes, which are developing both of the Hamilton home ownership programmes, since upon a recent inspection of one of the homes just completed it was found that there were 60 defects, many of them of a structural nature including the foundation and the main beams. What does the minister plan to do with a builder like this? When is the minister going to bring in a warranty which will protect those people in spite of the Ottawa people’s inability to come to grips with the problem? When are we going to get a warranty in Ontario which will protect home buyers against this kind of shoddy workmanship?

An hon. member: It’s long overdue.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular project the member is referring to. If there are actually 60 defects in the particular housing unit he is referring to -- and I am sure we have already had it checked by our inspectors as to whether or not there is that number -- we will make sure the defects are corrected.

As to when we will have a warranty policy, that will depend upon my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister agree with me that it is not nearly good enough to have found the defects because the man who happened to move into the house knew something about building? Those defects could have gone on for 20 years and not have been noticed until the house might have collapsed.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. What is the question?

OBLIGATIONS OF HOME PURCHASERS

Mr. Deans: I have a further question.

Can the minister explain to me the rationale used by Ontario Housing Corp. in determining that Mr. Kalyani had the right to sell to Mr. Malhatra the properties in Bramalea, which I raised with the minister some time ago; and the right to evict the Nancekivells who had been renting the property from Malhatra and Kalyani respectively during the period when neither one of them, in fact, should have owned the house in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, we went through this particular case in some detail last year; I think it was in December.

We have determined since then through Ontario Housing Corp. and the Ontario Mortgage Corp. that we do not have any legal rights to retain or retrieve the home from the present owner. We have had discussions -- and many of them -- with the tenants of that particular home and the Nancekivells have been told many times they should look for other accommodation. They have not chosen to do so. They have an order now to be out of the house by the end of April, as I understand it, and I would have thought if they wanted to protect themselves they would have at least tried to get into another of our HOME lotteries; we have had two of them in the area. They didn’t try to. It seems to me that we have bent over backwards for these particular people and they have not tried to get accommodation for themselves.

Mr. Speaker: Further questions?

The hon. member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: One supplementary question. Can the minister explain how he could possibly have come to the realization that he doesn’t have any legal right to repossess a house for which the owner or the purchaser signed a contract which said they must live in it and not rent the house, and who subsequently sold it without permission? Surely right within the contracts, which I have copies of, it says very clearly one can’t sell it without permission and one must live in it. OHC did have the right to repossess it and didn’t exercise the right.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

This question is getting too extended; it’s becoming a debate. Are there any new questions? The hon. member for Wentworth?

The hon. member for Elgin has a question.

Mr. Foulds: Stand up.

FARM STABILIZATION PROGRAMME

Mr. R. K. McNeil (Elgin): I have a question of the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Is the minister able to report on the meeting held yesterday with the federal Minister of Agriculture regarding the farm stabilization plan? Will the federal department be working with the provincial ministry on Ontario’s proposal --

An hon. member: If he presents it.

Mr. McNeil: -- to guarantee costs of production?

Hon. W. A. Stewart (Minister of Agriculture and Food): Mr. Speaker, we had a meeting yesterday -- all the Ministers of Agriculture -- with the federal minister on the stabilization programme proposed by the government of Canada.

Mr. Sargent: I am glad the member asked that question.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: May I just take a moment to go back to September, 1973, when the ministers were asked to go to Ottawa to discuss how greater food production could be accomplished in Canada. All of us were unanimous that there had to be changes made in the Agricultural Products Stabilization Act which would reduce the 10-year averaging period and increase the 80 per cent which had been paid out before.

This was presented in the form of a resolution to the federal government a few months after -- in December, 1973, I believe -- the federal government brought forward an Act which is now in the committee stage of the House of Commons. This provides 90 per cent of the previous five-year average for certain commodities named under the Agricultural Products Stabilization Act, and they also add in a cost increase factor which takes care, or supposedly will take care, of the inflationary factor from year to year.

We are concerned, because of the escalation of inflation particularly in the last couple of years, that the cost factor they have proposed to add in is high enough. Our discussions were based on that concern. The suggestion we made was that there be 90 per cent over a five-year average supported by the government of Canada, and that we might consider participation of the producers, the province and the federal government in the add-on cost factors, on the basis of one-third being paid by each, of whatever that amount might be.

That was the proposal we made yesterday. The federal government suggested they would give it consideration. I am not very hopeful they will implement it, but I think it’s worthy of consideration because to me it goes further than what their legislation now provides.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): Mr. Speaker, a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: We will allow a supplementary. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Supplementary, of the Minister of Agriculture and Food: The budget proposes the expenditure of some $20 million to assist in connection with the stabilization plan. Could the minister indicate to the House the manner in which the $20 million will be used to augment the federal plan?

Mr. R. F. Nixon: By direct cheque delivered Monday before the election.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well that’s a good idea, and my friend would know when the election was due.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: That is the way they did it last time; that’s the way they did it last time.

Hon. Mr. Handleman: Excellent suggestion.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We have always been anxious to have suggestions from the opposition, and that’s the only good one they have made for years, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: We know how they do business. They buy votes with public money.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: To answer my friend from Prince Edward-Lennox, the budget statement said the $20 million would be earmarked for that programme if necessary. We do not know what the federal programme really means. Yesterday when we were there we could not get any specific illustrations, for instance, on commodities such as hogs, corn, soya beans and white beans -- crops unique to the Province of Ontario.

We don’t know what that add-on factor is. One can easily determine the five-year average and 90 per cent of that; we know what that would be. But to add on, with great respect, the farmers of Ontario are entitled to know that when they plant a crop they are going to get back the returns of their cost inputs into that crop, and that’s what we are proposing to do.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): He’s quoting the Minister of Agriculture for Canada now.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: We do not believe the legislation at Ottawa goes as far as that. That’s why the money referred to by the member for Prince Edward-Lennox is so earmarked. However, we don’t want -- and I want to stress this, Mr. Speaker, because my friend has raised an interesting question on the $20 million -- we don’t want add-on programmes that will in effect be built on top of the federal programme which would put the provinces in competition with each other as to which one is going to bid the most to the add-on programme. The federal minister, I think, in his wisdom -- and I support that, and as a matter of fact stressed by letter to him --

Mr. Roy: Sit down.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Well, those fellows over there are not interested in anything for the farmers. All they want to talk is something about politics. It is the only thing they have a clue about. The only thing they are interested in is politics.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: If the minister sold his farm, there wouldn’t be a farmer over there, and there isn’t one here in the NDP either.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: I want to say to our friends in the Liberal Party who are saying to me, “Sit down; we don’t want to hear what you are doing for the farmers of Ontario”; we are interested in farmers and I will stand here as long as necessary to say so.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: What a silly thing to say. The minister can’t wait to get his hooks into this extra assistance.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: They haven’t got a working farmer over there; not one, not even one.

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): The Leader of the Opposition is the only one, eh?

Hon. Mr. Stewart: The industrial milk programme --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Will the hon. Leader of the Opposition take his seat?

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We are wasting valuable time.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Indeed we are, Mr. Speaker.

An hon. member: The Leader of the Opposition will be a working farmer soon.

Hon. Mr. Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I think it has been amply demonstrated by the industrial milk programme which placed a standard subsidy right across Canada, and we think that is the kind of a pattern we should follow. That’s what we were trying to debate yesterday, and discuss; and I think we reached agreement.

Mr. Sargent: The minister was through half an hour ago. Why didn’t he sit down?

Mr. Speaker: The member for Huron.

NAPPAN ISLAND DEVELOPMENT

Mr. J. Riddell (Huron): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A question of the Minister of Housing; and this is in connection with Nappan Island. And I beg your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, to let me complete my question so that we might get a decisive answer from the minister today.

Mr. Sargent: I wouldn’t bet on it.

Mr. Riddell: In light of the fact that a resolution signed by the united townships of Seymour, Percy, Rodden, Alnwick, the town of Campbellford, 30 council members, and the lower Trent Conservation Authority, has been sent to the minister stating that --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Roy: The Minister of Agriculture and Food shouldn’t say a word.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Riddell: -- any development on Nappan Island on the Trent River is not compatible with the interests of conservation or land management, and that no development on this island take place.

Mr. G. Nixon: What is the question?

Mr. Riddell: And since the federal and provincial governments have signed an agreement this past February under CORTS to co-operate in the development of a recreational corridor along the river systems --

Mr. G. Nixon: Give us the question; come on. He is all mixed up.

Mr. Riddell: And since their study identifies the Nappan Island area as one that should be held in its present state with no future development, can the minister --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Riddell: Does the Minister of Agriculture and Food like those jottings? I’ll bet he reads them every week.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member place the question please?

Mr. Riddell: Can the minister now tell us that no final approval will be granted for this development?

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): And if he can’t he better resign.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, I’ve been urged by some of my colleagues to ask the member to repeat the question, but I wouldn’t like to. I’d like to assure the hon. member that I’m aware of the area he’s talking about.

Mr. Singer: It’s in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: I’m also aware that there will not be any development occur, nor has there been any development up to this date to my knowledge, without proper circulation and without proper hearings by those parties affected. Also, the fact is that my ministry will give very careful consideration as to whether or not any development should be allowed there. We have the matter very closely under control, and we feel that there will not be a development, as the member has said.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Is the minister aware that his predecessor gave partial approval to a programme on Nappan Island, where there was no service at all, and that the waste material had to be picked up by truck and carried off the island and dumped somewhere else? His predecessor, sitting beside him, approved that.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition knows full well it’s only a draft approval. There are conditions to be fulfilled.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: A draft approval for moving that waste material that way?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for High Park.

DORE WRECKING CO.

Mr. M. Shulman (High Park): A question of the Minister of Government Services, Mr. Speaker, in relation to the dialogue he had with the Leader of the Opposition on March 17 in relation to the wrecking of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital by the Dore Wrecking Co. It’s in two parts.

Part one: Is the minister aware that yesterday the Metropolitan Toronto House Wreckers Association went to the scene of the Hamilton Psychiatric Hospital wrecking and reported that it was being done in a very unsafe way: “By taking a steel beam attached to a bulldozer, and charging the building like a knight on a horse with a lance.”

Part two: Is the minister aware that the Dore Wrecking Co., as of today, still has not paid four-fifths of their assessment for last year’s compensation, despite the statements made by the minister? And that they underestimated their payroll to the Workmen’s Compensation Board last year by 80 per cent?

Hon. J. W. Snow (Minister of Government Services): No, Mr. Speaker, I’m not aware of any of those items.

Mr. MacDonald: Resign; resign then.

Mr. Shulman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs- view.

An hon. member: That’s irresponsibility.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. MacDonald: On a point of order. He reported it.

Mr. Speaker: I will allow one supplementary. The member for High Park.

Mr. Shulman: Did the minister on March 17 not say to the Leader of the Opposition that he investigated this and everything was in order? How does he explain this situation?

Mr. MacDonald: That’s right; resign.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: He is supposed to know about it.

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I did everything I told the Leader of the Opposition that I said we had carried out. We had checked with the Workmen’s Compensation Board and found they were in order.

Mr. Shulman: What does the minister mean “in order”?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I assured the hon. Leader of the Opposition wo had a certified cheque deposited for $150,000 --

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): That’s in the Premier’s box with the aircraft cheque.

Hon. Mr. Snow: -- as certification of the security for this company and that deposit would certainly not be released until we have a certificate from the Workmen’s Compensation Board that they have been paid in full.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Downs- view.

DOW CHEMICAL ACTION

Mr. Singer: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Attorney General. Since the Attorney General’s answers to my questions the other day about Interprovincial Co-operative Ltd. and Manitoba against Her Majesty the Queen, indicated the minister had absolutely no knowledge of the case at all, has the minister bothered to inquire from his own official, Mr. T. B. Smith, QC, who attended at the court hearings on behalf of the Attorney General of Ontario, as to what the effect of the decision was on Ontario’s pending lawsuit against Dow Chemical?

Hon. J. T. Clement (Attorney General): No, Mr. Speaker, I didn’t inquire of Mr. T. B. Smith, QC, I inquired of Mr. F. W. Callaghan, QC --

Mr. Singer: Yes. The minister has the decision?

Hon. Mr. Clement: -- who said that the case in the Supreme Court of Canada dealt with the vires of provincial legislation, an Act by Manitoba, and in essence it was held that Manitoba could not legislate for torts committed originating outside of its borders, and therefore the case did not have any applicability as far as the Dow case is concerned.

Mr. Singer: Would the Attorney General, by way of supplementary, explain to us why he is not aware, when he has representatives of his department at important cases like this, and why he has to resort to flippant and irrelevant remarks in answering legitimate inquiries addressed to him in the House?

Hon. Mr. Clement: Mr. Speaker, I certainly want to apologize to the member for Downsview who is certainly more sensitive than I thought he was insofar as a flippant remark is concerned.

I am not being flippant. I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that we have requisitioned from the Supreme Court of Canada a copy of the judgement. We did not have it as of the day after the member asked the question; it has not come into our possession. There was no point, insofar as I am concerned, in asking the law officer who attended that hearing to report to me. I want to see the report. We have requested it; as soon as we have it I will read it. Perhaps we could read it together.

Mr. Singer: Perhaps the minister would like to borrow the one that is here, that was tabled by the court on March 26 last?

Hon. Mr. Clement: I would be very appreciative; we don’t have the resources in our ministry to get them like that.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): When did this subscription run out?

Mr. Roy: He probably won’t understand it anyway.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont.

PLANT CLOSINGS

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Industry and Tourism: Could the minister tell the House what his department has done and is planning to do to assist the workers of the Sylvania plant in Cornwall which, as he knows, is scheduled to close this summer?

Hon. C. Bennett (Minister of Industry and Tourism): Mr. Speaker, in regard to plant closures, the ministry sends its field representatives in to deal with management and to review the problems with them.

Mr. Cassidy: With the management.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: With the management, that is correct, and if the member for Ottawa Centre would sit and listen for a moment he might want to hear the rest of the answer.

Mr. Foulds: Just trying to give the minister some time to think about it.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): He is all mouth and no ears.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: When we meet with the management usually at that time the employees’ representative group is there also, so we may learn from them exactly how many people will be looking for employment if the plant closes and what are their qualifications and competence in other jobs.

Sir, we have not got the ability -- and I admit this openly -- to find employment for all of the people that happen to be laid off in a particular industry. But let me assure this House that the ministry and its staff will go out into the field, both in that community and in adjacent communities, to try and find employment for those people. If not, then we will try to encourage other industries to come in and take up the slack by purchasing the assets of the company that could very well be closing.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment has the answer to a question asked previously.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: Well, if it is a short supplementary. The time is fast running out and many people wish to ask new questions.

Mr. Samis: These are people who are losing jobs, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Will you proceed please?

Mr. Samis: Can I ask the minister if his department has discussed with GTE Automatic Electric in Brockville any form of job assurance should they move to Cornwall? Has the minister had any discussions with Automatic Electric?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member had liked to write me on that question I could have had the answer for him, but I will have to take the question under advisement and check with my ministry as to exactly what has transpired in the discussions with our field people and that particular operation.

Mr. Speaker: The Minister of the Environment?

BURLINGTON SKYWAY SEWAGE TREATMENT FACILITY

Hon. W. Newman (Minister of the Environment): Mr. Speaker, in answer to a question asked by the Leader of the Opposition on March 25, I wish to report to the House on the sewage treatment capacity of the Burlington Skyway treatment plant.

Mr. Speaker, if it is all right with you, I will just send the answer over to the hon. member in the absence of time. Would that be all right?

Mr. Speaker: I think that would be acceptable to the House.

Mr. R. F. Nixon: Supplementary: On how many days did they have to dump raw sewage because of inadequate capacity at that plant?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the supplementary question, I did point out that there were two modifications made last year. The plant itself was built for overcapacity; it is just the pumping capacity into the plant. The effluent going out of the plant at the present time meets our standards. If the member will read the answer over he will see that all in there.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Grey-Bruce.

HOUSING PROGRAMMES

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, a question of the Minister of Housing.

In view of the fact that in the United States there is talk of three per cent money available for a crash programme on housing, and in view of the fact that a crash programme in housing in Ontario would cure our unemployment situation, and in view of the fact that the government has given $100 million to Syncrude, what is more important than having the minister tell the House what steps he has taken to give us even six per cent money for mortgage money in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member discussed this matter with me some while ago and I said I would be the most delighted person in Ontario if we could have six per cent money, but I don’t believe it’s possible at this particular time. Ii think the federal government has indicated that it is possible in some cases to supplement the interest rate down to maybe eight per cent, but I think now, when the going rate is 10¼ per cent and will be 10½ and possibly 10¾ per cent --

Mr. Ruston: Six per cent for the Wallaceburg hotel.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: -- it is not realistic to think that we can get six per cent money.

Mr. Ruston: The government gave it to Holiday Inn at Wallaceburg.

Hon. Mr. Irvine: Maybe Mr. Turner will be coming forth with some proposal, as the member has suggested. I don’t feel that we have the funds available.

Mr. Sargent: A supplementary: In view of the fact that the government makes the rules here and has made the rule regarding $1.6 billion to win the election, why can’t it make a rule to give us --

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Sargent: Just a minute. Why can’t they make a rule that they can spend $100 million on housing?

Mr. Speaker: Order please. I think the minister has answered that.

Mr. Sargent: Why the hell can’t he answer it? it is an important question.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The member for Hamilton East.

