Journal des débats 1981-mai-26 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Hon. Mr. Drea: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege today to present for first reading, the Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act, 1981.

The amendments I am introducing are required to give added authority to and to clarify existing authority of the ministry with respect to the general administration of its programs. For the interest and information of the honourable members, I would like to summarize briefly the legislative changes I am proposing.

First, as an amendment to the existing act, we will be seeking the legal right to recover from a third party, benefits paid or provided by the ministry to a recipient who has a valid claim in law against the third party. As an example, this amendment would apply in cases where, as a result of a serious accident caused by a third party, an individual required institutional care in a facility operated by the ministry.

A second amendment in this new legislation will permit ex gratia payments by the ministry for damages to or by persons under ministry control or supervision. In the past, if a ward of the ministry caused injury to a member of staff, the ministry had no statutory authority to provide compensation unless the ministry was held to be liable for the damage. The relevant section of the act being introduced today allows discretionary authority for the ministry to proceed, where appropriate, with an order from the Lieutenant Governor in Council.

A third amendment concerns the taking of affidavits under the Family Law Reform Act. At present the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) must issue temporary commissionerships for parental support workers in the ministry, who, in the course of their duties, assist recipients of social assistance through the taking of affidavits. The amendment to the act permits certain employees of the ministry to be designated for the purpose of obtaining affidavits under the Family Law Reform Act.

The fourth major amendment broadens the authority of ministry auditors to investigate the financial records of those receiving payments under ministry programs. This change is consistent with authority now conferred upon the Provincial Auditor under the Audit Act, 1977.

The fifth amendment simply clarifies that the minister may delegate his authority under the Executive Council Act to sign agreements. As members may be aware, other ministries have within recent years added such an amendment to their respective ministry acts.

Those, I say to the honourable members, are the legislative changes proposed in the Ministry of Community and Social Services Amendment Act, 1981. I am confident they represent required and significant improvements to the general administration of our programs.

ORAL QUESTIONS

ASSISTANCE TO FARMERS

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food. Now that our budgetary commitment to the farm economy has been made by the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) earlier this week and we find that with nonbudgetary amounts removed it is $191 million, how does the minister expect our farmers to compete with similar farmers in Quebec, where their budgetary commitment for only about half the number of farms is $342 million? Does he not feel his efforts with his cabinet colleagues have been insufficiently successful, and that our own farmers are suffering unduly because of a lack of interest rate assistance and other programs, because of that budgetary position?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I have answered this many times in the past. The honourable member appears to be trying to protect the party in Ottawa that is responsible for the high interest rate. His party has to take total responsibility; we have made that quite clear on all occasions.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Is the minister not aware that, aside from the rhetoric and the political posturing he is undertaking, there are literally hundreds of farmers, some of them in Lambton county, who are being phoned by their bank manager day after day? Under these circumstances, because they cannot compete with the farmers in Quebec, they cannot have a civil word with their wives and they cannot plant a straight row of corn. If the minister thinks Pierre Trudeau pays the budgetary requirements of Quebec, then the minister is simply wrong.

Is the minister not aware that Quebec has available in programs three times the number of dollars per farm that we have in Ontario, and still our cattle producers are competing on the same Toronto market with truckloads of cattle that come up from that province?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member apparently was not here last Friday when, in a statement, I pointed out to this House what was happening to our hog producers in Ontario. We have exactly the same stabilization program as is in effect in Quebec, yet the government of Canada penalized the Ontario farmers by $7 million because we have a plan and it said Quebec has none. Since that time we have proved that Quebec does have a plan. We have conveyed this to Ottawa but to no avail. That is a sample of what is happening. The government of Canada is catering to other provinces.

Mr. Nixon: As a sample of what is happening, is the minister aware that Quebec has seven distinct interest assistance programs, together with subsidies for livestock producers, that are not paralleled by programs in Ontario, and that its budgetary commitment is substantially greater than that in this province and we must compete directly against it? How can the minister face the farmers in this province, who have to face their bank managers almost on a daily basis, by simply rejecting that situation with the political arguments he has put forward?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable members do not want to accept the facts. Their partners in Ottawa are creating the high interest rate that is destroying not only the farm economy but the whole society. Let the members opposite look wherever they want to, they must accept the responsibility in Ottawa for the high interest rate.

HIGHWAY 404 CONSTRUCTION

Mr. Nixon: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Bobbsey twins sitting at the end of the row, but since the rules do not permit me to question two ministers at once I will direct it to the Minister of the Environment, who has the sacred trust to administer the Environmental Assessment Act.

2:10 p.m.

How could he permit his officials to tacitly approve the construction of Highway 404 in the Aurora area without fully completing the environmental assessment requirements that are established by this Legislature? If he feels they should not be respected, should he not be bringing in amendments to this House to change those environmental assessment requirements?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I want to make it very clear to the honourable member and other members of this House that there was no approval, tacit or otherwise, on the part of the officials of my ministry in terms of the construction of that highway being proceeded with. If that is the impression under which the member is labouring, I would like to relieve him of that immediately.

I would say, though, in view of the fact that the member is not going to be able to ask the other Bobbsey twin a question -- at least not immediately -- that in so far as there had been construction proceeding, that other ministry had, in every respect, been complying with the conditions that had been attached to the environmental assessment, although there had been no approval of that assessment because normally that would take place at the end of the 30-day period.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary: Since a communication signed by the minister's environmental planner says, "Conclusion: This work is in clear violation of the act and should be halted immediately," has the minister taken steps to halt it, or is he consulting with his colleague the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) about the steps that should be taken to bring his colleague the Minister of Transportation and Communications (Mr. Snow) under some semblance of the rule of law?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, I thought of seeking a minimum of two years because I thought he really did deserve to spend --

Mr. Nixon: A minimum of two years?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Kingston weather is very good at this time of year.