REDEVELOPMENT OF QEW

Mr. Gisborn: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Transportation and Communications. Would the minister explain why his 1974-1975 report says not one word about what I consider, and he himself must consider, the major issue on the design boards for the past two years; that is the redevelopment of the Queen Elizabeth Way from the Guelph Line to the Stoney Creek traffic circle, including the twinning of the Burlington Skyway Bridge, or tunnelling? Why is it not mentioned in his report?

Hon. Mr. Rhodes: Mr. Speaker, I think I shall be tabling very shortly the programme that is coming up for this next fiscal year which will have all of the details of the work that will be done in that particular job. It’s really just getting under way now. I will table the report in the next couple of days, sir.

Mr. Gisborn: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. We will just have time for about one new question. The member for Carleton East.

OTTAWA TEACHERS’ DLSPUTE

Mr. P. Taylor: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Would the Minister of Education give us a first-hand report on the progress of negotiations involving the OSSTF and the Ottawa Board of Education?

Hon. T. L. Wells (Minister of Education): Mr. Speaker, the talks are still continuing in Toronto and the mediator is still present.

Mr. Roy: Is there any progress?

Mr. Speaker: One final, final question from the member for Thunder Bay.

POLLUTION OF GREAT LAKES

Mr. Stokes: I have a question of the Minister of the Environment. In view of the ruling handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States to allow Reserve Mining Co. to continue to drop 67,000 tons of taconite tailings daily into Lake Superior, and in view of the concern expressed by the city of Duluth just recently about the impairment of the quality of water as a result of this activity, what initiatives does the ministry intend to take with the IJC to see that no further impairment of this great water resource continues?

Hon. W. Newman: Mr. Speaker, I only heard part of the member’s question with all the talking that is going on, but I can assure him that we were involved originally on this matter and did express our concerns to Ottawa, to the federal Ministry of the Environment, and they in turn passed the concerns on to the Environment Protection Agency. Certainly we’re concerned when any international waters are involved and we will be getting involved, but I didn’t know the results of the Supreme Court were down. We did express our concern earlier; we are concerned about any effluent that is going into the Great Lakes.

Mr. Foulds: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The time expired some moments ago. The oral question period has expired.

Petitions.

Presenting reports.

Mr. Ewen from the standing private bills committee presented the committee’s report which was read as follows and adopted: --

Your committee begs to report the following bills without amendment: --

Bill Pr2, An Act respecting the Town of Seaforth.

Bill Pr7, An Act respecting Quinn Lumber and Builders’ Supply Co. Ltd.

Bill Pr9, An Act respecting the Borough of Etobicoke.

Bill Pr22, An Act respecting the Borough of Scarborough.

Your committee begs to report the following bill with certain amendments:

Bill Pr18, An Act respecting the City of Kingston.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. There is too much conversation going on in the chamber. It is very difficult to follow the proceedings. Are there any further reports?

Hon. Mrs. Birch tabled the first report of the Ontario Advisory Council on Multiculturalism.

Hon. Mrs. Birch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to introduce three members of that council who are sitting in the Speaker’s gallery: Mary Louise Clements, the vice chairman of the council; Bromley Armstrong, a council member; and Elizabeth Szalowski executive officer of the council.

Mr. Speaker: Motions.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves that tomorrow this House resolve itself into the committee of supply.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the standing administration of justice committee be authorized to sit concurrently with the House for its consideration of Bill 3, An Act to regulate Political Party Financing and Election Contributions and Expenses.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Introduction of bills.

HARFORD LTD. ACT

Mr. Apps moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Harford Ltd.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. J. R. Smith moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. J. R. Smith moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF HAMILTON ACT

Mr. J. R. Smith moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Hamilton.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

CITY OF TORONTO ACT

Mr. Wardle moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting the City of Toronto.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

SHERIDAN PLACE ACT

Mr. Beckett moves first reading of bill intituled, An Act respecting Sheridan Place.

Motion agreed to; first reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Orders of the day.

RETAIL SALES TAX AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Meen moves second reading of Bill 30, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act.

Mr. J. R. Breithaupt (Kitchener): Mr. Speaker, the various amendments which are being made in this Act may indeed well be dealt with when we go into committee. I don’t think there is any particular principle as such that we have to discuss here, other than the most important one concerning the changes which are going to exempt production machinery and equipment and construction machinery and equipment from certain provisions of the sales tax.

This matter had been discussed fully in 1970 when the government attempted the same approach that it is taking now and we were concerned then as to the number of jobs which might be created by this particular kind of change in the government’s taxing policy. It has certainly been well discussed over the intervening years and, as a result of this budget, the matter has come up again.

We are prepared to support the government with respect to the passage of this bill in the belief that there may be some general addition to constructive capacity which will result from decisions made by manufacturers and those who will be using new equipment to purchase items in order to obtain the benefit of this particular governmental decision.

Certainly the question has been made, and logically so, as to whether, in fact, we would be receiving any particular taxable benefit in the sense that new jobs might be created or items might be purchased within Ontario or within Canada that might benefit the overall economy. The government has come to the conclusion that a general benefit will occur, and it is very difficult at this point to quarrel with the expressed hope at least that this will result. Accordingly, we are prepared to support this particular point and look forward to having at least some report received from the minister from time to time as to any monitoring which he is able to do that will show that this kind of tax change is going to benefit the Province of Ontario.

The other point that I would like to refer to briefly is solely the one dealing with compensation for retail sales tax. As the minister will recall, he and I served some years ago, in 1968, on the select committee on taxation. At that time, the explanations received and the comments made, certainly by the staff which we had on that committee, were to the effect that the collection procedures for these kinds of taxes, as well as for other kinds of documentation required by provincial or federal government authorities, were simply a matter of doing business. Accordingly, the businessman had to accept this as his responsibility or her responsibility when carrying on a business in this jurisdiction.

I think a case has certainly been substantially made by the vendors, particularly now that costs have risen to this point and that the time being spent is such, that some balancing factor is reasonable. I am prepared to accept their view at this time, especially as the forms and documents that are completed are becoming more and more in number and as the cost of having someone complete this information in the form that is required becomes greater and greater.

Accordingly, we are prepared to accept this situation of compensation, which may indeed not be a total equivalence of the funds spent but is a contribution and an acknowledgement that the imposition of certain informational requirements by the government should at least be compensated somewhat by a reduction from the funds which otherwise would be sent in to the province.

With those particular comments, Mr. Speaker, I think I will end my remarks on the second reading. As I say, I presume the bill will go to committee and there may be particular comments on various definition items that can be more easily dealt with at that time.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Lakeshore.

Mr. P. D. Lawlor (Lakeshore): Mr. Speaker, my sage prediction is that the Liberal Party throughout the series of tax measures that is forthcoming, beginning with this one, will support the government under every head. We do not intend to. We do not intend to support this particular piece of legislation.

How can they inveigh against a piece of legislation or the package as a whole, raise proper Cain, raise their voices and give a little hell and, at the same time, accept everything holus-bolus and across the board. It seems to me a fundamental dereliction of the role of an opposition. It is an opposition that ceases to oppose. It is a position which rules them out as holding any opportunity or any competence to take over the affairs of this province, which they presume to be able to do. If they can’t make more scathing criticisms and assessments of legislation than that, then they should retire even from the opposition, God help us.

The Retail Sales Tax Act is predicated upon two fallacies. The whole budget rests on two fallacies. One of them is that the government anticipates, like Minerva spinning a web, that somehow or other this economy is going into an upswing. There is no indication of that. On the contrary. While we deplore it and while we think the government makes its own contribution to downturns, the continental system and even the world economy are in such a state, it seems to me, particularly in the United States of America upon which we’re terribly dependent, that that is kind of Pandora’s box or fancy thinking on which to predicate a course. But that’s not the reason at all. The reason is the election, and we’ll come to that in a moment. That’s why we’re taking umbrage and offence and have reservations about this legislation.

The second thing is the oil thing. One dollar on the oil will send up the budgetary deficit by millions of dollars and take out in excess of $200 million from this province ultimately. It will send the government into a tailspin. At the moment I’m standing here talking, the Premier of this province (Mr. Davis) is in Ottawa anticipating, absorbing and making up his mind as to his modes of acceptance of that particular thing. It’s on its way, and it’s going to happen. It’s going to be $2 or $3. There’s little question about it. He may come back here rampaging and even go to the people over the issue. But the fact of the matter is that predicating a budget upon such a tenuous thread seems to me a kind of basic irresponsibility in matters of setting a budget. Then in the throes of making his budget, he says he very well might have to come back very shortly with reformed budget. I dare say he will.

We do not oppose -- and I want this to be made abundantly clear -- the reduction from seven per cent to five per cent in the sales tax. We do not oppose that. As members of this House, the NDP opposed the increase when it went from five to seven. We felt that this is a regressive tax in its nature and that it ought not to be imposed to the degree that this tax is being relied upon by this government at this time in history. We’ve fought it all along the line and it’s in the record and it’s well known. Therefore, we don’t think we need to make any apologia.

What happens in legislation, nevertheless -- and it’s true about the Succession Duty Act which will be coming up next, I anticipate -- is that legislation is, as this kind of legislation is, a bundle. There are various statutes or sectors or fragments of it which, for one reason or another, people like myself in this opposition do not think hang together. There are things that are acceptable and things that are unacceptable. In that way, the central core of the thing is so basically flawed as to oblige us, while we accept one portion of the legislation, to take issue with and to raise our voices in protest against two or three others.

The first one is to do with the termination day. We want the thing extended indefinitely. We want the tax reduced and left reduced. Go out and get the money from the corporations. Don’t insist upon taking it from the lowest wage-earners in the province as the government does with the retail sales tax legislation.

The minister is only posturing with this for a partial period -- up to Christmas and a little after -- and then reimposing the whole burden again on some pretext of an upswing so that as we all know, he can go to the people between now and then on the basis of his beneficence, as a Santa Claus with a false beard.

The word “cynical” has been used too often; this is a piece of blatant hypocrisy. We find, as the budget indicates throughout, that it seeks to pick up every element in the population that has any clout at all and confer some kind of benefit upon them here and there; but in the areas where the government finds it unpalatable, it has foreshortened it by setting up a time limitation. We object to that time limitation and think it is a sufficient principle alone upon which to take umbrage and to vote against the legislation.

The second thing -- and we have expressed ourselves ad nauseam in this House about this -- concerns the production machinery benefits. The Minister of Revenue and I sat on the Smith committee, and he will remember well the numerous briefs -- and I brought them here today -- with respect to production machinery benefits.

Hon. A. K. Meen (Minister of Revenue): Indeed I do remember.

Mr. Lawlor: It was in 1968, I believe, that the federal government introduced measures to alleviate the corporate sector of the tax burden on production machinery with the sole motivation of stimulating employment. Did it stimulate employment then? We have had many years of practice, many years of testing; the experiment has been tested and it hasn’t proved out. The money is pocketed. It goes into profits. It’s not passed on.

There is a second factor to consider. Even if some small portion of it does start some kind of stirrings in the economy, very often it goes into automated equipment in any event, which loses jobs instead of stimulating them. Therefore, the production machinery concept is not a very operative one. If this is a special way of the government giving a handout or largesse to its friends -- we think it is, and we take exception to it -- we say the minister is giving away $200 million of the taxpayers’ money in the province with regard to this particular area of the economy and fetching nothing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox): What about the lack of employment too?

Mr. G. Nixon (Dovercourt): What about the workers?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He doesn’t care about them.

Mr. Lawlor: The minister is not doing anything for the workers of this province.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Lawlor: All the minister is doing is increasing corporate profits. It’s just nonsense. The minister hasn’t got a tittle of evidence to prove that this particular tax measure over the years, or now, will have one iota of significance with respect to this concept. There are a hundred ways in which the minister could do it with far more common sense than this. This is the handout factor written into this particular legislation. We find it unpalatable and we say he should withdraw it.

An hon. member: Power to the people.

Mr. G. Nixon: The people don’t hate us.

Mr. Lawlor: If the minister would extend the time or make it indefinite regarding the five per cent, and pull out the production equipment sections of the Act, we would vote in favour of the legislation.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member has already stated he is against the legislation, regardless of its merits.

Mr. Lawlor: On the contrary, we have no particular compunction about giving compensation to the small businessman. We don’t see why it should extend to the T. Eaton Co., who would be the chief beneficiary of this particular legislation. Again, the minister is not sufficiently subtle with his legislation. He covers the whole waterfront. Those who don’t need it get it as well as those who do. I think sensible legislation would segregate that out a bit and give it to the small businessman who does have to hire auditors and so on, over and against the giant corporations and retail outlets of this country and this province who really don’t need that at all; they have adequate office staff and adequate accountants and auditors working on their books.

I remind you, Mr. Speaker, that our committee some years ago recommended unanimously that that particular offering to the public and to small businessmen had used up its usefulness. However, because of the inflationary aspects of the thing and the increased costs of doing business, it very well may be brought in at this time with a view to alleviating conditions in the small business sector of the economy.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Does the member support that part of the bill?

Mr. Lawlor: Those are the basic propositions we want to put forward.

I am just a little bemused -- I say that before I sit down -- as to how the present Treasurer’s (Mr. McKeough), budgets are well afoot to dismantling everything that his predecessor sought to do. In 1972, the former Treasurer (Mr. White), brought in numerous measures which are directly contrary to these particular ones. My feeling was at that time, since the present Treasurer was a bit out of office and out of favour, and out of flavour, and various other outs of, that he wasn’t particularly happy then. He reasserted himself. And while giving little accolades left and right to his predecessor in office, he has nevertheless gone about it to tear down that house of cards.

Well, in this particular instance I hope it goes to committee. If we do, there are many sections in here of a technical and nice nature. For instance, I would like to know why he includes natural gas and manufactured gas in the tax and what brought him now to stick fixtures within the taxable items, with the infinite, very considerable difficulty it creates. Does he intend to delineate what he means by fixtures? He knows the difficulties in law trying to define what a fixture is or is not. Is a television aerial a fixture, for instance? It is a very moot and tricky question and I would suspect that he will have to spell that out a bit.

If he is going to give this largesse to the big manufacturers of the province, who are all multinational corporations and couldn’t care about his wretched money anyhow, except just to add to corporate dividends and to send it out to people living somewhere else, in some other parts of the world, then at least he might have confined it to the type of manufacturing in this country and kept it -- tried to stimulate the economy within the perimeters of our own geographical areas. But he hasn’t seen fit to do that.

The one other thing I wanted to mention to you, Mr. Speaker, is that it seems to me that somewhere in his budget papers he mentioned telephone rates or a number of things having to do with telephone service that were caught in the legislation -- I just haven’t detected it -- and I would be pleased to learn what his position was on that.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kitchener-Waterloo.

Mr. E. R. Good (Waterloo North): North.

Mr. Speaker: Waterloo North.

Mr. Good: I am compelled to say a few words, Mr. Speaker, and I suppose one could take this opportunity to make almost a budget speech with this tax. But the remarks of the member for Lakeshore surely indicate that the NDP have no place to stand, other than to oppose just for the sake of opposing.

Mr. G. Nixon: Right on, right on.

Mr. Good: Any party that opposes a bill that reduces the most regressive form of tax we have had, from seven to five per cent, surely is left with no place to stand whatsoever -- just opposing for the sake of opposing.

Mr. Lawlor: He will do anything for a buck or a vote.

Mr. Good: Now, Mr. Speaker, I have spoken in this chamber on several occasions in the last several years completely condemning the fact that the largest single source of revenue in this province has been the retail sales tax.

As far as I am concerned, it is absolutely unacceptable that this government should have raised more money by sales tax in the last two years than by any other source. And this is shown very clearly in the budget papers. Last year, 19.3 per cent of the budget was raised by retail sales tax. The year before that it was 19.2, and personal income tax raised only 18.3 and 18.1 per cent, respectively. So, certainly this move had to come.

Any government which will continue to use a regressive tax when there are more progressive taxes open to a government, such as the income and corporation taxes has certainly got its priorities mixed when it comes to methods to raise money.

I am glad to see this reduction from seven to five per cent but there is no way this can be interpreted as a genuine method of revamping the government’s currency programmes and its methods of raising money when one sees that it is proposing to do this only until the end of this year. This, Mr. Speaker, is an entirely unacceptable situation but the way this matter has to be attacked is to approve the principle of the reduction, which is right, but amend the bill to such an extent that this will not be constricted to a definite termination in time.

There is nothing available at the present time from economists, nothing generally considered in the whole economic outlook to show that this so-called upturn the Treasurer spoke of is going to come in the fall. He knows as well as I know, as well as everybody here knows, that our economy does have a lag reaction to that of the USA. While we are slower going into the recession we will be slower in pulling out. The indications across the line are that this so-called recession is going to continue past this fall. There should be no inclination by the government to restrict the reduction of sales tax to the short period from now until the end of the year.

The reduction time limit has been a complete giveaway on their part. It has given away the fact that they are openly and blatantly being political with the provincial budget and with the money of the people of Ontario. It is absolutely nothing more than bold, bald politics that they would introduce this measure and limit the time period from now until the end of the year. It’s almost disgusting and the people of Ontario are going to realize that this is what is happening.

Mr. Lawlor: We thought it was so disgusting we will vote against it.

An hon. member: Crepe hanger.

Mr. Good: Mr. Speaker, the minister has indicated on previous occasions that the sales tax isn’t that regressive, because we have the great sales tax reduction refund which we get on our income tax. As far as I am concerned that is pure misnomer as well because the refund given there has no bearing on either the amount of sales tax paid by the individual or in his ability to pay but it is tied to his or her personal exemptions which have no relationship to the sales tax whatsoever. Mr. Speaker, this government just can’t continue to fool the people indefinitely, and the time has come this year, in 1975 --

Mr. G. Nixon: The member is doubletalking.

Mr. Good: -- when the people are finally waking up to what it is doing. It brings in a measure and we know why the Tories are doing it. The measure is good but there’s no way they’re going to get away with this, terminate it at the end of the year and expect to be re-elected.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Nickel Belt.

Mr. F. Laughren (Nickel Belt): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If I could respond briefly to the previous speaker, I assure him we are not opposing this bill for the purpose of finding something to oppose.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s not what the member for Lakeshore said.

Mr. Laughren: When one is debating in this chamber against this government there is no shortage of reasons to oppose its legislation. It’s beyond me how the Liberal Party --

Mr. Speaker: It is not customary that you respond to the speaker. You talk to the principle of Bill 30.

Mr. Laughren: If I could talk to you for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I say when we oppose this bill and other elements of the budget, which we intend to do, it will not be because we are looking for room to stand on or that we are looking for a difference between us and the Conservative Party in Ontario. It’s because we have never seen before a budget which was so saturated with political, social and economic hypocrisy.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He is a cynic, a political cynic.

Mr. Laughren: To support a clause in a bill because it lowers the sales tax from seven per cent to five per cent for about nine months is surely not a principle position which we could possibly live with. Mr. Speaker, if this bill lowered the sales tax to zero we would support it; if it lowered the sales tax to five per cent indefinitely we would support it; but we refuse to be part of game-playing with the Ontario economy that reduces the sales tax for a nine-month period.

Mr. M. C. Germa (Sudbury): It is the people’s money.

Mr. Laughren: And I don’t know, Mr. Speaker, how the Minister of Revenue is going to justify to the Ontario people that there is going to be an upturn in the economy this fall particularly, as my colleague from Lakeshore pointed out, when they knew full well before going to Ottawa that there was going to be an increase in the price of oil. We know that. We knew that beforehand, the Treasurer knew it beforehand, and he still goes through this charade of drawing up a budget on the premise that it is not going to happen. Nothing could be more ridiculous.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Why should they have a conference in Ottawa?

An hon. member: The member knows why.

Mr. G. Nixon: Why waste their time going there, if they’ve got all the answers?

Mr. T. A. Wardle (Beaches-Woodbine): To hold down the price of oil and gas.

Mr. Laughren: Well, he went down there to get his orders, that’s what he went down there for.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Why are all the Premiers down there?

Mr. Laughren: He went down there to see if they could get a consensus but he knew when he went he wasn’t going to get it. The member knows and I know that that price was going to be increased.

An hon. member: He went to find an election issue; that’s all he wanted.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, if the government was really interested in stimulating the economy it would not be using this kind of short-sighted methods. If they would listen to the Economic Council of Canada, if they would listen to the Science Council of Canada, they would tell this government -- they have been trying to tell governments in Canada -- that there is a way in which the economy of this province and this country can be stimulated in the long run, but it is not through short-term fiscal policies such as this.

Mr. Lawlor: Listen to the electrical workers.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We need jobs now.

An hon. member: What is the government going to do in January?

Mr. Laughren: I would like to know, Mr. Speaker, where these jobs are coming from in this budget.

An hon. member: They have all the experts.

Mr. Laughren: Is the government suggesting that reducing the sales tax from seven to five per cent might work creating jobs?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It might help.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, we wish to make it perfectly clear that we are in favour of a reduction in the provincial sales tax. We are not in favour, however, of reducing the provincial sales tax for nine months only and using a short-term reduction for --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He would rather have no reduction. He would rather have no reduction at all.

Mr. Laughren: -- for a short-term political gain.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, another aspect of this bill which turns our minds to glue --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s easy for those fellows. They are a tacky bunch.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, surely that’s a remark that should be withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I didn’t hear what the remark was. What was it?

Mr. Laughren: I would rather not repeat it.

Mr. Speaker, the part of the bill which allows an exemption from provincial tax for production machinery and equipment was trumpeted by the Treasurer as an aspect of the budget that would aid northern Ontario, that would be an asset to the people in northern Ontario and would stimulate jobs and investment in the north. I sure wish that he would give us some historical evidence that this is the case. To date he has none, and he continues to bring forth these kinds of policies.

I would also like to know whether or not it is a fact -- perhaps the Minister of Revenue could, indicate in his response whether or not it is a fact -- that the investment intentions of the private sector on which the estimate of how much this would cost the province were based on already stated intentions of investment by the private sector to Statistics Canada? If not, where did he get that figure of the investment intentions of the private sector? We don’t know how he came up with this figure, because we suspect that those intentions are already in effect and that that investment is going to occur, whether or not there is an exemption. Surely that is clear. All he is really doing is saying, “Well, you are going to spend that money anyway, but here we will give you a little bit of a perk to help you along this year.’

As far as stimulation of jobs in the north is concerned, Mr. Speaker, I would hazard a guess that what has occurred in recent years in northern Ontario will continue to occur and that’s a reduction in employment -- unless you are looking at an expansion of a particular facility, such as Texasgulf at Timmins. If you look at the employment in the mining industry or in the lumbering industry over the last 10 years you will find an absolute reduction in the number of people employed.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They can’t get workers.

Mr. Laughren: They can’t get workers?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They have been looking for workers in the mining industry from other provinces.

Mr. Laughren: Mr. Speaker, I accept your admonishment not to respond to interjections and so forth. But I really must say to you, Mr. Speaker, that there is a high rate of unemployment in northern Ontario and you need only check with the local unemployment insurance and Manpower offices in the north to know that there are lots of people unemployed. It’s not a case of not being able to get people for jobs.

If I could just point out to the hon. member, Mr. Speaker, that when I was in Timmins about a month ago I was in a cab from the airport and heard a newscast that said Texasgulf couldn’t find workers for the smelter in Timmins. I asked the cab driver, “What is this, not being able to get workers in Timmins? Is there really nobody unemployed in Timmins?” He replied, “I want to tell you something. I’ve had my name in at Texasgulf for six months and they haven’t even bothered to call me.”

So the mining industry has a vested interest in spreading this myth across Canada, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Does the member get all his information from cab drivers?

Mr. G. Samis (Stormont): A good source.

Mr. Laughren: Before we reply to the budget, I hope that the member for Prince Edward-Lennox will be here, because I intend to deal with that issue in more detail.

I would like to know as well, Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Revenue has any assurances from the private sector that this exemption on machinery or production equipment will not cause a further capitalization in the industry. We know that in the mining industry, as an example, that the tons of ore produced each year goes up very dramatically and the value of the ore goes up even more dramatically. At the same time, the number of people employed in the industry either remains stable or goes down. So we’re really seeing capitalization of the industry and this kind of exemption encourages that, not the increase in jobs in the industry. So, Mr. Speaker, you can see why we’re very concerned about this bill.

When we get to the part of the bill about compensation of retailers, we support that and we think that’s fine. I don’t feel very strongly either way on that. All businesses have certain costs of carrying out that business. If the Treasurer sees that as necessary to retain the support of small business in election year 1975, then I suppose we won’t quarrel with him too much on that.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say to you that we have never before seen the kind of desperation budget like the one that the Treasurer brought in the other night and for that reason we shall oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for --

Mr. J. Dukszta (Parkdale): I was first.

Mr. Wardle: Beaches-Woodbine.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Parkdale will have to alternate between different parties.

Mr. Wardle: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a word or two on a particular aspect of the budget, and that is the reduction of the sales tax from seven per cent to five per cent.

An hon. member: A nice round figure.

Mr. Wardle: I know, Mr. Speaker, that the small businessmen will appreciate very much the opportunity to now recover at least some of their costs in collecting this tax. I think the $500, as far as a large corporation is concerned, will only go a very small way in their remuneration. But as far as the corner store is concerned, and the small businessman, I know that he spends several hours each month, or each quarter, preparing his tax return.

Mr. J. E. Stokes (Thunder Bay): Why don’t they take it away from him, then?

Mr. Wardle: This is often done in the evening, or odd hours, or over the weekend when his store is closed. I think it was in the last budget address that I mentioned the fact that we did have many presentations from small businessmen and organizations asking that they at least receive some remuneration for the time spent on this effort. So, Mr. Speaker, I do welcome this particular aspect of this bill.

Secondly, I think it’s a forward step and a stimulus to the economy that all the provincial sales tax will be removed on production machinery and equipment.

I know that many businessmen who are considering expanding and replacing old equipment have hesitated until this date, mainly because of the economic climate now prevailing not only in Ontario but throughout this country and indeed throughout the world. But I do hope and expect that this gesture of removing the tax will be the stimulus that will encourage people in the manufacturing business to go out now and buy the equipment, which will of course provide necessary jobs.

Third, Mr. Speaker, I hope that the reduction from seven to five per cent, albeit it is presently planned until the end of this year, will be a stimulus to the purchasing power in the province. While it is only two per cent, often on large purchases such as a motor car and household equipment I think this could make a difference. I know the people in my particular riding welcome the fact that production equipment purchases will help the economy and either provide more jobs or at least hold the jobs we have, which is very important.

Mr. I. Deans (Wentworth): That’s nonsense.

Mr. Lawlor: He hasn’t a simulacrum of evidence for that.

Mr. Stokes: It didn’t do it the last time.

Mr. Wardle: The small merchants in my area welcome the fact that they will have at least some small remuneration for the collection of the tax.

Fourth, I know the people in my riding and throughout this province welcome the fact that the tax has been reduced from seven to five per cent. This is a forward step, Mr. Speaker, and I would hope that all members of this House will support this bill.

Mr. Lawlor: It’s a kind of a stumble.

Mr. Wardle: I don’t know how the members of the official opposition and the NDP could ever put themselves in a position of opposing a bill that would help the people of this province.

An hon. member: They want a full reduction.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale.

Mr. Dukszta: Mr. Speaker, the member for Waterloo North has done a superb job of apologizing for the government and for the capitalist system. The Liberals should actually recognize that ideologically they are in the same camp as the Tories and they should always vote together and, in fact, join together, since they only differ in detail.

We are opposing this bill and I’m personally joining in opposing this bill for three reasons: 1. That the whole sales tax is extremely regressive. It hits only the poor; 2. There should be no sales tax. Most of the revenue should be raised from a graduated income tax. I despise the way this sales tax has been reduced, giving a few shoddy goodies for nine months for purposes of the election; 3. It also fails lamentably in dealing at all with unemployment and with the oncoming recession. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville.

Mr. B. Newman (Windsor-Walkerville): Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I intend to make a few comments on this bill. The previous speakers made mention that we in the official opposition are supporting the principle of the bill. That’s true. We are supporting the principle of the reduction of the tax from seven to five per cent. Anyone who would refuse to support that type of a principle certainly must have his priorities mixed up.

We would have preferred to have seen the sales tax completely eliminated, but that isn’t the bill before us. The bill before us is to reduce it from seven to five per cent and that’s what we are going to support; the reduction from seven to five. Personally I would prefer not to have a sales tax, because I think, just as the member who spoke before me, that sales tax is the most regressive type of taxation.

Mr. Lawlor: Condemn it.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. B. Newman: I would prefer to see taxes always pegged according to ability to pay, but that isn’t what the bill says.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. B. Newman: The bill is designed to reduce taxes, so we are going to have to vote on what the bill says and not on what it doesn’t say.

Mr. Speaker, one of the things that does disturb me is the minister having this bill effective only for a nine-month period. That tells the average individual something. It tells the average individual that this is strictly a political manoeuvre and nothing else. If the minister were sincere concerning the reduction of the sales tax, he should have simply eliminated any date on that and removed the sales tax completely or reduced it from seven to five. The nine months’ period is completely unacceptable.

Mr. Deans: Vote against it.

Mr. B. Newman: One of the areas in which I am pleased to see the elimination of the tax is in relation to production machinery.

Mr. Samis: Here we go.

Mr. M. Gaunt Huron-Bruce): The Federation of Labour wanted that.

Mr. B. Newman: Back on Nov. 4, 1969, when the government imposed the five per cent sales tax on production machinery I very strongly objected to it. I presented my objections in the House by letters from all types of industry, both large and small, in my community. They were not necessarily multinational corporations but small two-man machine shops in the tool and die and jig and fixture business in the community.

Mr. F. Young (Yorkview): They want it off all the time. They want it off for ever.

Mr. B. Newman: At that time, Mr. Speaker, the minister of the day (Mr. White) pointed out emphatically that the imposition of a sales tax on production machinery has no effect at all. It doesn’t increase costs. It doesn’t have any detrimental effect in the manufacturing process. All of a sudden, from Nov. 4, 1969, to April 10, 1975, this government has flip-flopped.

It has seen the opposite now. It realizes the mistake it made at that time and now it is withdrawing the tax on production machinery. I am pleased to see that, because when I look in my own community and see the Chrysler Co. putting up a new truck plant, which will probably provide another 1,000 jobs, and seeing so many unemployed as a result of the downturn of the economy, I hope that will enable them at least to provide extra jobs in the community.

Mr. Laughren: I’ll believe that when I see it.

Mr. B. Newman: That’s all right for some of those fellows who wouldn’t believe anything.

Mr. Laughren: This will be good for GM -- is that what the member is saying?

Mr. B. Newman: In this past year the Chrysler Co., from what I understand, and Ford, especially on the US level, have had extremely unsatisfactory profit pictures. The only one of the big three, I understand, that did show any margin of profit was GM. Surely if they are not going to thrive in the community, there won t be 16,000 unemployed in the city of Windsor --

Mr. Laughren: What’s good for GM is good for Canada.

Mr. B. Newman: -- there might be 30,000 unemployed. Let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, my colleagues on the left certainly wouldn’t want to see that in any community in the province.

If by the elimination of the sales tax on production machinery, we can provide additional jobs in the manufacturing industry throughout the province, speaking from a very parochial point of view, for the city of Windsor, I welcome it. I wonder why it took this government so long to realize the mistake it made when it first imposed the sales tax. Thank you.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this bill. It certainly is a reasonable response to a current economic situation. There’s no question about that.

Mr. Laughren: Sure.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It’s all right for the NDP party --

Mr. Deans: NDP -- not NDP party.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: NDP, right. I understand that much of what they are; there is no question in my mind. No matter how they posture and how they parade, I understand their party and their philosophy.

Mr. Deans: Good. Does the member understand what he is?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: And after hearing their speeches today, it’s even that much more clear, Mr. Speaker --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- what the New Democratic Party stands for.

Mr. Deans: The people of Ontario.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We’ve listened to the double-talk of the New Democrats.

Mr. E. J. Bounsall (Windsor West): No double-talk.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They come here and they oppose a sales tax --

Mr. Samis: We want a permanent reduction.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- on the premise that it is regressive taxation. At the same time they oppose a bill which proposes to reduce that very sales tax. I don’t care how they try to rationalize that. What they are saying, in effect, is that they want to keep the sales tax at seven per cent.

Mr. Lawlor: We are saying to cut it out.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If they think the people of this province --

Mr. Lawlor: Pure Phariseeism. The modern Pharisees; not even up-to-date.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- will go along with anything like that and will interpret the party’s stance in any other way, they are sadly mistaken.

Mr. Lawlor: We object to being hoodwinked.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Lawlor: We are going to tear the veils from your temple of Mammon.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member has the floor. Can we return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Insofar as the Liberal Party is concerned, they again accuse this as being a regressive form of taxation. However, it seems all right for them at the federal level to impose a 12 per cent sales tax, as long as it is masqueraded as an indirect tax so that the people don’t realize what going on. Let’s make it clear. The fact remains --

Mr. Breithaupt: Would his people have taken it off?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- remains that through this legislation the tax is being reduced as a response to the current economic condition. I believe, and this party believes, that the present economic condition is of a temporary nature.

Mr. Lawlor: Oh, he doesn’t believe it at all; he doesn’t believe it at all.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The reduction will be of a temporary nature. The pessimists in opposition preach doom and gloom.

Mr. Lawlor: The government is a pollyanna.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: No doubt the opposition expects the economy to go into a tailspin and remain in a tailspin.

Mr. Lawlor: They are the guys who put the economy in the spot it is in.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We don’t believe that.

Mr. Lawlor: Everything is going to get better. It’s always tomorrow that it gets better.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We’re talking in terms of an upturn toward the end of this year, and that’s the reason for the temporary reduction of these taxes.

Mr. Lawlor: Give us nine months and we’ll --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Furthermore, the NDP is opposed to the little man.

Mr. R. D. Kennedy (Peel South): They don’t care about unemployment over there.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Lennox has the floor.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They don’t care about the small businessman and they have no use for the farmers. It’s obvious. Many of us on this side of the House have advocated that the small businessman be reimbursed for the collection and remission of sales tax.

An hon. member: It was a progressive step.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: All right -- a progressive step. It is implicit in this legislation that the little businessman be reimbursed. It’s provided for here. And who is opposing that? It’s the NDP. And they can fight it anyway they like but that’s what they are doing.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They are opposed to it. They know and I know that there’s a limitation put on of $500, so that the big department stores and the large retailers will not benefit unduly from that payment for collection and remission. Nevertheless, the NDP still opposes --

Mr. O. F. Villeneuve (Glengarry): Sure they do.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- the payment to the little businessman for the collection of that tax.