Seriously, I would like to point out to the honourable member that construction has stopped on the highway. As a matter of fact, my colleague, at the request of the Premier (Mr. Davis), has ceased construction and the matter will be fully reviewed tomorrow by the whole of cabinet.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Could the minister explain how the deputy minister was able unilaterally to continue the project in clear violation of the act? Second, would he be prepared to table the report of his own ministry criticizing the environmental report done by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the fact is that the matter was proceeded with without approval. The first part of the honourable member's question was how could it happen; well, it simply happened. I am sorry, would he repeat the second part of his question?

Mr. Samis: This is only Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, and this is the easy part of the question: Will the minister table the report of his own ministry which criticized the environmental report done by the Ministry of Transportation and Communications? Will the minister table that report with this House?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Unless the member is speaking about something other than what I think he is speaking about, I believe that was released at the beginning of the 30-day period along with the comments and conditions that would be attached to any approval.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister, or at least his predecessor, has exempted many important projects from environmental assessment. We do not have to list them, but South Cayuga is one of the most readily brought to mind. The delays in the environmental assessment are in some respects dislocating. Does the minister have plans to improve the application of the requirements of the Environmental Assessment Act so it will apply uniformly and its findings will be available, so that the work of other ministries will not be unnecessarily held up?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, at this point I do not have specific plans, but I can assure the honourable member that is one matter I have under review. I think it is essential for the full and complete application of the legislation that we make every effort to make it possible for such environmental assessment to take place without creating unnecessary frustration or, in some instances perhaps, resistance to the full operation of the legislation.

ESTIMATES

Mr. Speaker: Do I have the consent of the House to read a message from the Lieutenant Governor?

Agreed to.

Hon. Mr. McCague: Mr. Speaker, I have a message from the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor signed by his own hand.

Mr. Speaker: By his own hand, John B. Aird, the Honourable the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1982, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, May 26, 1981.

MINERAL RESOURCE TAXATION

Mr. Martel: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development if someone can get his attention. Between the years 1975 and 1980 the government of Saskatchewan was able to generate 64 per cent more revenue in actual dollars on its nonfuel mineral resources than Ontario, with less than 30 per cent of the production. In view of the fact the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) just the other night socked it to the people of Ontario to the tune of $600 million, can he tell us how long this government intends to wait before it gets a decent return on its minerals for this province?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I cannot tell the honourable member how long that is going to take.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, after that great answer, might I ask the minister a supplementary question? Does he realize that if Ontario had taxed its nonfuel resources at the same rate as Saskatchewan or Alberta it would have generated $400 million more in taxes in 1980, and in the past six years an additional $1.9 billion for the Treasury of Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of those figures but I would be happy to study the matter at my earliest convenience.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: While the minister is studying those figures, does he intend to contact his federal counterparts to see if there can be a rationalization between the province and the federal government in their taxation policies on the mineral sectors in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I do not see any problem at all in contacting my counterparts, getting all the necessary information and doing a comparison. Yes, I will be happy to do that.

Mr. Laughren: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Would the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development once and for all refute the arguments that have been made by other ministers of his government that taxing resources at an adequate rate of return would drive away investment and discourage exploration?

In Saskatchewan in 1978 exploration spending was $70 million as compared with $18.6 million in Ontario; for 1979, the last year I have available, it was $89 million in Saskatchewan and $23 million in Ontario. Does the provincial secretary not agree, given those figures, it is possible to get an adequate return on resources and still have access to exploration and investment in the mineral sector in Ontario?

Finally, while he is musing on that one, could I ask the provincial secretary to explain why his ministers always give us two arguments when we ask for data on profits from the mineral industry in this province. First, they always say they are precluded from doing so by section 11(a) of the provincial Mining Tax Act; second, and I quote specifically from the Treasurer, "It would take several man-years to produce the data requested."

Does the minister not understand that if a company is located in Ontario, operates only in Ontario and is a public company, its profit figures are available to the public anyway through its annual reports? By refusing to give the profit figures, all this government is doing is protecting companies that also do business outside the province.

2:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I am not prepared to refute any comments that have been made by my colleagues on this side of the House. However, I will be happy to examine in more detail the questions and points that have been raised here today. I would ask my colleagues across the House if they would be good enough to send me the material they have been quoting from. I will be happy to look into it.

EMPLOYEE HEALTH AND SAFETY

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Before I ask it, I want to say in connection with my question on mineral resource taxation that if the Minister of Northern Affairs (Mr. Bernier) had his way, he would help them truck it out gratis.

My question for the Minister of Labour concerns Mr. Vince Micallef, an employee of Stelco. I am sure the minister is aware of this problem. It has been before his ministry for some time. Is the minister aware that Stelco refuses to allow Mr. Micallef to wear safety boots with external guards, as it did up until 1980? Consequently he has had tremendous problems both with his feet and ultimately his back as a result of those boots. The company insists that if he does not wear them, it will dismiss him after 25 years of service. Will the minister give us his views on this type of practice by the employer?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the particular case the member refers to. As the member knows, matters related to safety shoes and other safety issues come within the purview of the director of industrial health and safety and are dealt with on an individual and on a group basis.

Mr. Martel: Since that has been done and nothing has changed, does the minister not understand that this man has been examined by an orthopaedic surgeon who indicates his injuries, because of being forced to wear these boots, have jeopardized his health to a degree where he has been out of work for many months? The company insists it is an industrial accident and the Workmen's Compensation Board says no. Is the minister further aware that one of the representatives appearing before the board indicated the reason they were treating Mr. Micallef this way was that he brought it upon himself because of his union activities? What does the minister intend to do about that?