Insofar as the elimination of the sales tax from production machinery is concerned, there is no question in my mind --

Mr. Laughren: He is misleading the House.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: -- that it is a very forward step in light of today’s economic conditions. You know and I know, Mr. Speaker, that inventories are probably at an all-time low. The manufacturers are putting off the decisions as to whether or not they should expand or whether or not they should produce more, because of the uncertain economic climate. If this will stimulate industry to take steps now to purchase additional machinery, which in turn generates jobs --

Mr. Laughren: It doesn’t matter what they do, this government is done.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If it will further promote and prompt them to manufacture more, to build up inventories, then that’s all good for the economy.

Mr. Germa: And the Tories.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: This is a stimulus to them which manifests not only our optimism as to the upturn toward the end of the year, but also an incentive to them to start now and to get some activity going to generate jobs and a stronger economy.

Mr. Lawlor: Will-o’-the wisps.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is hoped that it will create that remedy; that it will stimulate the economy.

Mr. Deans: He doesn’t believe this, does he?

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We don’t know everything and we don’t profess to know everything. The socialists, with their blueprint for government, with their total plan of destiny, think they are going to rationalize the whole economy and direct it for everyone. Well, they can’t play God in this province or in any other economy in the world, because they don’t know.

Mr. Lawlor: The government has been trying too hard.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We are convinced that with this type of stimulation that we will get this economy going and it’s necessary now, Mr. Speaker. It’s necessary now to take these measures which have been announced in the budget and which are proposed in this legislation to assist in the stimulation of this economy. I’m all for that and let the record show the socialists here who are opposed to a strong provincial economy.

Mr. M. Cassidy (Ottawa Centre): The trained seal strikes again.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Sudbury.

Mr. Germa: Mr. Speaker, a few words on Bill 30, the Retail Sales Tax Act amendment. This bill is an emanation of the budget, which was delivered the other day with so much bombast by our hon. provincial Treasurer. He reminded me of a movie I saw where the Titanic was going down and the captain was on the bridge screaming and yelling. Our provincial Treasurer reminded me of that person.

The whole Conservative Party is on the Titanic. They are going down and they are reacting in a very desperate and reckless fashion with the budget which they have presented. It was a last-ditch attempt to recoup the losses that they have suffered because of the mismanagement of the economy of this province over the past three years. There is no doubt in my mind that the economy is in trouble --

Mr. B. Gilbertson (Algoma): That is what the hon. member said before the last election.

Mr. G. Nixon: But he knows that isn’t right.

Mr. Germa: -- and that the Conservative Party of Ontario has to take the blame for this.

Mr. Speaker: I am wondering if the hon. member would return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Germa: There is no principle in the bill, Mr. Speaker. There is no principle whatsoever attached to this bill.

Mr. G. Nixon: What is the hon. member talking about?

Mr. Germa: It is a piece of crass political cynicism and hypocrisy --

Mr. Lawlor: It is an unprincipled piece of chicanery, that’s what it is.

Mr. Germa: -- trying to use and trying to dupe the people of Ontario --

Mr. Gilbertson: Same old jargon.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member is trying to hoodwink the public.

Mr. Germa: -- into believing that they are going to be their salvation. We are going to go out and we are going to tell the people of Ontario that the gestation period is nine months --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Why doesn’t the member be honest and support the bill?

Mr. Germa: -- and that at the end of nine months the event will happen. They will go back to where they were.

What we are going to try to do, and what I think we can do, is abort this bill at an early stage before it runs its full lifetime, because it is rife political opportunism.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The hon. member wants to abort it.

Mr. Gilbertson: He said he was supporting it.

Mr. Germa: There is no doubt in my mind that they have sucked in the Liberals. The member for Waterloo North was sucking and whistling at the same time -- and that is a very difficult task -- and this is precisely where they have got them. They don’t know where to jump because they are in bed with the Conservatives and they certainly have duped them.

We in the New Democratic Party do welcome a reduction in the retail sales tax.

Mr. Breithaupt: But they are going to vote against it.

Mr. Germa: We believe it is a regressive tax, it should be abolished at the earliest possible moment and this tax should not be used as a gimmick to manipulate people in the Province of Ontario. That is precisely what this government is doing. It is rank political gimmickry of the rankest order.

Mr. G. Nixon: How can the hon. member say that?

Mr. Laughren: The Gallup poll.

Mr. G. Nixon: But we don’t believe that.

Mr. Germa: Another objectionable feature of the bill, Mr. Speaker, is the tax reduction on production machinery. It is supported by the premise that this is in some way going to create employment.

Coming from northern Ontario, where industry is highly capitalized, we know that every time we spend $50,000 we put another man out of work through mechanization, and all this will do, rather than reduce the six per cent unemployment rate we are presently suffering, is increase the unemployment rate.

An hon. member: No, it’s not.

Mr. Germa: What we have to do is put money in the hands of people so that they can purchase goods on a permanent long-term basis, and by terminating this Act Dec. 31, 1975, what we are doing is going to have an economy that no one can plan for.

Mr. Lawlor: Yes, that’s right.

Mr. Germa: Who can adjust themselves to such severe adjustments in the fiscal policy of the government? The government has to have, eventually, some principle to guide itself. It cannot continue forever to manipulate and dupe the people of Ontario.

An. hon. member: We are the thinkers.

Mr. Germa: I am glad that the Gallup poll shows that they have finally caught the Conservatives by the tail and they are going to turf them out. And the sooner the better.

Mr. R. G. Eaton (Middlesex South): Watch his riding.

Hon. E. A. Winkler (Chairman, Management Board of Cabinet): The hon. member is the only fellow who has to worry about that.

An hon. member: Even the Communists are ahead of the Tories up there.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Sudbury has the floor.

Mr. Germa: I also don’t see any reason for paying the retailer three per cent of the tax collected in order for him to collect the tax. This is a cost of doing business. There are certain costs of doing business in the province --

Mr. E. Sargent (Grey-Bruce): Come on, grow up.

Mr. Germa: -- and this should be just accepted as one of the costs. Eaton’s and Simpsons don’t need any of our money. They don’t need any of the taxpayers’ money, and yet here we are going back to where we were a few years ago. This government just doesn’t have any policy. It was only about a year ago --

An hon. member: The hon. member was against it.

Mr. Germa: -- that they hoisted the sales tax from five per cent to seven per cent. Maybe someone will explain to me what was the motivation then, when they hoisted it to seven per cent?

Mr. R. Haggerty (Welland South): It wasn’t an election year.

Mr. Germa: We know, it wasn’t an election year -- but get them to admit it? No. Sheer hypocrisy, that’s exactly what this whole budget is, and this is the centrepiece of their hypocritical Act. I am proud to stand here and tell the public of Ontario that I intend to expose the government as the bunch of hypocrites they are.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Welland South.

Mr. Haggerty: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to add a few comments on Bill 30 and to support the principle of the bill to reduce the sales tax from seven per cent to five per cent.

I suppose when one looks at the budget one could say it’s a cosmetic budget. I recall back before the election of 1971, this same government went to the people, saying there would be no increases in taxes in the election year. Lo and behold, just after the election, the government increased taxes throughout the Province of Ontario and increased the sales tax by some two per cent.

Members on this side and particularly in this party said that before the next provincial election is called the government will remove that sales tax, and it has removed the sales tax. Perhaps it should be reduced lower than that. I quite agree with other members that have spoken that it is a regressive tax and that there are other measures to obtain money through other tax sources in the Province of Ontario.

To say the tax is going to be removed for a nine-month period makes me wonder, talking about a nine-month period, if that budget isn’t going to be aborted some time here in the next couple of months and an election called. We will then see what the government has to offer the people this time.

I think you can fool the people some of the time but not all the time. The public is well aware of the gimmicks that the government is trying to pull off for this: next election. I am sure they have seen through the government and that there will be a change in the government and we will have back a responsible government leading the Province of Ontario once again after some 32 or 35 years of Conservative governments.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Is the member going to vote against the bill?

Mr. Haggerty: I am lost as to why my colleagues to the left will not support the bill in principle. Perhaps if they don’t support it --

Mr. Cassidy: We almost had a responsible government.

Mr. Haggerty: -- they are looking for the seven per cent to remain. I wish to bring to the attention of the minister that I am concerned about the matter of the taxes that will be removed from production machinery. Perhaps some of my colleagues may not agree with me or some other members of the Legislature will not, but I am concerned about where machinery can be produced. If in Canada or in Ontario, then I say the tax should be removed, but if the government is going to allow machinery to be imported, then I suggest to the minister that the tax should still remain.

Mr. B. Newman: Only if that machinery cannot be made in Canada.

Mr. Haggerty: Only if it cannot be manufactured here in Canada and Ontario. For example, if one takes the automobile industry, I think the government should learn a lesson. We have seen them pull out machinery from plants in Ontario and remove it back to the United States, which in a sense creates employment over there. If the machinery is produced here in Canada and in Ontario, we are going to increase employment.

I am aware that there is some machinery that cannot be produced here in Ontario or in Canada, and I could name you a great number of items, Mr. Speaker, but I think we must encourage Canadian manufacturing. That’s the important thing. We are looking for job employment. In the last budget the Treasurer brought in with respect to the tax on production machinery in Ontario, the government said at that time it was going to create some jobs in Ontario and that never came about. Now is it going to create employment today or is it going to reduce it?

When I think particularly of the metric system that is going to be in force here at some time in Canada and Ontario, there are many jobs that can be applied and obtained though production in the metric system here in Ontario. Particularly one can take weigh scales and other measuring machinery to weigh different goods. I think we should encourage the government to induce Canadian manufacturers into production of equipment to capitalize on the metric change here in Ontario.

Sometimes I wonder if we are moving in the right direction on the metric system, when we find our American colleagues to the south are not ready to move in this direction. I think as long as the States are going to remain undecided under the present circumstances, then I think Ontario and Canada should move more cautiously too. When it comes to the metric system, matters of exchange and quantity of goods can be done by calculation. I am thinking particularly of exporting wheat and grain which can be done on the tonnage basis and then changed into metric tons afterwards. I believe these are some of these things we should be looking at.

I’m delighted to see that the minister has taken suggestions by the opposition here to reimburse the small businessmen for the collection of provincial taxes. I think this is a change in the right direction. I think some of these men with small businesses who are out on the street grabbing taxes for the provincial government and receiving no remuneration whatsoever will be pleased.

On those bases, Mr. Speaker, I support the principle of the reduction of the sales tax to five per cent. Like all other members I would like to see it totally removed, but I guess when it comes to a money bill the members of the opposition have very little say. We can’t move an amendment, we can’t do this. So, it’s up to the government at their wish and whim to decide what is best in their interests.

But it will be interesting to see when we go to the people this fall or in this late spring to see just how much the government has fooled the voters of the Province of Ontario. I don’t think they have. As I said before, it’s a cosmetic budget; it’s just nothing but a front.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Stormont.

Mr. Samis: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. Coming from a riding where incomes are not exactly the highest in the province, we welcome any reduction in the sales tax. Like my colleagues in the NDP, and apparently my colleagues in the Liberal Party, I too regard the sales tax as a highly regressive, unfair form of taxation. And what bothers me, Mr. Speaker, is the tremendous reliance government seems to be placing on the sales tax as a prime source of revenue.

I just look at the budgetary figures in the previous years. I notice in 1972-1973 that we got $1.205 billion from personal income tax versus $895 million from retail sales tax. In 1973-1974, Mr. Speaker, personal income tax stays practically the same, whereas our revenue from sales tax increases to $1.315 billion.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Inflation.

Mr. Samis: In 1974-1975, Mr. Speaker, we go up to $1.442 billion from personal income tax, but the sales tax again exceeds the personal income tax at $1.57 billion.

So I think our tax policies need changing, and we need to lower the sales tax -- not just lower it on a nine-month interim basis, Mr. Speaker; I would favour abolition of the sales tax, or a serious attempt towards that. One of the reasons I ran for the New Democratic Party is that we’ve been consistently opposed to the retail sales tax when it was suggested, and when it was increased. We don’t want any temporary measures; we want a permanent reduction if not abolition of the sales tax.

That’s one of the reasons I intend to vote against this bill, Mr. Speaker, because it’s a cheap political gimmick designed to win votes, and on Jan. 1, 1976, we’re increasing taxes; again, that’s going to have its effect on the economy. I’m pleased that the NDP in 1971, 1973 and 1975, in their provincial programme, were against the retail sales tax and for a reduction to four per cent as a first step towards eventual abolition.

I welcome the three per cent rebate to small businessmen, since Cornwall has an abundance of small businessmen.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He’s voting against that, too.

Mr. Samis: I again wonder why it takes an election or a couple of bad Gallup polls for the government to bring in this measure. It’s amazing what a Gallup poll can do, it seems, in an election year. I only wish, whichever party wins, that we make some permanent changes regardless of elections, and that we make these tax changes on an equitable and just basis -- not geared to an election, whether it’s in June or the fall, on a permanent basis, Mr. Speaker.

Ms. J. A. Taylor: It’s not the election, it’s the economy.

An hon. member: The economy!

Mr. Samis: Are they worried about the economy or the Gallup poll?

Interjections by hon. members.

An hon. member: They don’t seem to be worrying about unemployment.

Mr. Samis: Of course they don’t.

Mr. Lawlor: The government members don’t seem to be worrying about an election. The Treasurer of the province did. It’s the only thing he did worry about.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In adding my words of comment to this bill, it’s a “yes, but” position. We have to support it for many reasons.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member for Grey-Bruce will like that conversion.

Mr. Sargent: Today marks the first anniversary of the famous land speculation tax.

An hon. member: Is that right?

Mr. Sargent: A year ago today it was passed into effect, and we know what a mess this has been and what a dismal failure. The Minister of Revenue’s projections were completely, 1,000 per cent wrong -- almost. We are now in an area where we have an informed public in this province, who know exactly what was going on in this performance last budget night.

The history of this man who would save the Conservative Party is one we should look at. When he was last the Treasurer of this province, the auditor brought out a book, 157 pages in length, with hundreds of millions of dollars misappropriated, poorly spent and God knows what else. It was the worst document of any parliament in the history of Canada.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s not right.

Mr. Sargent: This Treasurer -- this is a fact and we can prove it. I will give the member the book and check it off with him.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The Chair fails to see what the comments have to do with the principle of the bill.

Mr. Sargent: Sir, I know you would, but we are talking about this sales tax. He is the man who perpetrated this ridiculous situation.

Mr. T. P. Reid (Rainy River): Remember the energy tax?

Mr. Sargent: This man who is the Treasurer of Ontario -- I wish he were here today; I don’t mind saying what I think to his face, but these are the facts. Everything he has touched he has ruined.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Shame on the member. He is in Ottawa fighting for him now.

Mr. Sargent: He has given us regional government in this Province of Ontario. He was the father of this and we have here today this man --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That has nothing to do with this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member will please return to the principle of the bill.

Mr. Sargent: I am right on target because he is the perpetrator of this bill. The regional government he gave us has cost us a fortune. There is a man named Jack Rettie, the chief administrator in Newmarket. He is making $48,000 a year as the regional government administrator in Newmarket. Here we have Bob Hodgson, the son of the member for York North (Mr. W. Hodgson), making more than his father. He is making $36,000 to $40,000 a year.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. Will the member return to the principle of the bill, the sales tax?

Mr. Sargent: Mr. Speaker, I stand here as a representative of my people to know what is going on in this House. This government is corrupting this province. I will not sit down if I cannot speak my piece. I am a busy man and I don’t come here to waste words with government members.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Sargent: All right, I will talk about the bill. I would have greater respect for the government if it would tell us the truth.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He should have a great deal of respect for it; that is all it does.

Mr. Sargent: As I said before, everyone in this House knows exactly what is going on; everyone in this province knows exactly what is going on, what the government is doing.

Mr. Lawlor: The member for Prince Edward-Lennox doesn’t.

Mr. Sargent: The galling fact is, Mr. Speaker, here is a government rife with corruption, which has squandered us into debt. We have gone $4 billion into debt in the last two years; we are now about $10 billion in debt.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It was a $10 billion budget.

Mr. Sargent: I say to you, sir, no other province of our 10 provinces and no state in the 50 states to the south of us is in such a serious financial position.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh come on.

Mr. Sargent: I was in the States yesterday and the legislature down there is planning to budget for a surplus.

Mr. Eaton: Don’t forget that triple-A rating there.

Mr. Reid: The Tories won’t have it after this budget.

Mr. Lawlor: They lost it yesterday.

Mr. Sargent: I will tell the member what it is going to do.

Mr. Haggerty: They will need more than a triple-A rating to get the money to bail them out.

Mr. Sargent: Every man, woman and child in this province as of now will have a millstone around his neck of $575 from here on. The undermining thing, Mr. Speaker, is that the Treasurer says is they may have to institute new budgetary measures if the oil thing isn’t favourable. God knows what next is coming.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member’s friends in Ottawa can fix that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is what Ottawa is for.

Mr. Sargent: Yes, and they say, “Elect us. Here are all the goodies but after the election we are going to take them back.”

Hon. Mr. Meen: No. We are just being responsible.

Mr. Sargent: I want to tell members that we have this situation, where we have about 125,000 or 200,000 people in this province who are out of work today. We can cure that but not by taking two per cent off the sales tax. The government should take the seven per cent off all building materials, but it’s taking only two per cent off that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What does the member think would happen to the provincial debt if we did that?

Mr. Sargent: I want to tell the minister something. He hasn’t proved himself a very good administrator in his job so he shouldn’t talk too much. If I had him working for me I would fire him. I tell him that.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The feeling is mutual.