Hon. Mr. Elgie: I am not aware of any of the details the member has referred to. Yes, I will look into it and contact him.

REMOVAL OF CONTAMINATED SOIL

Mr. O'Neil: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. On May 14 the member for Hastings-Peterborough (Mr. Pollock) asked the minister a question concerning the dumping of radioactive fill from Toronto in the Bancroft area, an action that could have serious effects not only in that area but also in my riding, which is downstream from that watershed.

In reply to that question the minister answered, "Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member that it is certainly not a decision of the province to do anything like that in his riding." He also said, "Mr. Speaker, I had nothing to do with the decision itself. As a matter of fact, the only knowledge I have of the decision is that I have been advised by AECB that it was taken."

Yesterday in the House of Commons on a question concerning the same matter, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, Mr. Lalonde, replied, "The decision was taken in full consultation with the government of Ontario and it was a joint decision."

Could I have the minister's comments on this statement since it seems to be directly in opposition to what he told us here in the Legislature on May 14?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, if Mr. Lalonde consulted with someone in the Ontario government, it certainly was not with me. I am aware there was some communication at the staff level, but to the best of my knowledge the decision ultimately was one taken by the Atomic Energy Control Board. I was made aware of the decision. There was nothing that occurred between Mr. Lalonde and me that I would consider or describe as consultation.

Mr. O'Neil: I think the minister was quite clear on May 14 that he had no prior knowledge of it. I just take it that, as the minister, he should have been aware of it. Might I ask him if we could have his commitment that this whole matter will be reappraised? If dumping is to take place and he feels there is no danger imposed, perhaps he would be agreeable to taking those materials from Scarborough and having them dumped in his own riding. I wonder if I could have the minister's comments on that.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Obviously, the honourable member's question is not serious. In fact, I think his concerns would be even greater if the materials were taken to Kingston because they would clearly have to be transported through his riding if that were the case.

Mr. Samis: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister tell the House what input he has had from the mayor of Bancroft on the whole issue, especially since his famous interview on CBC radio when he said he was quite willing to accept it?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, at the moment I do not recall any specific communication. I will check my correspondence to see if I have received a letter, but I do not recall having received one at this point.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Will the minister indicate whether or not he has had any communication, written or oral, with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who, as I understand it, is to be regularly informed of these transactions in which, through the joint committee, there is to be an involvement?

As my colleague the member for Quinte indicated, Mr. Lalonde made it very clear yesterday in the House of Commons that from his point of view there had been full communication with the provincial government of Ontario. Will the minister now indicate, or will he undertake to find out, whether there has been any communication with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in so far as this matter is concerned?

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, in the course of my response to the earlier question I indicated I personally had not had communication with Mr. Lalonde. There was some indication on behalf of at least one of my colleagues and perhaps two that they had had some communication. I will undertake to find out what that was and perhaps I can respond more fully or they can respond on another occasion.

DIOXIN IN FISH

Mr. McClellan: I have a question for the Minister of Health with respect to the potential health hazard of dioxin in Lake Ontario fish. He may want to refer it to the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Norton). Is the minister familiar with newspaper reports to the effect that health department researchers in the United States have completed a series of tests indicating that a significant number of Lake Ontario fish are contaminated with deadly dioxin? Is he familiar with the results of these tests, and has he met with his counterpart in the Ministry of the Environment with respect to any potential health hazard? Can he advise us what action the government intends to take either to reassure people that there is no health hazard or to warn them of a hazardous condition?

Hon. Mr. Timbrell: With respect, Mr. Speaker, that is a matter that comes under the jurisdiction of my colleague the Minister of the Environment. With your permission, I will redirect that question to him.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Mr. Speaker, because I was communicating with one of my colleagues, I missed the first part of the question. I think I understand it fully. If I should miss any part of it in my response, I hope the honourable member will remind me.

It has been confirmed by our staff, in communication with the staff in the state of New York, that the reports that came out of New York a couple of days ago were really very precipitous. New York state and the American government are at about the same stage as we in terms of the testing.

They do have some preliminary results, but as a result of a joint effort to present a comprehensive and complete picture of the situation in the Great Lakes, and Lake Ontario particularly, it was felt to be very important that we both standardize the procedures that were used, to ensure the comparability of the results, and that steps be taken to confirm the results by means of what is being referred to as a round robin testing procedure, whereby other laboratories would be involved in confirming the American results as well as the Ontario results.

It is really too early for any conclusive statement to be made. I can assure the honourable member that in so far as there have been some preliminary results, there is nothing at this stage that would indicate any cause for alarm. I can assure him and the honourable members of this House that if there were any indication at this stage of any cause for alarm, we would proceed to ban fishing or take some appropriate action.

2:30 p.m.

I can also assure the members that in so far as drinking-water is concerned in the Great Lakes, testing has revealed no detectable level of dioxin. That applies to the Niagara River, Lake Ontario and throughout the Great Lakes. Again, if there is any indication that ought to lead to concern, I can assure members that when the testing procedures are complete we will issue, jointly with the Americans, a comprehensive report presenting comparable results; in other words, results that are based upon using the same standard in Ontario and the United States.

Mr. McClellan: Surely the minister recalls that late last fall his predecessor indicated the Ministry of the Environment had facilities established to do testing of dioxin levels in fish. The minister at that time said they could do up to 14 samples per week, that they had been testing fish, that they do have results, and that in fact the Ministry of the Environment is refusing to release the results. Surely the minister will accept the suggestion that it is his responsibility to release the results of the testing, because, as he knows, dioxin is a carcinogen and there is no safe level of exposure to a carcinogen.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Certainly the results will be released; the point is that it is vitally important, prior to the release of the results, that the accuracy of the tests be confirmed. This is a very complex and highly sophisticated testing procedure. I am advised by technically qualified staff in my ministry that the confirmation of tests is highly desirable to make sure the results are accurate.

I can assure members that on the basis of any information we have at this point there would appear to be no cause for alarm in terms of public health. I think any effort to raise such a spectre now is merely foolhardy on the part of anyone who would take that course of action. The members will be made fully aware of the results. It is my understanding that both here and in the United States the round robin testing will be completed before the end of June.

Mr. Kerrio: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: In view of the fact they have now discovered some levels in gulls' eggs and in fish and on the face of the gorge of the Niagara River, I wonder if the minister, along with his American friends, would do testing closer to the known deposits, so that we do not wait until the dioxin becomes concentrated in the river and in the lake to such a degree that it poses a danger.

I wonder if we should not be attacking the enemy in its camp and not waiting until it comes into our environment. There are obvious signs it is on the move. I wonder if the minister would talk to the minister in charge of the environment in the US, particularly in regard to some high concentrations in the Hyde Park area and other areas, as to whether we should not test to see if there is movement of dioxin from the storage site on the way to the river and the lake.

Hon. Mr. Norton: Taking it in two steps, Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the member for Niagara Falls that we have been testing in the river in that area. I presume what he is suggesting is that we do onsite testing on the American side. I will be meeting shortly with Mr. Flacke, the commissioner of environmental conservation in the state of New York, at which time this, along with a number of other issues, will be the subject of our meeting. I will certainly raise that concern at that time.

Mr. Peterson: I have a question of the Minister of Revenue; he was just here, but he disappeared while I was looking at you, Mr. Speaker. How could that be?

Mr. Speaker: I have that effect on many people. The minister is returning to his seat. Please continue.

SYLVESTER COMPANIES

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, have the minister and the ministry been investigating some irregularities with respect to a group of companies run by one Mr. Sylvester in London, Ontario, including Lonmed, Medlon and Arturus, which are small business development corporations? Can the minister share the results of those investigations, which may involve a very large amount of money that has been misappropriated?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to investigate the issue brought forward by the honourable member. I hope Hansard was better in getting the question than I was.

Mr. Peterson: Would the minister like me to ask it again? What is the minister doing to investigate the Sylvester group of companies and the SBDCs, which his ministry inspects and are in charge of appropriating money to certain people on the basis of their investments? What is he doing about it, and what are the results of the investigation?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Frankly, the particular issue has not been brought to my attention as being an issue that was outside of the normal investigation and audit procedures of the ministry, but I will be happy to investigate the current status of it to see if it is out of the ordinary and to report to the member on Thursday.

Mr. Van Horne: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: It comes as a bit of a surprise, given that it was our understanding there had been some contact made by the government on this issue within the last couple of months. When the minister reports back to us on this issue, will he give us as much specific detail as he can as to the number of provincial dollars involved in the situation?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Yes, I will, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Conway: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: For those of us who may not have heard correctly, did the minister really say a few moments ago that as of this hour he, as Minister of Revenue, had not yet heard of the Sylvester case and the very serious matters that relate to the SBDC involvement? As of this moment does he know nothing about that? Is that what he said?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: No, Mr. Speaker, that is not what I said. I said the investigation was of a normal nature and that nothing out of the ordinary had been brought to my attention. I think the Hansard record will so confirm.

Mr. Conway: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: Since a very different impression was created on this side of the House following upon his first two answers, I would like the minister to stand in his place now and tell us clearly what he does know about these matters, since that was the question that was intended.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of privilege; that is a new question.

MUNICIPAL CAPITAL PROGRAMS

Ms. Bryden: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs.

Is the minister aware that municipalities throughout the province are drastically curtailing needed capital programs because of the shockingly high interest rates that the government has failed to address in the budget? For example, Windsor's capital budget is down by about 40 per cent, Thunder Bay's is down by 33 per cent, Kingston's by 26 per cent and Ottawa's by 22 per cent.

Has the minister any plans to bring in a program to assist local governments to finance essential capital works this year?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, government policy is to treat the municipalities with a large degree of autonomy. The development of their capital programs falls within that premise. I can indicate to my friend that just because they may feel they have to curtail some capital programs does not necessarily mean that is something bad.

I might just draw to the attention of the honourable member that there is a suggestion in the Niagara region that a regional headquarters office should be built for something like $5 million. I am sure a lot of the people would be much happier if it were not built.

For some of the capital programs that perhaps have been suggested or it is now being said are being curtailed, a municipality must use its own priorities and develop those priorities that it feels are best for itself.

2:40 p.m.

Ms. Bryden: I am sure the minister is not unaware that municipal capital programs have a stimulative effect on the economy and create jobs, which is what we need right now.

As far as municipal autonomy goes, does he think the municipality's autonomy is not seriously curtailed by these shockingly high interest rates, which his government is doing nothing about? Will he not consider setting up a fund from which municipalities could borrow at reasonable rates until such time as they can issue debentures that are not at 17 to 20 per cent?

Hon. Mr. Wells: My friend is into a whole economic question. We do not accept the premise that this government can do something about the interest rates. We have talked about that in this House on a number of occasions.

The honourable member should tell me what this government can do about interest rates. It is basically a national problem, and to some degree an international problem, and all tied in with national monetary policy. All the member is suggesting is that we take some Band-Aids and provide more money to compensate municipalities for high interest rates.