Mr. Sargent: You bet your boots. The sales tax we are talking about hurts the people who can least afford to pay for it.

Mr. J. Root (Wellington-Dufferin): Like the tourist. He wants them to ride free.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Except the member for Grey-Bruce.

Mr. Sargent: The fact is that we have here in this province the richest province in Canada in assets and in natural resources, yet Alberta and British Columbia are debt-free and budget for surplus. Yet the Treasurer of Ontario has the audacity to say to people, “We want to increase the debt to $1.6 billion this year.” Plainly this is deficit financing, although it’s against the law for any municipality to budget for a surplus. The municipalities are told they cannot have any capital spending programmes, yet we say we’re going to spend $1.6 billion to retain the right to control the money flow in Ontario for the establishment.

I said today to the Minister of Housing (Mr. Irvine) that the $100 million we gave to Syncrude and the multinational oil corporations, who need this money like a hole in the head, would finance a crash programme in housing.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is an investment. The member knows that.

Mr. Sargent: It’s an equity investment, yes; but why can’t we have an investment in people? A few weeks ago, Mr. Meany of the AFL-CIO was talking about the need for a crash programme in housing. He said: “What we need in this country is three per cent mortgage money to put the housing business into operation, because when housing is healthy everything is going great.”

Afterwards, reporters said to him: “Mr. Meany, you must be off your rocker to suggest three per cent money.” His reply to them was: “I don’t know. We’ve giving billions of dollars to the Russians under the Marshall Plan. Why in hell can’t we give three per cent money to the Americans to put our economy back on track?”

I say to the minister, or whoever is in charge, why can’t we put the economy of Ontario back on track by giving us thee per cent or six per cent money? God knows, we’ve got the money. The government is throwing it around like a drunken sailor.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If we do that we’ll have a bigger deficit.

Mr. Sargent: I’m not talking about bigger debt --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We would have to run up a bigger deficit.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. The hon. member for Grey-Bruce has the floor.

Mr. Sargent: I’m not doing a very good job.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: At least he is honest.

Mr. Sargent: I want to say that we will support this, but -- and in the eyes of the people of Ontario it is a big “but” -- honest to God, as I listened to the Treasurer the other night, I thought I could book him for two weeks in my night club. He’s the greatest comedian I have ever seen. He must be a comedian if he thinks the people of Ontario will buy his song and dance about going to the bank to borrow $1.6 billion to buy the election from them. It’s like going to a finance company to borrow money to shoot craps with. That’s what it amounts to. And the minister has the audacity to ask us to believe that this government are good legislators.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The best.

Mr. Sargent: I think it verges on corruption, and they should be damned well ashamed of themselves. Thank you very much.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Windsor West.

Mr. Bounsall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. This Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, as far as I can see, only involves three main principles. One is the temporary reduction of the retail sales tax from seven to five per cent for this very short nine- month period only. We support a permanent reduction of that sales tax to five per cent as the first step to eliminating that sales tax completely. It’s a very regressive tax.

An hon. member: We’ll take five per cent as a start.

Mr. Bounsall: We support the permanent reduction of that sales tax and in principle we cannot tolerate a change which is not a permanent one. We are against this part of the bill because it is not a permanent change --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Everything must be inscribed in stone?

Mr. Bounsall: -- because it is not a permanent reduction, and because it is not larger. We support a reduction, but we cannot tolerate or stomach a reduction that is not permanent.

If you want to take a look at the effects of this, I suspect that in the case of large purchases like a car, it might make a difference. When you’re talking about a saving of $80 to $100 as a result of this reduction, it may cause someone to buy a car when otherwise they wouldn’t buy a car. But it’s not sufficient in the case of appliances, for example, to really cause anyone else to go out and borrow money in order to make those purchases in this particular year.

Unless you’re dealing with very large purchases this interim purchase really does not have that much effect. But for those families who think it’s going to have an effect and go out and borrow money at 12 per cent in order to save two per cent on the purchase price -- that’s going to occur, say, perhaps this fall as the termination date looms. Anything that’s going to be bought next winter is going to be bought in the fall. What is going to happen to the economy of Ontario in the months of January, February and March next year when nothing is purchased except the bare necessities?

Look ahead to the economic situation for the early months of the next calendar year and one can predict disaster and widespread layoffs as no one purchases appliances, furniture or anything else except the bare necessities of life on which to survive. That’s what this sort of temporary reduction brings about, a tremendous valley in terms of purchasing and a tremendous valley in employment in this province. We support a permanent reduction and we cannot tolerate anything less.

The second principle involved, Mr. Speaker, as I see it, is the elimination of the sales tax on production material. If the sales tax was eliminated right across the board with this budget, then we would support that. We wouldn’t say that it should be retained on production material and equipment and production machinery. But looking at this as being the one exception, the one set of items that has been taken out and reduced completely, this is a disaster as far as I can see it.

I looked in vain in this budget for anything which would encourage employment in this province. This is a measure that works against employment. When this tax did not pertain, the government could not produce one single shred of evidence that a job was created because of this tax not being imposed before. This was the argument it always made at that time about the encouragement of employment by it.

Various ministers got up and made a big hullabaloo about this being a measure to encourage employment. Not one job could be pointed to or produced as a result of this tax having been off production machinery. In fact, it works in reverse.

If even this budget had contained the statement that in this area the government would take the tax off production machinery manufactured in Ontario or Canada, we might have felt differently on it. Eighty per cent of the production machinery that’s covered under this Act and that completely has the sales tax reduced on it is imported into this country and is not produced here. So this is, in fact, a measure which encourages -- importation into Ontario, mainly from other countries -- not other provinces. We are the leading production province in Canada by a long way. It means it’s encouraging the importation into Canada of production machinery. Insofar as there is an employment incentive here, it’s to companies outside Ontario, not to ones in Ontario, to produce production machinery. It does not encourage a company to expand to produce production machinery. If it was for production machinery produced in Ontario, we might look at this differently.

An hon. member: A lot of it is.

Mr. Bounsall: Only 20 per cent of the production machinery used in Ontario is produced in Ontario, and it’s no encouragement to any company in Ontario to get into the production of machinery.

Thirdly, it works against the encouragement of employment. Where we do have an employer who is encouraged by the fact of no sales tax on production machinery perhaps to buy production machinery and expand it, it tends to be in machinery that is in the way of increasing automation within the plant. Where this does act as a slight incentive -- and I don’t think that it really acts as very much of an incentive to any company -- it’s going to encourage them to automate and create more unemployment, not less. in that sense, it acts against the employment situation of our work force in the Province of Ontario.

The last point that I’d like to make on this sales tax reduction on production machinery is that in point of fact it really isn’t enough to encourage companies to buy new machinery. All that happens is that this shows up in an increased and enhanced profit picture for the company.

By this measure what in essence the government has done is it has not encouraged employment. Where it has anything to do with employment it has created more unemployment. What it has done with funds is to add it to the profit side of the balance sheets of the companies in the Province of Ontario. It is another corporate handout --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Nonsense!

Mr. Bounsall: -- with a negative effect on employment. There is no way, Mr. Speaker, that we can support this particular bill that contains that type of provision in it.

The third area of principle in the bill is the one -- and it’s a very small area -- of allowing sales tax collectors to retain three per cent of that amount which they collect up to a maximum of $500. If this was all the bill was about, we could support this bill.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member is equivocating.

Mr. Bounsall: As far as I can calculate it very quickly here, this really means about $17,000 worth of tax, roughly corresponding to $340,000 worth of sales. From the way I can determine this, we are talking about the person who just sort of reaches that in sales. Across the province, this would be a small two- to four-person operation. We would support their being able to recover their costs by that maximum of $500.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: He won’t though. He won’t support it.

Mr. Bounsall: In a big corporation like Eaton’s, I suppose this corresponds only to two or three weeks of sales in the course of the year. I’m not sure. And we certainly don’t want to make that handout to Eaton’s.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: How many opinions do they have in that party?

Mr. Bounsall: If that was a separate section of the bill, we could support that.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Political posturing:

Mr. Bounsall: But the government puts that measure against the temporary reduction of sales tax only. It is a blatantly, cynical, hypocritical measure brought in simply because it’s an election year --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That’s the member’s party’s position he is talking about.

Mr. Bounsall: -- hoping that the people of Ontario won’t really think ahead to Dec. 31 and know it’s coming off. We’ll make sure that they do. This is very cynical --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Oh, yes, and we’ll make sure they know the member voted against it too.

Mr. Bounsall: -- short-term reduction. The member for Prince Edward-Lennox might at the same time, if he is being honest, make it very clear why we are voting against it, which is because it is not a permanent reduction.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: That is a lot of double-talk, that is.

Mr. Bounsall: We are against a short-term reduction.

An hon. member: It is straight talk.

Mr. Bounsall: To repeat again for his edification, our party programme states and calls for at the moment an immediate reduction to four per cent as the first step in completely eliminating sales tax.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: They don’t believe in a compromise.

Mr. Bounsall: That is party policy. There can be no compromise in this because of the effects it’s going to have on employment and sales in the first few months of the year 1976. What concerns me is when unemployment rises and sales plummet.

Lastly, putting this small measure we could support of rebates to the collectors of the sales tax against the unemployment-producing measure of the sales tax on production machinery, there is no way we can vote in total for the bill. I feel, Mr. Speaker, that it is a great shame the government couldn’t have simply reduced the sales tax from seven to five and make it permanent, so that we could vote for this bill, and left production machinery untouched as a separate item. The two measures it has taken, the temporary nature of the sales tax reduction and the separating out of the production machinery, in our view creates unemployment and leaves us no alternative but to oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: If the member doesn’t believe in the sales tax, why does he not support its reduction?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkview.

Mr. Young: Mr. Speaker, in looking at this budget and this bill, I can only think of that old game that used to be played and still is in our fairs and exhibitions -- the shell game.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: We have heard this speech before.

Mr. Young: Now you see it and now you don’t. The government stands around that table with the little shells on the table and asks the people to look at this reduction from seven to five per cent. They hope that they will rivet their eyes on that reduction. They say to them, “Now keep looking boys, and while you are looking, get a Tory vote into the ballot box.” As soon as the Tory vote is in the ballot box, something happens.

Mr. Gilbertson: Does the member think the people of Ontario are so stupid as to buy something like that? They are smarter than that.

Mr. Young: While they saw it before, the thing is pulled away; now you see it and now you don’t.

Mr. Deans: It isn’t what we think they are; it’s what the government thinks they are.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Mr. Young: What they’re trying to do is to get public attention focused on the two per cent reduction hoping that they’re going to vote for the Tories and then suddenly they’re going to yank it away after the vote is in the ballot box.

Mr. Gilbertson: He is trying to make out that the people in Ontario are stupid; they are not.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It is honest.

Mr. Young: That’s what they’re doing. It’s just as cynical as that.

There is another cynical thing about this. There is no question that the government had to face up to an election and had to face up to campaign funds and support from the business world, and even though had they refused to give this reduction in production machinery tax before this time, now they make up their minds they’re going to give it. It will mean a lot in the business world and so, all right, they decide they’re going to give it, and they quite realize that we in the NDP will be against that kind of a philosophy. I can see the wise men in the situation saying, “Now if we just combine the reduction of the sales tax” -- a temporary reduction -- “with this, then it will give a chance for the member for Prince Edward-Lennox to scream, ‘You’re voting against the sales tax’.” That’s what happened. He’s done it. And I can see the speech writers and I can see the writers of the ads on television and newspapers screaming, “The New Democrats voted against the sales tax reduction.” Sure, because this government sees fit to combine a handout to the business world with a tiny temporary handout to the people of Ontario, and if you can get more cynical than that, let me know about it.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: Don’t believe that.

Mr. Young: It’s not been very many months ago that I asked the Premier and the Treasurer how soon they were going to lower the sales tax from seven to five per cent. The Premier said, “Well, we’ll make an announcement, if we’re going to, in good time,” or words to that effect. In other words, he refused at that time to commit himself.

I also asked, on a couple of occasions, whether this government would consider raising the minimum upon which the tax is paid from 20 cents to something near 40 cents, because I think we all recognize this fact, that many things which were free and exempt from the sales tax when the sales tax was first put into effect, or even two or three years ago, are now coming under the tax. Simple things like chocolate bars, like pop and all kinds of little things that children and others were buying and which were not subject to the tax a few years ago, are now under that level. So my argument with the Premier and the Treasurer was that we should be thinking in terms of raising that 20 cents to something like 40 cents; it would have to be worked out in terms of how best it could be administered. But that is not in the bill as it should be, because --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member wouldn’t vote for it anyway.

Mr. Young: Let me say this, Mr. Speaker, when I hear this kind of -- well, I won’t say it -- this kind of interruption in parliament --

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member for Lakeshore said the NDP were going to oppose it and that’s what they are doing.

Mr. Young: When it comes to the voting, clause by clause, this party will agree to the things upon which we agree in this bill --

Mr. Cassidy: That’s right.

Mr. Young: -- and we will disagree with those things with which we do not agree. But we’re not going to be caught in the trap, which has been laid for us by the minister, of incorporating contradictory things in this bill and making a fundamental thing of giving away to the business world largesse from the Treasury of Ontario and something far less for the people of Ontario on a temporary basis.

Mr. Laughren: Shoddy politics.

Mr. Young: We are just not going to be caught in that trap, Mr. Speaker. I can see in the future more of the kinds of interjections we heard from the member for Prince Edward-Lennox, about us voting against the sales tax. That kind of thing is not only dishonest, he knows it isn’t true.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: The member stood up and said he was going to vote against it.

Mr. Laughren: He is deliberately misleading the House.

Mr. Young: So, Mr. Speaker, we cannot support this omnibus bill in its present form. Pull that bill apart and give us these particular items that we have talked about; the small businessman, the payment for his business, too.

Mr. Cassidy: Let them try it and see what we do.

Mr. Young: Lowering the sales tax on a permanent basis --

Interjection by hon. member.

Mr. J. A. Taylor: It is temporary, too.

Mr. Young: -- or even on a temporary basis if necessary if they are going to put it in a separate bill. We are not going to be hoodwinked into voting for the pouring out of the largesse from the public treasury to the business world with the hope they are going to buy production machinery, which, it has already been pointed out, will be bought in large measure outside this country and provide employment for making it there. Then, when it comes into Canada, it will be automation which means simply less work for the people of this Province of Ontario.

We are not going to be caught in this kind of a trap and so we are going to vote against this omnibus bill here today.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Rainy River.

Mr. Reid: Mr. Speaker, like the last couple of speakers, I will keep my remarks very brief.

I, too, am concerned with some of the provisions of the bill. Having taken into account last year’s budget and this year’s budget sometimes I wonder, having been trained or taken some courses in economics, whether the government really understands what it is doing when it is playing around with the sales tax.

For instance, I recall when it raised the tax from five per cent to seven per cent it seemed to come as quite a shock to the member for London South (Mr. White), -- who, I believe, brought the increase in -- that tax was inflationary and that it was adding to the inflation we had in the province. That is a simple tenet that anyone who has had any study in basic economics would understand. It makes one wonder if the government really knows what it is doing and what impact its taxes are actually having on the Province of Ontario.

The sales tax, I believe, brings in the second or third largest amount of money to the government coffers and it was obviously imposed for those reasons.

Mr. Stokes: The largest by far.

Mr. Reid: The largest? I am sorry, it’s $1.4 billion, is it?

Mr. Stokes: It’s $300 million for each percentage point.

Mr. Reid: Right, so it probably has more impact on the economy than any other tax we have.

Now we have the government lowering it. We are certainly not objecting to that. We only question, sir, the motives and the reasons for doing so.

The last part of the last speaker’s address was in regard to production machinery. We haven’t all the details of that programme yet, I understand, on who is going to be eligible and under what guidelines.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, I am sure we’ve been over this before, that the government promised us some years ago -- three years ago, I believe, when it brought in its budget -- that its generosity to the corporate sector was going to bring to Ontario some 300,000 jobs or more. The government never was able to substantiate that. I would like to know if the Minister of Revenue has any figures he can show us today which will substantiate that a tax cut of this kind to industry will bring the kind of benefits by way of employment that the Treasurer has suggested.

The questions obviously are: Would those plans have gone forward in any case? Do companies and industries plan ahead on a five-year or 10-year term? Is the government doing anything other than putting more corporate profits in their pockets?

In other words, can the minister prove to the Legislature and the people of Ontario that what some would call this largesse to the companies has a direct cost-benefit relationship -- a cost to the province in lost taxation and revenue and a benefit to the people of the province in that employment actually will go up and jobs will be created, and that they can be attributed directly to the removal of the tax on production machinery?

The points have already been made. Will it be a direct benefit in that this machinery will be produced directly in Canada and therefore create jobs, primarily in Ontario where the largest manufacturing goals are established? Will it in fact bring benefits that the government suggests wouldn’t otherwise be there if this tax was not removed? I believe it is going to cost us $190 million in the first year of the removal of the tax, but it seems strange that we might not project the tax a year ahead, because those who will put in machinery this year obviously have made those decisions already and must have placed the orders for the machinery last year; therefore they are going to be the recipients of the benefit based on decisions they have already made.

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate the bill hasn’t been broken into three separate bills. Perhaps for neatness or to save the taxpayers’ money, which the government doesn’t always seem to he concerned about, we do find these three principles enshrined in the one bill.

I would be particularly interested if the minister would indicate if the government can prove that the removal of the seven per cent sales tax will lead directly to increased investment in production machinery and therefore to the creation of jobs in the province ol Ontario.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Ottawa Centre.