Mr. Newman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister is certainly aware that the city of Windsor over the past number of years has been in a disadvantageous position as a result of the resource equalization grants. Had the government provided the city with the proper amount of funds for the last six or seven years -- funds they were entitled to -- they would not find themselves in the straitjacket they are in today in attempting to develop certain public works in the municipality that are sorely needed to assist the municipality to continue its economic growth.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise that my friend puts forward. I think this government has listened to the plight of Windsor many times. We have acted on that request and provided extra funds to Windsor.

Mr. Cooke: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: The minister says there is nothing he can do about the federal interest rate policy. We agree the government is limited in what it can do, but will the minister consider setting up a fund from which municipalities can borrow on a short-term basis until interest rates go down? Then capital projects that are needed in municipalities could go ahead.

Windsor has cut back from $24 million to $14 million in capital and is borrowing $12 million of that at 19 per cent. They cannot eliminate the capital works program. Is the minister willing to look at a program whereby the government sets up a fund they can borrow from at reasonable interest rates until the interest rates are lowered and they then can sell their debentures and pay it back?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, how can my friend stand here in good conscience and suggest we set up a fund like that when he stood up and voted against every tax bill we brought in the other night?

ISLINGTON INDIAN BAND

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Provincial Secretary for Resources Development, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister report on the results of the negotiations between the Islington band in the Kenora area and the Ontario government in regard to certain matters to assist that band? Is he aware of the position paper of the Minaki Community Association of May 5, 1981, taking exception to the way in which this procedure has been carried out?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Yes, Mr. Speaker. There was a report made to the cabinet committee on native affairs a week ago. It will be going to cabinet next week, I hope. There is a meeting with the mediator, Mr. Ted Joliffe, this Friday. At that time we will be asking for a deferment of a month of the deadline of May 30 for a memorandum of understanding. We would like to think we could have a memorandum of understanding by the end of June.

The negotiator's progress report was very encouraging. He had reached agreement on several of the matters. It was a very positive type of report. But I cannot disclose its contents until it goes to cabinet next Wednesday, I hope.

As far as the Minaki situation is concerned, I am aware of their concerns and they are being addressed.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is not just the Minaki Community Association; it is also the Minaki chapter of the Ontario Metis and Non-Status Indian Association. Will they be made aware of the items in the memorandum agreement before it is signed? Will they have any input and opportunity to make their views known before the contract or agreement is signed between the government and the Islington band?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: I do not think I can give the honourable member a definite answer in that respect. I would like to think that they would be, and I will work in that direction, but I do not want to commit myself to that at this particular time.

Mr. Wildman: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Can the minister indicate whether Mr. Crofts, who is involved in the negotiations, is satisfied with the progress that is being made? Is he aware of the complaints he has made over the past few months about the lack of progress on the part of the provincial government?

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I will ask my colleague to repeat the name of the gentleman to whom he is referring.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Bruce Crofts.

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: No. I am not sure whether he is aware of the progress.

[Later]

Hon. Mr. Ramsay: Mr. Speaker, I rise to correct the record, if I may. In responding to my colleague the member for Rainy River, I indicated that the mediator had reported to the cabinet committee on resources development. I realize that was incorrect. He reported on May 7 to the cabinet committee on native affairs.

FOOD PRICES

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations.

As the minister who has some responsibility for the protection of consumers, is he aware of the tremendous increase in the price of prepared breakfast cereals? Does he know that since January 1979 the retail price of Kellogg's Corn Flakes has gone up from 71 cents to $1.01; that this package of Nabisco Shredded Wheat has gone up from 85 cents to $1.25; that General Foods' Alpha-Bits has gone up from 83 cents to $1.31; and that Cheerios has gone up from 87 cents to $1.37? There has been an average increase of about 50 per cent in 28 months.

Will the minister do a meaningful investigation and report back to this House and to the people of Ontario why the prices of cereals -- and, of course, cereals are a very basic food -- have risen twice as fast as wages and salaries?

Hon. Mr. Walker: Mr. Speaker, I want to know why the honourable member does not send those over to me. He used to send them over to my colleague. My colleague was able to furnish his entire house with what the member sent over.

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

Hon. Mr. Walker: I think my privileges have been breached, Mr. Speaker. I think the honourable member should be made to toe the line on it.

Mr. Speaker, costs undoubtedly have fluctuated in the food market, and our food monitoring program has put out a number of price rises and price indications all over the province. I am sure the member has report 24 of the food prices monitoring program issued for April 1981. The report shows that prices on a number of items have gone up, and in a number of areas they have gone down. In fact, the April report shows that in places like southern Ontario, there have been significant price decreases. In northwestern Ontario prices are still higher than in Toronto but, in 10 out of the 11 centres we checked, the gap has narrowed significantly; so we feel there has been some significant improvement in that.

One cannot just measure food prices and food costs on one item; one has to look at a certain kind of package. I remind the honourable member that, if a certain amount of special shopping is done, one can find foods that are satisfactory and one can find specials in the papers without too much difficulty.

Last Wednesday, we did a bit of menu shopping over in our ministry, and we provided three menus for a family of four composed of the specials that were available in the Toronto stores. This could be done in other communities as well. If those newspapers are available, one can search those out.

If one were to inspect the menus of these families, one would find that checking at the Loblaws store they could get a special on an entire meal for four for $7.29 instead of $11.44, which would have been the regular price. That is a saving of 36.3 per cent.

If the member had checked Knob Hill Farms, he would have found that, instead of paying the regular price of $10.16, he could have had a significant decrease and paid only $8.38 for that entire meal. And the list goes on.

2:50 p.m.

If the member were to check some of the other costs, perhaps check some of the other food, he would find there have been some significant decreases. Yes, of course, there are some increases; but there are decreases as well. He should keep those in mind. Why does the member not bring to my attention some time some of the decreases? That might be important as well.