Mr. Cassidy: I want to make a couple of comments about this bill, Mr. Speaker. I join with my colleagues in questioning the kind of cynicism that led the government to believe that the electors of the Province of Ontario would be duped into believing that a nine-month reduction of sales tax represents any real benefit or will have any real long-term impact on the economy of this province.

It is no coincidence that the tax will go back up to the unreasonable level of seven per cent only months after the anticipated date of the provincial election, which I suppose is probably going to come in the fall.

It seems to us, in addition, that this kind of cheap trick that is being used with the sales tax is all of a piece with the kind of reversals the government has put forward again and again. They backtracked on Krauss-Maffei. They backtracked and finally yielded the point on election expenses. They backtracked on the Hydro inquiry. They backtracked on Bill 274. They backtracked on the energy tax, which was included when the seven per cent sales tax was to be introduced.

It may even be, given the kind of fortunes that the Conservatives are having this year, that some time later in the year they will admit the point we are making and have been making all along, which is that it is wrong to have a sales tax at the level of seven per cent; it is wrong to have such a regressive tax imposed on the people of the Province of Ontario; and it is wrong, when it goes down to five per cent, that that tax will go back up to the seven per cent level at the end of the year.

This is not a measure designed to help people with their budgets. This is not even a measure that will have much impact on consumer spending. What this measure is designed to do is to try to restore the electoral fortunes of the Conservative Party, of the government of Ontario. Mr. Speaker, it will be apparent to the electors that the government can’t buy them with that kind of candy any more; it should stop doing these cheap things and come forward with fundamental policies in order to put the economy in the province on a firm and sound footing.

The second thing I want to say is that this budget, which is able to give $20 million to people who are old or who are on modest incomes, gives $410 million in a payout to large corporations in order, it is said, to encourage their investments. The largest single handout in this particular budget, in an election year, goes to big business, rather than to the taxpayers or the people of the Province of Ontario. That, it seems to me, reflects where the real priorities of the government lie.

Even in an election year, the government cannot separate itself from the fixation that it somehow owes a debt of gratitude to the large corporations that Bill Kelly has been touching, yea these many years, and therefore it must give them this kind of handout. The budget says the money being given to corporations is intended “to encourage investment, to broaden the industrial base and to modernize Ontario’s production facilities.” If we look at that carefully we know, in the first place, that the last time an investment tax credit at the same level as the seven per cent now being given in the form of a sales tax cut was used in Ontario, it didn’t create identifiable jobs. It just didn’t work. When the same measure was used in the United States, they had the same kind of problem. And now, very soon after the termination of that particular programme, we find the United States running with an unemployment rate of 8.5 per cent or nine per cent.

Clearly what happens is that the economic situation is almost isolated from this kind of tax credit. There is no guarantee of any jobs. The investment policies of the large corporations, which will take the lion’s share of this sum, are already set for the period until the end of this year and well on into 1976. The budget takes the position as a matter of philosophy that Ontario has a short-term economic problem. It needs a short, sharp economic boost in order to get things back on the track; not a long boost over five years but a short, sharp boost. But that boost is not going to come in investment plans during the course of this current year because those investment policies are already set.

Is Stelco at Nanticoke really going to accelerate the rate of its construction on Lake Erie? Or will it not be governed mainly by the availability of certain skilled trades, certain kinds of production capacity for specialized equipment and that kind of thing? I would suggest that is the kind of limitation they’re bumping against and not a limitation because of the seven per cent tax that exists right now.

The problem of rising costs has faced every corporation in the economy and every investor in the economy over the last 12 or 18 months. If they are concerned about whether to invest now or to invest later, it was clearly to the advantage of any company to put its money on the line now, to order its equipment now, to start to build now, because of the fact that there have been very rapid cost escalations. The minister is nodding his head.

Moreover, if the Syncrude estimates are accurate -- I doubt it but they certainly reflect something happening out there -- the costs of investment goods have been rising at a rate of maybe 1.5 per cent, two per cent, or even thee or four per cent per month over the course of the last year or the last year and a half.

The government is proposing a seven per cent handout to corporations in order, it says, to try to accelerate these investment intentions. However, if they were going to accelerate they would surely have been putting their money on the line now because otherwise they would face, next month, an increase in cost of three per cent or four per cent; the month after another three per cent or four per cent; and the month after and the month after. Between the period from now to July, the cost of investment goods, at the current rates of inflation, would grow by more than the seven per cent which is provided for in this particular credit.

What this comes to, then, is that the reason business has not been putting its money into capital goods of one sort or another and has not been increasing its investment is because of uncertainty among investors about being able to sell the goods produced by the equipment they are deciding whether or not to install, If there’s not going to be a market it doesn’t matter whether they get a 50 per cent rebate on their investment, and a seven per cent rebate certainly doesn’t have any particular impact at all.

We now have, as everybody admits, a period of inflation which is a cost-push inflation. Costs that were created by excess demand a year or so ago have now turned into increases in costs which are compelling workers to seek more generous settlements or are pushing up the costs of other resources, pushing up the costs of business services and that kind of thing. If costs are pushing up in order to create inflation and people are not investing, it isn’t because they can’t save by investing now, because they obviously can, it is because they have questions about the amount of demand they are going to have.

You have got to ask yourself in addition, Mr. Speaker, what is the stimulus if there were to be any increase in investment intentions as a result of this particular measure. Let’s look at it.

One, there is no guarantee of any jobs.

Two, we think that most of the money will go into profits, as it has done in the past. It is very significant in the budget estimates that the profits will be fairly flat this year, and that’s the area where the Ontario government comes in to bail out its friends.

Three, there is a lot of leakage in any programme which acts directly to subsidize capital investment, because the Swedes and the Germans and the British and the Americans and the Japanese and the Italians provide such a substantial share of the capital goods that are used in this particular province. It is very noble of the Treasurer to try and bail out the British or the American economy -- the Swedes don’t need that much help, thank you very much -- it is very noble, but that’s not the job of the Treasurer of the Province of Ontario. The job of the Treasurer in this province is to ensure that the funds that are used for economic stimulus are used and have an impact right here within the province.

I want to make a suggestion, Mr. Speaker, which flows again directly from the analysis in the budget, about how that $418 million could have been much better used, both to benefit the people of the Province of Ontario and also to benefit the investment sector.

There is a very funny anomaly in the budget, because when the budget comes to talk about the housing sector, it talks about resurgence, it talks about an improved outlook, it hopes for a federal commitment of municipal support, and then it predicts a very disillusioning level of housing starts in the province as a whole.

When you look at the figure of 90,000 starts, that is bad enough; but when you go beyond that, Mr. Speaker, and read the small print in the tables at the back, you find that the government anticipates that non-residential construction in 1975 will rise by about $1 billion, or by 24 per cent. It will be very buoyant. The Royal Bank tower and other such useful contributions to Ontario society will be duplicated and triplicated and quadruplicated by investment in commercial construction, and in other such structures as the CN tower.

Non-residential construction will rise by the biggest increase in Ontario’s history, from $4.2 to $5.2 billion. But when it comes to residential construction, we find that there the picture is even worse than we on this side had feared; and certainly far worse than any kinds of figures that have been proposed by the ministry.

Residential construction is slated to increase by only 10 per cent, from $3 billion to $3.3 billion; that is certainly not a record increase of any measure. In fact, I suspect that the amounts to be spent on residential construction will actually be less than the amount in 1973 -- no, that is not true; it is a bit more.

Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, you have this imbalance where $2 billion more will be spent on non-residential construction than on residential construction, at a time when the housing crisis in Ontario is greater than it has ever been before. If it is correct, and I think it is, that housing construction costs have risen by somewhere between 15 and 25 per cent, then a 10 per cent increase in investment in residential construction means that there will be, in fact, a decline in the real resources that are going into housing in this year, 1975.

No amount of chicanery and no amount of saying it is so by the government can make that picture any different. The government is presiding over a picture in which the real resources going into housing are actually going to decline.

Now, the ministry says that the homeowners’ grant will have an effect on that; but we all know that when you have a temporary measure -- whether it is a sales tax cut or a homeowners’ grant that it is only around for a few months -- that it is only election candy and won’t have any long-term impact, not any long term impact at all.

I want to suggest Mr. Speaker, that rather than having the kind of uncritical adulation for the corporations mirrored by the Premier in Ottawa yesterday and mirrored in the budget where so much money was given to corporations, that we could have seen a very sharp turn around in the housing picture in the province; we could have seen assured investment; we could have seen assured jobs; we could have seen social needs being fulfilled if that $418 million, which is now dedicated to corporations in this bill, were to have been put into housing.

You’re talking about an additional 15,000 to 25,000 housing starts, Mr. Speaker, that could have been funded directly by the province, not counting those that would have been accomplished if the province had found some matching money from the private mortgage sector. This would have been an assured boost to the economy, rather than an assured boost to the profits of the large corporations. It could have been directed to meet social needs which are being so pitifully handled by the housing programmes of the government as they stand right now. And it would have been a heck of a lot more constructive answer to the problems of the province than we’re having in this bill right now.

The crazy thing is, Mr. Speaker, if the government was looking for some election bait, then the possibility of increasing Ontario’s housing investment from the area of $200 million or so to something approaching $1 billion, is being lost. It could have used and seized that opportunity and we would have applauded any attempt by the government to do that, because housing is such a grave social need and such a grave problem at this time.

But we certainly do not applaud a bill which on the one hand gives a bit of candy to the electorate, but tells him that we’re going to go back to the same old regressive tax system come December; but on the other hand guarantees to large corporations that they’re going to have a $400 million increase in their profits over the next few months, thanks to the courtesy of the Treasurer and the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Kent.

Mr. J. P. Spence (Kent): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say a few words on this amendment to the Retail Sales Tax Act. I might say that I was very glad to hear the Treasurer announce the other night in the budget speech that the sales tax would be reduced from seven per cent to five per cent. This is welcome news to spur the economy of this province, but it was very disappointing to hear that it would only last to Dec. 31, 1975, which is about nine months.

Mr. Good: We’re going to amend that.

Mr. Spence: That’s right. I’m glad to hear a colleague in my party say there are going to be changes there at Dec. 31, 1975.

I must say I think this will spur the economy. However, in 1969, when the government here increased the sales tax from five per cent to seven per cent, this party voted against the increase. Now, when they’re only going to reduce it for nine months, it sounds like something I used to hear from the salesmen selling snake oil at country fairs. It looks as if something is just not right by leaving it at five per cent for nine months. It makes me feel that there is something behind this whole thing. I would be more impressed if the government said they would continue the reduction until the economy was back to its normal level.

I don’t know how the government can see the economy being strengthened to carry on in nine months. So I would say, Mr. Speaker, it is very disappointing to see that they’ve limited the time to just nine months. As I listened to the whole budget, it kind of sounded to me as if later the tax might be increased higher than seven per cent.

So, Mr. Speaker, it is something of a disappointment to me that the reduction will only last until Dec. 31, 1975. I was wishing the Treasurer would announce that the reduction would continue until our economy was in the same position that it was a few years ago. So with those few remarks, Mr. Speaker, we’re going to vote for this amendment. The reduction is only for nine months and I’m very disappointed about that; I would like to see the government reconsider its decision on the time limit of Dec. 31, 1975.

Mr. Speaker: Does any other hon. member wish to participate? The member for Thunder Bay.

Mr. Stokes: Mr. Speaker, I don’t want to rehash old ground that has been covered by my colleagues with regard to Bill 30, An Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act, but I wonder why it is that the Conservative Party can’t do something worthwhile for the electorate and just leave it at that.

I recall very specifically that when the former Treasurer increased the retail sales tax from five per cent to seven per cent, we spoke long, and I thought very convincingly, against that increase. Now, when we all know that we are faced with either a June or an October election in the Province of Ontario, we have the government trying to stimulate for a very short term and a very intermediate length of time an unemployment situation and an economic situation that is less than desirable in this province.

I have asked some of the veterans in this Legislature if they have ever known any government, regardless of stripe, to bring in a taxing measure for less than a fiscal year. I’m told that this is indeed a precedent. There has never been a previous occasion when there has been a reduction in a form of taxation for less than a fiscal year.

I even suspect, Mr. Speaker, that if it hadn’t been for the Conservatives in the Province of Ontario having to tip their hands to the opposition about the precise date of a provincial election, they might even have considered making this two per cent reduction in the sales tax effective until the date of the next election. That’s the way it appears to me.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now there’s sense.

Mr. Stokes: I stand here representing people from northern Ontario who really know what effect the retail sales tax has on them. As everybody knows, the retail sales tax is based on the cost of a taxable consumer item, which almost invariably is much higher in the north than it is down here in the south. I find it extremely difficult to stand here and to say I will not vote for the two per cent reduction in the sales tax. I’m not opposing this measure because it reduces the sales tax. I’m not opposed to the two per cent reduction in the sales tax on consumer items as it affects consumers. But this government has the slyness, the foxiness and the uncanny ability to bring in an omnibus bill masqueraded to assist the consumer. The majority of the benefits that accrue to society generally under this Act to amend the Retail Sales Tax Act don’t go to the consumers in the Province of Ontario. It’s been well documented where the majority are going to go. I find it extremely difficult to be standing here and later on opposing a bill that is going to have the effect of reducing the sales tax for nine months for the consumers of the Province of Ontario. I find it extremely difficult, Mr. Speaker, standing here and saying I am going to oppose a piece of legislation that will have the effect of reimbursing in some small measure the thousands of small retail businessmen for their collection and remission of this tax on behalf of the Province of Ontario.

Those two portions of this piece of legislation have a good deal of merit. Had the minister brought in those two amendments, I would have no difficulty at all. I wouldn’t even be on my feet this afternoon. But he is suggesting that it is going to have the effect of getting the economy rolling again.

Then there is the temporary exemption from provincial retail sales tax for production machinery and equipment. In order to get the exemption they are going to have to spend that by -- what is the cut-off date for that particular provision? It’s not Dec. 31, 1975. It runs for 21 months to Jan. 1, 1977. Why didn’t the government do that on behalf of the consumer?

If the government wanted it to have the effect of getting the economy rolling again, why didn’t it give the consumer a break of the same extent, magnitude and duration as it did for those who were going to take advantage of this?

The government is suggesting that the theory behind this tax relief is that it will reduce costs and encourage investment which will in turn create jobs and stimulate investment.

In fact, there is no guarantee that any jobs will be created. What may actually happen is that capital equipment will be substituted for labour, thus decreasing the number of jobs. The minister might stand and say he hopes that it will create jobs. We all know what the effect was when this attempt was made a few years ago. Nobody over there on the government benches could point to one job that was created as a result of this tax measure.

I might have even persuaded myself not to speak against this bill if the government had said it will grant the sales tax reduction where it can be proven that jobs were created. The government does this on the number of loans that it gives out to the Ontario Development Corp., the Eastern Ontario Development Corp. and the Northern Ontario Development Corp. One of the basic criteria used for extending financial assistance to businesses in the Province of Ontario is that it will create X number of jobs the minute the plant opens and an increase in the certain number of jobs over a five-year period. And the government is able to determine with a fair degree of accuracy the number of jobs that will be created immediately and the overall effect over an extended period of time.

Hon. Mr. Mean: EODC.

Mr. Stokes: That’s right. Why didn’t the government apply the same criteria? Why didn’t it say that if those purchasers of production machinery and equipment can come to the government and show that X number of jobs have been created as a result of the purchase of this equipment and machinery, if they could show that it was responsible for creating X number of jobs, then it will grant them the remission from the tax?

As I say, the government does it with EODC, NODC and ODC. Why didn’t it insist that the same criteria be put forward here? It didn’t work the last time. I doubt very much if it is going to work this time. Mr. Speaker, without going on at any great length, I find I have to oppose the bill, but not because it’s going to be a two per cent reduction to the consumers I represent. Even though it’s only of a very short and temporary nature, I would like to support this bill because it does provide a very small measure of assistance to them. I would dearly love to be able to support it.

I would love to be able to support it because it does have the effect of compensating to some extent the small businessman, who will be compensated to a maximum of $500 for the collection and the remission of sales tax. But I can’t associate. myself with something that is so obviously devious and such a crass political manoeuvre just to delude the taxpayers of this province that they’re really getting something worthwhile.

Had the government brought in legislation and said, “Here, unequivocally, it’s going to help the consumer and the small businessman,” I would have had no trouble supporting it. I would have been the first to be on my feet to applaud the government for it. But it masquerades as a kind of assistance that presumably is going to accrue to the consumer while giving a handout to the corporate sector which isn’t warranted.

Just to show members how tight it is, I asked the Minister of Health (Mr. Miller) a few weeks ago if he couldn’t see fit in his budget to provide assistance to northern communities by putting a mobile dental clinic in areas where they haven’t had dental services. I’m talking about school-age children who haven’t had dental services for five years. He wrote back and said: “I agree that there is a problem. I agree with the severity and the magnitude of the problem. I would like to be able to acquiesce. I would love to be able to help. We don’t have the money.” For something as basic and as essential as dental care to remote northern communities in northern Ontario?

He said, “I would love to help you. Forgive me; I don’t have the money,” It’s estimated that $410 million is going to the corporate sector as a result of this change in the Retail Sales Act between now and Jan. 1, 1977.

Mr. Speaker, I think that’s indefensible. I’m sorry, I have to oppose this bill.

Mr. Speaker: Do any other members wish to speak to the bill? The member for Wentworth.

Mr. Deans: I want to take two or three minutes to talk about some things that my colleagues may have discussed, one by one, and also two or three other areas that are of concern to me.

I don’t want to leave members with the impression that it’s easy to decide to vote against a tax cut. I don’t want them to think for one minute that it was a very easy decision to come to and that we took the matter lightly. In fact, it was the subject of considerable discussion in this caucus as to how we deal with what is ostensibly an omnibus bill. How we deal with it when it contains two principles, one which we might be able to support and one which we would be unable to support. How were we going to put our position to the House and to the public so that it would at least be understood?

We began to wonder about it. It became more and more apparent, the more we thought, that maybe we didn’t have to put it to the public in a way that would be understood because the public well understands what the Tories are about. They understand it very clearly. We don’t have to explain to them what the tax cut means. We don’t have to tell them that it’s only of nine-months’ duration just to get the government past the next election.

We don’t really have to tell them the amount of dedication and honesty and integrity the government has when it comes in, moments before it’s ready to announce an election, and brings about a tax cut at a time when the economy could stand some assistance. But that tax cut is only going to he of short duration. The public is much brighter.

I think one of the minister’s colleagues said the public wouldn’t be taken in by the position we put forward and I think the alternative is more likely to be the case. The public isn’t going to be taken in with what the government has offered. That’s where the problem lies for you the government: the people are not going to be sucked in by this.

Every single person I have spoken to outside of this building -- people you don’t even know who you meet in a restaurant when you are getting gasoline or when you go into the hotel where you are staying -- has given the same answer when I ask, “What do you think of the budget?” “It’s an election gimmick,” they tell me. That’s the feeling of the public. That’s what they think of the government. Not one bit of good has been done for the Conservative cause by bringing in this kind of budget.

If the government had had the kind of integrity that is necessary to lead a government in difficult times, it could have said a number of things to the public. It could have begun, I suppose, by saying to the public that while we would very much like to cut taxes, there are a number of programmes which, if gone ahead with now, would be such job motivators that we would be able to create a great deal more employment in the province by so doing and therefore we have decided to put a sizable amount of money into one or more of those programmes.

The public would have responded positively to that. The public would have said: “Yes, if you think that programme is going to motivate more people and get more employment in the Province of Ontario, both in the short and the long run; if you think that that programme that you’re going to institute is not only going to create more employment but is going to create an answer to a need that is so obvious across the province; yes, you are right, government, you should go ahead and you should put the money into that, rather than distributing it among us, because what we’ll get from this reduction in tax over the nine months will really not be very much and therefore, if when pooled together it could bring about a major economic thrust then go ahead with it.”

What I am saying is that there is a tremendous need for a major housing programme in the Province of Ontario, and that the minister’s colleague, in spite of all the statements he has made, and with all the good intentions in the world, hasn’t been able to develop a housing programme that will begin to meet the needs of the vast majority of the people in the province. I am talking about the people who earn less than $10,000 a year -- and they make up more than 60 per cent of the working population of this province.

The government could have said that because of inflation and because the private sector hasn’t been able to produce decent programmes to provide housing for people at a cost they can afford, it was going to take the more than $500 million it would have received as a result of these tax measures and pour it into a housing programme to motivate employment and to meet social need. If the government had done that, its stock in the eyes of the public would have risen considerably.

The public have seen through this game. They are not going to be bought with their own money any more. They are not going to allow the Conservatives to buy themselves back into government by giving small handouts over short periods of time. I think the government has made a terrible mistake.

If the government had told us that the economy was healthy, that we had been making some major shifts in our taxing sources, that we now could afford to reduce that regressive tax, the sales tax, to five per cent, and over the course of next year and the year after that it hoped to further reduce that tax as more and more progressive tax sources are brought into play, then I don’t think we would have found one single voice in this Legislature or outside of the Legislature in opposition to the government.

If the government had brought in a companion bill that said the government was going to spend $500 million in addition to the money earmarked for a major housing programme aimed primarily at accommodation for people who are earning the average wage in the Province of Ontario and that the money, essentially the same money that we are talking about here, which could have been used for tax cuts is going to be used for housing instead, then I don’t think the government would have found many people in the Province of Ontario who would have opposed it, not here and not outside.

Let me go through some of the things. Do you realize, Mr. Speaker, that in 1963-1964 we had auto insurance rates go up. Where was the government to protect the consumer when that happened? We had living costs rising day by day. Where was the government to protect the consumer when that was happening? We had housing costs doubling, tripling, quadrupling in some cases. Where was the government trying to protect the average income earner in the Province of Ontario while that was happening? We had rent costs going up by 30, 40 and 50 per cent in the Province of Ontario for rental accommodations in the private sector. Where was the government to protect those people against those exorbitant increases?

We had gasoline prices rising as a result of the inability of the Premier and his advisers to understand the way in which the oil industry works and therefore signing an agreement which took more out of the Province of Ontario than they understood was to be taken, and that reflected in higher costs for both gasoline and fuel oils. We had hydro costs in the Province of Ontario rising. Where was the government of Ontario protecting the consumer when that was happening? Of course, then we have hydro telling us that it is going to spend $24 billion on expansion in the next eight years. Where is the government of Ontario speaking about that expansion and the need to find new and different ways to generate hydro-electric power and the need to conserve hydroelectric power? And where is the government moving to try to make sure that there isn’t a bonus feature contained in the hydroelectric power billing system which allows people to use more and pay less?

We had telephone costs rise. Where was the government to protect people? We had the food industry investigated, a quasi-investigation of the food industry, as food costs rose, and they found out that the profit margins in the food industry were adequate to meet their needs and they then continued day after day to raise the prices. Where was the government to protect the consumers in Ontario against that.

We had municipal taxes rise, We had beer, liquor, cigarette costs rise. Car prices went up, but in addition to that, we had something else. We had a fairly major shift in the profit margins, an upward shift in the profit margins of the major corporate bodies in the Province of Ontario in the year 1973-1974, and where was the government of Ontario to say that you can’t take more out of the economy than the economy can stand, that you now have to start planning for the future, that we have got problems in certain sectors and that we need more money in order to develop those sectors,

It was nowhere to be heard; nowhere to be heard. During all of the two- to three-year period, from the last election until today, it has done virtually nothing in any single area that affects the average working person in the Province of Ontario; virtually nothing; and then it comes in on the eve of an election and has the gall to say to the public: “We are going to reduce your tax by two per cent.”

Let’s assume that every single dollar spent by the average wage earner in the Province of Ontario was taxable at the rate of seven per cent. Let’s assume it was all taxable, and the average wage in the province is somewhat less than $10,000, but we will say it is $10,000; the saving would have been about

$200. I am telling them right now, knowing that that isn’t so, the saving to the average taxpayer in this province might run about $80 by the time we are finished. It might run about $80. Do we have to accept $80 in compensation for all of these other increases that took place and all of the time that this government failed to act on behalf of the consumer? No, I am afraid not.

I think they have seen though this gimmick. I was saying to my colleague that it reminded me, as I was listening to it, of the saying, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave…” That’s the government sitting there trying to figure out how it can tangle things so that no one will quite understand them.

It’s not in the same little poem, but there is another part. It says: “ ‘Come into my parlour,’ said the spider to the fly.” Well, I see the government as the spider in that, and the electorate out there as the flies -- and they’re not coming in. Because they know once they’re inside, my friend, nine months later they’ve had it. They’re gone. They’re back to seven per cent or worse, because they don’t trust this government any more.

Mr. J. F. Foulds (Port Arthur): With reason.

Mr. Deans: They know that the government intends to bring in supplementary estimates the minute the election is over. They know full well that it intends to bring in supplementary estimates. And they also know that without a moment’s hesitation it will bring in a supplementary budget, and that supplementary budget will contain tax increases.

Mr. Laughren: Shame. It’s deceitful.

Mr. Deans: Oh, it may not raise the sales tax from five back up to seven per cent, but it will do it in another way. It will do it in a number of other taxing areas in order to recover the money that it has used to try to buy the election. If I sound cynical, I am. If I sound cynical, I’m really cynical -- I’m telling you. Because, Mr. Speaker, you know something? I’ve watched this government operate for nearly eight years, and even in the dead of night when I sat and I wondered what sort of thing it would do, what it would conjure up in an effort to save itself from defeat, I didn’t think it would sink this low. I really didn’t think it would sink this low.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He doesn’t surprise me, because he’s been cynical since I have been here.

Mr. Deans: And that minister is one of the main reasons why I’m cynical.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Why doesn’t the member elaborate?

Mr. Deans: I want to go back a bit, Mr. Speaker, because I want to talk to you about another principle in this bill. I’m going to return to this one in a moment, but I want to talk about the other principle in this bill.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: He just wants to hear himself speak, that’s all.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister like to get into this debate? Does he know anything about anything that he could speak about that might contribute?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I am getting sick of that grind organ or grand organ.

Mr. Deans: Does the minister want me to write him a few notes so he can make a speech?

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Nobody in the province agrees with him anyway.

Mr. Deans: Why doesn’t he sit and listen?

An hon. member: Don’t flatter yourself.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Listen? Who wants to listen to that?

Mr. Deans: That’s another problem, by the way.

Mr. J. A. Roy (Ottawa East): Why doesn’t the minister hit his desk? He’s good at that. Hit the desk. Hit hard.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Laughren: He never listens any more. He thinks he knows it all already.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: I wouldn’t waste my time.

Mr. Deans: I want to return to the other part of this, because I’m going to be quite frank with you, Mr. Speaker. On the two per cent decrease in sales tax, if that had come about in an honest way -- if they had brought in a bill reducing the sales tax for this fiscal year by two per cent, without tying it to the end of the year, without setting limits --

Hon. Mr. Meen: What’s the difference?

Mr. Deans: Wait a minute -- which heretofore have never been set in the Province of Ontario; never --

Hon. Mr. Meen: Nothing sacrosanct about that.

Mr. Deans: There has never been a time in any other budget when they’ve introduced a short-term -- less than a year -- change in the tax structure.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Always a first time.

Mr. Deans: So, don’t tell me that there isn’t some political chicanery in the back of this one.

Let me say this to you, Mr. Speaker: You’ll remember probably as well as I do the discussion on the machinery tax rebate. Remember all the debate we had on it? I remember taking part in that debate, and I remember dragging out all the statistics I could find about how many manufacturers manufactured production machinery in the Province of Ontario, and how many manufactured production machinery in Canada, and how many of the people who use production machinery purchased it from the United States, and how many brought it in from offshore, Sweden, and other parts of the world.

We had a fairly good discussion one evening, lasting until after midnight, as I recall, before the vote finally came about the machinery tax rebate. We agreed -- those of us on this side who knew something -- that there weren’t likely to be many jobs created in Ontario, or even in Canada, by the rebating of the sales tax on production machinery.

We agreed that in every likelihood the plans for expansion of the majority of the major corporations had already been made, that they weren’t going to be able to make the kind of rapid alterations in these plans that would enable them to take advantage of this particular taxing measure. On top of that, we weren’t convinced that by further automating industry we were going to create any jobs.

The position we put forward was that the only jobs that would be created by stepping up the purchases of production machinery were in the plants in which the production machinery was manufactured. We pointed out that since those plants were outside the Dominion of Canada the jobs that would be created would be created in those countries. We pointed out further that because the machinery that would be purchased would be more highly automated than the machinery already in existence, the percentages weighed very heavily in favour of that machinery eliminating jobs in the Ontario economy rather than producing jobs. That was the position we put to the government and it is equally valid today.

I remember asking the Premier not so many months ago if he could tell me just how many jobs were created by the machinery tax rebate scheme of a couple of years ago, if he could give me a listing of the jobs that were created and where they were. There was not one job. The government couldn’t put its finger on one single job that was created as a result of the machinery tax rebate of two or three years ago.

Now it re-introduces it and says to us that we should believe that that’s going to help stimulate the economy and that that’s going to help stimulate employment. No, no, that stretches credulity too far. We couldn’t accept that. How could we? How could we possibly accept it when the government’s own identical programme failed? How would it have the gall to bring in a programme that had failed two years previously when the economy was in a damn sight better situation and the government in a much better position to deal with it?

An hon. member: People forget.

Mr. Laughren: As the member for Timiskaming’s (Mr. Havrot) economic adviser --

Mr. Deans: What is this fixation with production machinery that people opposite have? It seems to be something to do with the Treasurer.

Mr. Foulds: Or the “big blue machine.”

Mr. Deans: Is there someone the government knows in the production machinery business that it wants to try to help?

Mr. Foulds: It may be the Treasurer.

Mr. Laughren: It wouldn’t be the first conflict of interest.

Mr. Deans: The last time in 1971, when the government brought in the production machinery rebate there wasn’t a job created. To January, 1977, I predict as sure as I stand here there won’t be a job created. So I ask the government what the purpose of this exercise really is.

If it is to create employment, then it won’t work; if it is to put more money in the pockets of the government’s friends, then it will work. But the government is going to have to justify this some day. There is going to come a day when the government is going to have to stand up before the public and justify it in hard, cold statistics. It will have to show them how it could be for an expenditure of $400 million we didn’t get a single job in the Province of Ontario.

I am really afraid that these measures aren’t the kinds of measures that are going to bring about an upturn in the economic position of this province. This is the major instrument of the government’s fiscal policy as it was announced earlier this week, Or is it simply a political document without any imagination and, worst of all, without any integrity? If the government is going to try to use taxpayers’ money for political purposes, for heaven’s sake, let it do it through the political parties’ funding mechanism. Don’t try to do it through taxation.

If it is to create employment, then it politically, then let it take a look at the major areas of concern and move with some degree of speed and assurance to resolve those areas, but let it not try to kid the public any more, because they are not going to be kidded any more. There is nobody there who is going to turn down two per cent, I am sure, but every single taxpayer in the province of Ontario knows that the government is bringing it in temporarily and that it probably has drafted the bill already to bring in immediately after the election which will recover all of the money that it has been handing out prior to the election coming.

An hon. member: It is bribing them with their own money.

Mr. Deans: The government has the bill already drafted ready to come in.

Mr. Laughren: What a bunch!

Hon. Mr. Meen: Utter nonsense!

Mr. Deans: What I said was, and I will say it again, that the public knows that this measure is political chicanery and it knows that the government will be bringing in legislation immediately after the election -- assuming that it will still be the government -- to raise the level of taxation in the Province of Ontario, just as it did in 1971.

Hon. Mr. Meen: That’s utter nonsense.

Mr. Deans: It is not utter nonsense at all, and I’ll be prepared to bet $100 on it with the minister if he likes.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I’ll take the member up on it.

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Deans: I’m not allowed to do that? Sorry, I would be prepared to, but I can’t. I’ll tell the minister what I will do -- I’ll do it outside.

Hon. Mr. Meen: And I would be prepared to take the member up on that.

Mr. Deans: I know that the minute this election is over, if the government is fortunate enough to be re-elected, which could well happen, it will bring in a supplementary budget and that supplementary budget will contain taxing measures and those taxing measures will be aimed at recovering every damn cent except the money it put out in its machinery tax rebate, and the end result will be higher taxation for the people in the Province of Ontario. There will be no more houses. There will be no protection against the increases in the costs and the government will --

Hon. Mr. Meen: I will win that.

Mr. Deans: -- without a shadow of a doubt, by the middle of 1976, have recovered every single cent, if the government is re-elected.

Mr. Good: Oh, they won’t even be there.

Mr. Deans: I don’t know how the Minister of Revenue -- and I know him so well -- can attach himself to this kind of thing. It’s shameful.

I really do think that the government should have had the fortitude to bring in these bills separately and let us deal with them separately. Let’s talk about their value individually, because they are designed to do two entirely different things. They are not intended for the same purpose at all. If they had been, then that would have been one thing; but this is, in fact, two particularly different measures aimed at trying to do different things. They don’t even expire at the same time. They are unrelated.

Hon. Mr. Meen: They are unrelated.

Mr. Deans: Then why are they in this same bill? They shouldn’t be in the same legislation if they’re not related.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Oh, come on. Oh, really.

Mr. Laughren: A tangled web.

Mr. Deans: Yes, really. It’s like my colleague says, “Oh, what a tangled web we weave ... ” The government has deceived for as long as it can deceive. I’m going to tell the minister right now that I don’t worry too much about what the public’s reaction is going to be because they have already reacted. They’ve looked; they’ve laughed; they’ve been annoyed.

Does the minister know that they have not only been annoyed, they are offended. They’re offended by what the government is doing. They don’t believe that in the year 1975 something called a Progressive Conservative Party would have this sort of 19th century political manoeuvring going on. The next thing the government will be doing will be going out with a buck apiece buying people a drink to get them to vote for it.

An hon. member: Oh, come on.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. member for Ottawa East.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a few comments on this legislation.

Mr. J. M. Turner (Peterborough): Make them few.

Mr. Roy: Of course, Mr. Speaker, we will be supporting the reduction in the sales tax and the party is going to be consistent. We were opposed to the increase of it in the first place, which was less than two years ago, and we’re going to be consistent in the reduction of it.

Having said this, I think that one must emphasize the extremely cynical and sort of political way that this legislation is brought in. I want to say to the Minister of Revenue that he is the bearer of bad tidings all the time, and I don’t know how he can live with himself in his job.

Mr. Good: The last before the Treasurer.

Mr. Roy: Yes, he’s brought in more legislation in this House which has caused more controversy, more panic out there in the community and more hardship than any other minister around. It doesn’t seem to bother him too much. He keeps doing it and he keeps presenting the legislation. I suppose he’s typical of so many on the other side there, that once they wind them up and tell them they’ve got a job to do they do it faithfully for God and party and so forth.