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, those on the other side of the House may think these kinds of increases are a joke but, to the people on modest wages and salaries, they are no joke.

I asked the specific question about why these prices have increased. May I ask the minister if he is not aware that the big three multinational cereal companies, Kellogg, General Mills and General Foods, are charged with collusion under the antitrust act in the United States and with illegally extracting something like $1.2 million from American consumers?

The same companies dominate the cereal market here -- in fact, the concentration is greater -- and the retail price here is about 30 per cent higher. This cereal sells over there for 97 cents, compared with $1.37 in this country.

Does all this not indicate to the minister that there is prima facie evidence of consumer gouging here? Why would the minister not want to look into it and to ask the federal minister to help him look into it?

Hon. Mr. Walker: For one thing, the honourable member could consider having eggs for breakfast; there seems to be a good price on them. I think that is the important thing. When one finds costs are going up in one area, a proper consumer -- and a proper consumer the member should be, I would think -- will go out and look for different prices. The one way to prevent prices from going up is to stop buying. That works all the time.

What I would like to know is, since the member seems to be comparing the prices from over in Buffalo all the time, how on earth does he get across the Peace Bridge with all the traffic going over to get some gas? No one else can get over; I do not know how the member can get over to do it.

BRADFORD AREA LAND USE

Mr. Riddell: I have a question to the Minister of Agriculture and Food, Mr. Speaker.

Anticipating that since yesterday the minister has checked his files on the town of Vaughan rezoning appeal by a group of developers and a close associate of the Premier (Mr. Davis), I want to ask whether the minister is aware of yet another appeal before cabinet, this time by Devon Downs Developments Limited to overturn an Ontario Municipal Board decision that ruled against the development of a farm type of condominium in the Bradford area, and more specifically in West Gwillimbury township, which again is contrary to the food land guidelines.

Can the minister assure us that he will be recommending to his cabinet that this proposal be rejected outright and that the OMB decision be upheld?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member knows full well that this is a decision to be made by cabinet. I was not aware of the petition, but it will be dealt with by cabinet at its leisure.

Mr. Riddell: Does the minister not agree that his ministry's food land guidelines must be upheld in the interests of preserving farm land and that this development must be rejected emphatically, making it quite clear to other developers that residential housing developments do not belong on primary farm land, including the proposed development in the town of Vaughan?

Hon. Mr. Henderson: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member is talking about two different issues. He is talking about Devon Downs, and he is talking about the town of Vaughan. I do not know which one he wants an answer to. It seems quite clear --

Mr. Riddell: You want to believe it! The developments are on prime agricultural land. What are you going to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Henderson: It seems quite clear that the honourable member does not know what he is talking about on either one of them.

HIGHWAY 404 EXTENSION

Mr. Samis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transportation and Communications. In the interests of fair play, since the member for Kingston and the Islands (Mr. Norton) gave his version of the events regarding Highway 404, I thought it would be only fair if we allowed the minister to give his version.

What I want to know is, can the minister explain to the House how his ministry could openly and deliberately flout the Environmental Assessment Act and proceed so openly and brazenly with the project?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any way that the honourable member can come to that conclusion. Our ministry started the Highway 404 project in 1960, when the land was purchased after public meetings decided on the routing of the highway. Actual construction did not start until 1974, I believe it was, and since that time there have been seven contracts awarded in a continuing program to extend Highway 404 from Highway 401 to Davis Drive.

As the planning stages for this project had been completed prior to the Environmental Assessment Act, the total project was exempted from a type one environmental assessment, but we were required for those projects beyond a certain stage to submit type two reports.

On May 12 or May 14, 1980, we submitted to my colleague's ministry our type two reports for this particular project. Some weeks ago we were advised that the assessment had taken place and that there would be certain conditions to the approval. My ministry was agreeable to meet the conditions laid down by the Ministry of the Environment. The project was tendered as scheduled and awarded.

Mr. Samis: If everything was on the up and up, how does the minister explain the statement by Mr. Cross of the Ministry of the Environment, "If it was someone outside the government, we would probably take them to court"?

Hon. Mr. Snow: I would never attempt to explain why any environmental planner might make a statement such as that.

Mr. Nixon: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: If his ministry's procedures were so in order, can the minister explain why the Premier ordered him to stop the construction?

Hon. Mr. Snow: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague explained that. This matter of the one objection submitted to my colleague had come forward and had to be discussed. The Premier requested that the project be halted until it could be considered by full cabinet tomorrow. It is as simple as that. The project was halted this afternoon.

MARKET VALUE ASSESSMENT

Mr. Sweeney: I have a question for the Minister of Revenue, Mr. Speaker. My question deals with market value assessment in those communities, like Kitchener, that have opted to come under that particular procedure.

If market value assessment is determined by selling prices of comparable dwelling units, why is the assessed value not decreased when the selling prices of comparable units decline significantly?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the honourable member is aware, the market value assessment is usually determined through a section 86 reassessment, which I think is what he is referring to. The actual assessment procedure takes placed based on 1975 or 1978 assessment and then is equalized through the appropriate use of a factor. Those are now adjusted on a regular basis.

It is our hope that, as time and facilities and dollars are available, we will be able to update the actual market value assessment on a more regular basis. That is not being done at this time, however; so the most current actual assessment, if you will, or actual market value, is for 1978.

3 p.m.

Keep in mind, Mr. Speaker, the honourable member referred to the fact that it is based on sales. Sales are not the only relevant factor considered in all instances. In some municipalities not enough sales have taken place on an open-buyer or free-trade basis to make them relevant within that particular category. In such cases an actual valuation has to be made by an assessor as to the established market value of a particular class of property.