But the fact remains that as a minister he brought in legislation in this House which has been, to say the least, just terrible, whether we’re talking about the Land Speculation Tax Act which was so full of loopholes, his increase in the sales tax on the last occasion or this present reduction. I agree with the previous speaker that the public is extremely cynical about the way the government is conducting its affairs. The people have come to a point and I suppose it should be no surprise to the people on the other side that after all these years the public has serious doubts about the fiscal capability of this government.

You recall, Mr. Speaker, over the years through the Frost and Robarts administrations that this government, the cabinet, under the leadership of those people, had the reputation of running the province like a board of directors. This is not the case any more, and we’ve had evidence since 1971 of fiasco and chaos ever since.

I hear the comments coming over there. Are the Tories going to say, for instance, that their speculation tax was responsible fiscal legislation? I look in the budget now and what do they expect to collect from that particular tax? I think it’s something like $1 million.

Mr. Good: One million dollars.

Mr. Roy: What a farce that is. I still recall that minister making all these great predictions. We told them at the time they increased the sales tax how regressive it was, how unfair it was. We suggested other avenues of raising revenue but no, they pressed ahead. This minister, along with his colleague the former Treasurer, the member for London South -- what a fiasco. What terrible legislation they brought in this House, some of which they had to withdraw.

Here he is again and he has the gall to think that the public will be bought off by this. I suggest to him that they will not. First of all, all the public have to do is look and see the length of time for which he is reducing the tax, which obviously doesn’t make sense. That’s the key.

It is being reduced for the election period. It has given the government that gap of eight or nine months to call the election. That has never been heard of in this country. How far the government is prepared to go to try to reacquire its credibility, I don’t know, but this is a good example of it here. In spite of the fact, Mr. Speaker, that we are supporting the legislation I think it is important that it be pointed out.

Mr. Eaton: Does the member remember the federal milk subsidy? They didn’t say they’d take it off after the election, did they? But they did.

Mr. Roy: I see the back-benchers there, smug, just shouting across. They wouldn’t know good or bad legislation if they were sitting on it.

Mr. Good: Not only that, they wouldn’t be able to understand it.

Mr. Roy: I don’t imagine that many of them have even read a bill since they’ve been in this House, never mind trying to understand it They never participate in these debates. Surely they must squirm to think they have legislation reducing a tax they increased less than two pears ago and reducing it for a period of less than nine months.

Mr. W. Hodgson (York North): It’d be better if the member never participated.

Mr. E. M. Havrot (Timiskaming): He never had it so good.

Mr. Roy: Surely if one has an ounce of common sense one doesn’t go about emanating fiscal legislation in this fashion. What kind of responsibility is that? I see the premier, Mr. Speaker, going around the province thinking maybe the public doesn’t understand him. They don’t understand his fiscal legislation; they don’t understand his policy. Small wonder. Where is the Tories’ consistency? They don’t have any. It’s pathetic.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We have some policies. That’s more than the member can say.

Mr. Eaton: We don’t wonder when --

Mr. Roy: If they think through legislation such as this they can regain the confidence of this province, they are sadly mistaken.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Mr. Roy: Mr. Speaker, if I’ve done nothing else in this speech I’ve woken up about six or seven of those people out there and I suppose in that sense the speech was worthwhile.

Mr. R. F. Ruston (Essex-Kent): It was worthwhile.

Mr. Roy: It was worthwhile to get some response.

Mr. Ruston: Anybody who can wake up those deadbeats is doing something.

Mr. Roy: I would advise Hansard to start recording some of their names in Hansard so the next time I look at the index I’ll see that the member does exist.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Would the member return to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Roy: And that he has participated in the debates of the House.

Mr. Good: Even if it is just an interjection.

Mr. Roy: Yes an interjection is something. They are awake.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please, could we go back to the principle of the bill?

Mr. Roy: I’m sorry, Mr. Speaker, thank you.

Mr. Eaton: He doesn’t know what the principle is.

Mr. Good: Better wind it up.

Mr. Roy: Yes, my colleague says to wind this up. We don’t want them like tigers out there but I doubt that will ever happen.

The fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that it is important that we point out in this Legislature the haphazard and cynical way the Tories are accepting or trying to promote fiscal policy in this province. On the one hand they have this large deficit, mortgaging future generations, and on the other hand they raise the tax one year and reduce it the next year, hoping to score political points. How cynical. The public of this province won’t be taken in by this and the sooner they call the election the sooner the government will be facing its report cards --

Mr. Turner: What is the Liberal policy?

Mr. Roy: -- and the sooner we’ll start having adequate and responsible financial policies in this province. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Are there any other speakers before the hon. minister sums up? If not, the hon. minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to two hours and 40 minutes of budget debate, it seems to me. But that’s really being a little bit unkind. At times some of the members have strayed back from the budget to the bill. And for those cogent comments, where I can find them throughout the debate, I am very grateful.

An hon. member: This is part of the budget.

Mr. Deans: It is the cornerstone of the budget.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member for Kitchener started off on a rather sensible note, I think --

Mr. Roy: He always does.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- when he indicated that at least the official opposition felt constrained to support the government in this progressive legislation.

Mr. Laughren: They’re in bed with the government.

Mr. Roy: We are consistent.

[Laughter.]

Mr. Havrot: Tell us another one!

An hon. member: That’s the best line of the day.

Mr. Deans: Being consistently wrong is not much good.

Mr. Speaker: Order please. Order.

Mr. Roy: It must be close to dinner time -- they are away.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, this bill, stemming from the budget, is not a masquerade of an assist to help the consumers of this province.

Mr. Roy: It certainly is.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It is in fact an assist. It is no masquerade. It is a fact that it does assist. It is a responsible bill.

Mr. Germa: I’ll bet the minister won’t sleep tonight after saying that.

Mr. Deans: But they intend to raise it again.

Mr. Roy: Why did they raise it in the first place?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now there are the three elements the members have talked about. The three major matters in the budget and carried forward in this bill are our attack on the problem of continued industrial and commercial growth and therefore our removal of the tax on production machinery over a period of time.

Mr. Bounsall: It helps nobody.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I don’t know what the member for Wentworth was talking about --

Mr. Roy: I don’t either.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- when he spoke in terms of the reduction of that tax back in 1969 or 1970, I think he said.

Mr. Deans: In 1971.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Because that tax had been on 1969 and has remained on since 1969.

Mr. Deans: The government rebated the machinery tax.

Hon. Mr. Meen: What we did was to give a five per cent instalment tax credit against this kind of thing --

Mr. Deans: Right, and that didn’t work.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It’s not the same thing -- and it was for a two-year period. Now, I do not have any facts as to what kind of jobs that created. This is a different approach altogether. With the removal of the seven per cent retail sales tax --

An hon. member: It’s a giveaway.

Mr. Roy: Did he type this himself?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- and an outside limit within which the purchases must be made --

Mr. Deans: What is the difference between taking the tax off and giving it back?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Mr. Speaker, I listened quietly to the member for Wentworth --

Mr. Deans: Not all the time; not all the time.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I suggest he just sit back and listen to me for a few minutes.

Mr. Deans: The minister’s colleague was mouthy.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We took off --

Interjection by an hon. member.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We are taking off this tax for equipment that is purchased from Tuesday on through 1975 and through 1976, a period of about 21 months. We believe that it will be a needed shot in the arm for industrial and commercial development in this province --

Mr. Cassidy: Commercial development? The Royal Bank Tower?

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- if that works and there is the incentive to complete these purchases.

Somebody -- I think it may have been the member for Ottawa Centre -- talked about the increase in costs month by month and asked what incentive was this going to be. Well it will be a real incentive, because they know at the end of this period that tax is going to come back on again. We are telling them it is not off for good. It’s off for a period within which they may make these purchases.

Mr. Cassidy: Two years.

Hon. Mr. Meen: And I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is indeed a very responsible approach toward getting the economy rolling again. It is not irresponsible. We are not coming in and saying it’s any kind of election gimmick or shell game as the member for Yorkview suggested, that now you see it, now you don’t --

Mr. Deans: No, no; of course not.

Mr. Lawlor: Not by a pig’s ear.

Mr. Cassidy: That’s it exactly -- now you see it, now you don’t.

Mr. Lawlor: How long did they debate in cabinet?

Hon. Mr. Meen: We are saying there is a very definite period of time within which this tax will be removed, and thereafter it will be returned. That applies to the retail sales tax reduction from seven per cent to five per cent. We are not fooling around by saying, “Look we are reducing it to five per cent and we think we can get by with five per cent.” I’ll tell you, Mr. Speaker, we would be the very first to move it to five per cent and stay there if we felt the economy could justify it. But the economy can’t justify it. We need those revenues. We are talking about a loss of revenue of about $330 million in this fairly short period of time -- something less than nine months.

Mr. Stokes: The minister fully intends to recoup that.

Mr. Cassidy: If he can’t get it this year, he’ll get it next year.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Every point of retail sales tax at present revenues represents something around $200 million or a little bit more than that.

Mr. Lawlor: It didn’t have anything to do with the election at all!

Hon. Mr. Meen: Now with $400 million every year, we would have to find that income somewhere else. We have our other programmes -- our GAINS programme, our Ontario tax credit programme, our health scheme, our drug programme that’s coming on stream in August. There is all kinds of assistance that we are extending and have extended over the years. This is not any kind of election gimmick. We are telling the people of Ontario we want them to get in there and buy.

Interjections by hon. members.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think the Treasurer put it very well when he indicated that even on a $100 purchase of a radio, if the tax were only $5 instead of $7, that that $2 in extra money lying in the purchaser’s pocket will probably burn a hole in it in a while, and he would spend it on something else -- and that’s what we want him to do. We want to leave a little bit more money in the economy for further purchases and for assistance.

Mr. Deans: He would spend it on increased housing costs.

Mr. Speaker: Order please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The member for Wentworth gave a great long oration on this whole subject of why we weren’t using this money in housing. I would suggest when he gets into the budget debate, he tell that to the Treasurer. That’s a completely different thrust from what we’re doing here. We’re trying to create jobs and we’re moving on several fronts in the creation of jobs. We want to create sales and we’re improving the sales by the reduction of the tax.

I can see, as some members opposite have indicated, that the retail sales tax is to some extent regressive, particularly on large sales. If you were buying an automobile, Mr. Speaker, you just have to look at the difference between five and seven per cent; and that might just make the difference between your buying a car or not buying a new car. We think this will help. The NDP’s friends in the UAW suggested it would. They were after us to do something like this.

Mr. Deans: Housing is the single greatest motivator -- housing is the single greatest motivator.

Hon. Mr. Meen: But, it would be far less responsible of this government if we were to say, “We’ll reduce it to five per cent and we’ll just keep our fingers crossed that things will improve and we can leave it there.”

We’re telling the people of this province that for this period of time, beginning April 8, and going through to the end of this year -- and there’s nothing magical about it just going through to Dec. 31; we don’t have to take it through to the end of a calendar year -- we’re taking it through to Dec. 31 and we’re telling those people, “Get out and make those purchases. And if you don’t make it in that period of time -- we know the economy, we know where we can generate our moneys -- we are going to have to revert to seven per cent.”

There’s nothing wrong with seven per cent. Quebec is running at eight per cent. Ours is by no means the highest retail sales tax in Canada. As I said earlier, I would be the first --

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Speaker: Order please, the hon. minister must have the opportunity to reply.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I would like to see the reduction of five per cent for good. I’d like to see it lower. Somebody over here suggested four per cent. Wouldn’t it be nice to go back to the original three per cent? But the fact is we have to have that money for the various programmes we have going here in Ontario.

The Ontario tax credit programme does give a form of rebate to people with respect to retail sales tax, and I think it’s probably an appropriate way to do it. Some of the members here served on a select committee when we talked about that kind of thing.

I have the negative income tax, and I think that this is a very responsible way in which to tackle a difficult problem here in Ontario. The problem is to get the money in in areas where we least hurt the customer. I would suggest that we have taken the most responsible way of saying, “Look, we can do this for a while; but we can’t do it forever. And we’re telling you it’s coming back on on Jan. 1, 1976.”

Mr. Germa: Yes, then go the full route.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We’re not leaving anybody in any doubt. I don’t think I can emphasize that too much.

Mr. Stokes: Let’s have the next provincial election on Jan. 2, 1976.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I want to touch briefly, Mr. Speaker, on the matter of reimbursement. There was a member of the NDP caucus, the member for Sudbury, I think, who was opposed to reinstatement of compensation to retail merchants.

I remember discussing this at some length on the select committee in 1968 -- as the member for Lakeshore reminded me -- when we dealt with the Smith report. At that time the Smith report recommended the abolition of compensation to retail merchants, and said it should be treated as a cost of doing business.

If memory serves me, the amount of compensation that was being paid out at 2 1/2 per cent or so was of the order of $6 million or $7 million. I believe the figures that were given to the select committee, and therefore to us showed that around half of that was going to a very, very few large merchants -- such as the big merchandising companies we know around here.

I think we were correct in endorsing the Smith committee’s recommendation that the compensation be removed, if we looked at the large merchants, because I think properly that is a cost of doing business. The whole area of retail merchandising has become more complex over the years and I, for one, have changed my mind as it has applied to the vast majority of the merchants.

Mr. Deans: It is handy being an election year.

Mr. Laughren: It is a measure of his consistency.

Hon. Mr. Meen: It wasn’t just recently that I have made my thoughts known, and I know a number of my colleagues also have felt the same way.

Mr. Lawlor: Why didn’t the minister cut it off after a certain volume?

Hon. Mr. Meen: The Retail Merchants’ Association suggested to us that, rather than use the heavy-handed approach, which had been recommended by Smith and endorsed by the select committee, of simply wiping out compensation altogether, we put in some kind of percentage related to the amount of tax collected as the agent of the Minister of Revenue, and then put a top limit either per return or per year on the amount of the compensation so that we would look after the vast majority of the small independent businessmen without pouring a lot of money into the treasuries of the big companies which don’t really need it.

Mr. Bounsall: And we support the minister.

Hon. Mr. Meen: We have adopted that. It has been my recommendation that we would do that and I was delighted when the Treasurer saw fit to do this. Had we simply reinstated retail merchant compensation on the basis that had applied prior to 1972-1973, it would now be costing the government something like $26 million. This way, with the top limit of $500 per year, and in this case from July 1 through to the end of our fiscal year, $500 for that somewhat shorter period will cost us, for a full fiscal year on current revenue at three per cent, something of the order of $11 million. That’s a substantial reduction. I believe all hon. members -- and maybe even including the hon. member for Sudbury if he’ll think about this a little bit --

Mr. Germa: I agree with Smith.

Hon. Mr. Meen: -- will recognize that this is a highly desirable thing to do.

I am very delighted with this provision in the bill. The bill has these three elements in it. I think they are all appropriate in a bill that follows the budget and implements the budget proposals with respect to retail sales tax, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Stokes: Even though they are unrelated.

Hon. Mr. Meen: Although the hon. members of the NDP have indicated they are not about to support it, I think they are trying to talk out of both sides of their mouths at once.

Mr. Bounsall: Oh come on! We told the minister why.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I think at least the official opposition have seen the wisdom of supporting a perfectly good bill.

Interjections by hon. members.

Mr. Deans: Would the minister answer one question on which I didn’t get an answer from what he has said?

Hon. Mr. Meen: Yes, I will be happy to answer.

Mr. Deans: Is it the government’s intention, in addition to reimposing the seven per cent on Jan. 1, to raise additional taxes in order to reimburse the coffers for the money lost between now and the end of the year?

An hon. member: Oh that’s obscene.

Hon. Mr. Meen: I simply say to him in the return to the seven per cent, and with the normal growth of 10.6 per cent which I believe we expect over the next year, we will be back in a position where, at seven per cent, the revenues in this province will be in roughly the same position as they were. Otherwise it --

Mr. Roy: I will tell the minister something. We are opposed to that increase back to seven per cent.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The motion is for second reading of Bill 30.

The House divided on the motion, which was approved on the following vote:

all

Ayes

Nays

Allan Apps Beckett Belanger Bernier Braithwaite Breithaupt Brunelle Campbell Clement Downer Drea Dymond Eaton Edighoffer Evans Ewen Gaunt Gilbertson Givens Good Grossman Havrot Hodgson (York North) Irvine Kennedy Kerr Lane Leluk MacBeth Maeck McIlveen McNeil Meen Morningstar Morrow Newman (Windsor-Walkerviile) Newman (Ontario South) Nuttall Potter Reid Riddell Rollins Roy Ruston Sargent Scrivener Singer Smith (Simcoe East) Smith (Hamilton Mountain) Snow Spence Taylor (Prince Edward-Lennox) Turner Villeneuve Walker Wardle Winkler Worton -- 59.

Bounsall Burr Cassidy Deans Dukszta Foulds Germa Laughren Lawlor Samis Stokes Young -- 12.

Clerk of the House: Mr. Speaker, the “ayes” are 59, the “nays” 12.

Mr. Speaker: I declare the motion carried.

Motion agreed to; second reading of the bill.

Mr. Speaker: Shall this bill be ordered for third reading?

Some hon. members: No.

Hon. Mr. Meen: The committee of the whole House.

Mr. Speaker: Committee of the whole House?

Agreed.

Hon. Mr. Winkler: Mr. Speaker, the business of the House has already been announced.

Hon. Mr. Winkler moves the adjournment of the House.

Motion agreed to.

The House adjourned at 6:20 o’clock, p.m.