Mr. Sweeney: What options are available to home owners who have had their units assessed without any market prices available and who now see the value of their homes, based upon comparable units, decline by $11,000, $12,000 or $13,000? What options are available to those people when they try to get this reviewed when they cannot go back, as the minister says, to 1975 or 1978 figures? What can they do?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: There is quite a normal procedure that is not at all unusual or new. When they receive their assessment notices in the fall of the year, they can in proper order file an appeal of that assessment and it is heard by the assessment review court.

Mr. Sweeney: That has been done, and it has declined them. It said it cannot accept them.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I want to rise on that little afterthought. If there are particular instances where it has not accepted them, where they did not win their cases, that is one thing, that is that.

The assessment review court is a tribunal where both sides of the issue come forward as in a court of law, although it is not a judicial court of law in the strictest sense. They make their case, the assessor on one side and the home owner or group of home owners, as the case may be, on the other side. That is what the court is all about. It says which side has made its case. I would suggest that, if their appeal was not sustained, they did not make their case.

Mr. Charlton: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker: Ever since 1970, when the government decided to move in the direction of market value, it was realized that leaving market values in place too long caused the kind of inequities the honourable member is referring to and that reassessments would have to be done every two or three years.

How long is it going to take his ministry to get its act together so it can deal effectively with the kind of inequities being referred to here? The only way they can be dealt with is by constant review of market value assessment.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, I cannot disagree with that conclusion. As a matter of fact, one cannot have it both ways in terms of criticizing the government for spending money while at the same time suggesting it should be balancing the budget and saving money.

We have a certain amount of resources available to us, and we would like to do an update every year, but that is not practical with the resources available to us at this time. Our present goal is to update any 1975 assessments to 1978, and we hope over the next couple of years to be able to keep the reassessment function as up to date as our resources will allow.

PROPERTY SPECULATION

Mr. Breaugh: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Housing; it concerns the activities of a company by the name of Steveston Enterprises Limited of Vancouver which is currently speculating in the housing market in Ontario. Will he explain to the House how this one company from out of the province can come into Ontario and on two deals, one in Oshawa and one in London, wrap up a profit of probably more than $2 million at the expense of Ontario taxpayers?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No, Mr. Speaker, because I do not have the background on this particular case. If the honourable member would like to send it to me, I would be glad to look at it, review it and report back.

Mr. Breaugh: I want to know how these out-of-province speculators can come here and buy from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in Oshawa for $14,700 a condominium unit whose market value is approximately $40,000. Why were the people of Ontario not given an opportunity to buy those units at those prices?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: I am delighted the member referred to the out-of-towners. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation happens to be owned by Canadian taxpayers, to the best of my knowledge, and it has never limited the opportunity to buy any of its surplus units to certain Canadians. It has made them available to those who wish to come in and buy them.

If it happens to be a Canadian who comes in, buys them and invests money in refurbishing and renovating the units and puts them back on the market -- the member from Sudbury can sit and chuckle, but I can tell him that most of these units CHMC has put on the market have had to have a fair amount of money put into refurbishing, renovation and improvement to put them back on the market in a profitable position. That is the system.

The units have been available. Whether it be in the McLaughlin building, where we happened to sell some units through the Ontario Mortgage Corporation, or whether it happened to be the CMHC ones that are put up for sale, they are there on a bid basis for companies, Canadians -- the member for Oshawa shakes his head, but to the best of my knowledge, CMHC puts them up on a bid basis.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, a few months ago a very severe letter was sent to CMHC and the federal government about the fact that they limited the number of real estate agents who could act on their behalf. CMHC expanded the opportunity for all real estate agents to participate in the disposal of their reclaimed apartment buildings or homes as a result of defaults in mortgages.

Mr. Breaugh: The units in Oshawa, for example, have already been refurbished at taxpayers' expense. These particular units were not put open to bid in something called a preferred tender. Is the minister really saying his ministry does not know and does not care that the taxpayers of Ontario are funding this $2-million ripoff?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: First, I have never indicated that we are not interested. We are obviously interested in what happens in the real estate market in this province. I would suggest the member might like to ask his counterpart, the federal member, to place the question in the federal House to the minister who reports for CMHC, since it is their asset. They set the terms of reference under which they will dispose of their units.

I can only say as a Canadian taxpayer we likely have invested money on some units in refurbishing them to put them back into a market position so that residents of his community have the opportunity of buying them and living in conditions that are socially acceptable.

Mr. Breaugh: No, they did not.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: They must have if they sold them again.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege. Yesterday the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) in a statement in reply to a supplementary of mine, with her usual indifference and lack of concern for accuracy, stated that Niagara College of Applied Arts and Technology could not have sold all the seats in any course to Canada Manpower. Today I discussed it with Mr. Desmond McCurrie, who is in charge of that department, and they have sold all the --

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is not a matter of privilege.

INTRODUCTION OF BILL

MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Drea moved, seconded by Hon. Mrs. Birch, first reading of Bill 84, An Act to amend the Ministry of Community and Social Services Act.

Motion agreed to.

SKILLS TRAINING

Mr. Swart: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you would permit me, since you ruled me out on the point of privilege, to rise to correct the record.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, as long as it is not a question and you are going to correct the record.

Mr. Swart: Yesterday the Minister of Education stated it was not possible for Niagara College to have sold all their seats in any particular course to Manpower. I have investigated with Mr. Desmond McCurrie, who is head of the department. He says they have 45 seats in welding and 20 seats in industrial maintenance and they have all been sold to Manpower for the coming term.

I would ask the minister to investigate that and report back to this House --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, if I may respond to that, the actual information is this: Last year, as a result of concerns expressed by various members in this House, we sent a directive to all the community colleges specifying that they must retain at least 10 per cent of the seats in their skills training programs for local students who were not Manpower students. The actual figures --

Mr. Swart: It was 20 yesterday.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: No, I did not say "20," I said "a percentage." The actual figures for Niagara College this year are: in drafting, 20 per cent of the seats are available for fee payers; bartending, 25 per cent; food preparation, 17 per cent; construction, 17 per cent; industrial electronics, 10 per cent; industrial maintenance mechanic, zero; machine shop, six per cent; toolmaking, 10 per cent; stationary engineer, 15 per cent; and welding fitter, 28.8 per cent.

3:10 p.m.

Niagara College is not complying with the directive that has been sent in two areas only. That has been made known to them, because it is a requirement set upon the colleges by the Ministry of Colleges and Universities.

ORDERS OF THE DAY

BUDGET DEBATE (CONTINUED)

Resuming the adjourned debate on the amendment to the motion that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, to begin, I would like to express my thanks to those who have helped me in preparing a reply to the budget introduced last week. Specifically, I want to mention the help I received from two of our research staff, Sym Gil and Dave Robertson, and also my assistant, Rosalie Feather, and thank them for the yeoman service and hard work they did in helping me to prepare.

I regret the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is unable to be here but I appreciate the fact that his parliamentary assistant is present. The Treasurer must be a very good car salesman, because if he can sell this budget to the people of this province he can sell anything.

Preparing my reply has been a learning experience and an opportunity I appreciate. It is especially an honour for me to succeed the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren) as the Treasury critic for this caucus. During his tenure as Treasury critic the member established a credibility on economic issues that is unparalleled by anyone in this House, including the Treasurer.

The member spoke with such authority the Minister of Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) took to quoting him in his speeches. We heard the minister talking about the need for an industrial strategy and the problems of a truncated branch plant economy throughout this province. Unfortunately, the minister apparently did not understand the substance of the comments made over the years by my colleague the member for Nickel Belt. Perhaps he did understand them, but if so he rejected the implications for fear he and his government would have to respond to the serious problems we face in this economy.

On behalf of my party, I want to say we categorically reject the Treasurer's budget. We categorically reject the economic and budgetary policies upon which it is based. We reject this government's budget because it is clearly unfair and inequitable. It places an even greater financial burden on those who are least able to afford it, while exempting other sectors of society from contributing their fair share.

Furthermore, the budget is totally inadequate to respond to the economic problems of Ontario. It does nothing to respond to the needs of the 292,000 people now out of work and it does nothing to rebuild the province's industrial base. In fact, if there are any guiding principles in this budget they are clearly those of inequity and futility.

Even though the Treasurer admits that over the last three years wage increases have lagged behind inflation, he proceeds to increase tax rates for Ontario families to the highest level in Canada. At the same time, the Treasurer casually admits his decision to leave the corporate income tax rates unchanged. These two actions aptly sum up the government's policy.

Mr. Jones: You must have missed parts of it.

Mr. Wildman: If the parliamentary assistant would listen, I am sure he would learn we have a diametrically opposed view of what is wrong in this province, and how we should deal with it, to that of the government.

Mr. Jones: Absolutely right.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. The two quotes I have just mentioned by the Treasurer aptly sum up the government's policies. On the one hand, there is an attempt to grab even more revenue from ordinary working people who are suffering the effects of record high rates of inflation and skyrocketing interest rates, while on the other hand there is a misguided assumption that by creating a favourable investment climate in Ontario the present economic problems will be resolved.

Mr. Jones: Are you against the favourable climate?

Mr. Wildman: We will be dealing with that whole question. I realize I will not be able to persuade the Treasurer to leave his ideological straitjacket but I hope that by the reason of my argument I will be able to persuade the parliamentary assistant that there needs to be a change in the government's outlook. Perhaps then he can prevail upon the Treasurer to change their point of view.

We in this party might be prepared to accept an increase in the provincial income tax, since it is a more progressive tax measure than the other changes announced by the Treasurer, except that the effect of the OHIP premium increases and the Treasurer's refusal to change corporate tax rates certainly opens to question the fairness of the whole fiscal package. Since the government is determined to protect the corporate sector from tax increases, the burden falls on the individuals and families of Ontario. The percentage of the total provincial revenues obtained from corporate taxes has declined from an average of 17.7 per cent in the 1960s to 12 per cent in 1981-82. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, what equity is there in a trend like that?

The nine per cent increase in personal income tax and the 15 per cent increase on OHIP premiums means that an Ontario family of four earning $15,000 a year pays an effective tax rate of about 80 per cent of the federal tax payable. That is far higher than any other province in Canada. In fact, such a family would now be paying more to the provincial government in health care tax than it would be paying in personal income taxes.

OHIP premiums have been raised 43.75 per cent since 1977. Darcy McKeough tried to increase this regressive tax by 37 per cent in 1977, but the opposition forced him to backtrack. The government has persisted in --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Majority government.

Mr. Wildman: Yes, this majority government has persisted in its determination to continue to fund 30 per cent of health care costs through increasing this regressive health care tax and it increased it piecemeal to a level even higher than McKeough intended. OHIP premiums are another form of taxation and must be included along with personal income taxes when calculating the tax rate paid by Ontario residents. The Treasurer cannot get away with propagating the myth that the 48 per cent income tax rate means that Ontario taxpayers pay among the lowest taxes in this country.

The other main fiscal measure to which we strenuously object is the change to ad valorem taxation on gasoline and other commodities. While the Treasurer worries very briefly about inflation in his budget, he is now prepared to compound price and tax increases on gasoline, basically to profit from inflation at the expense of the taxpayers. Even more reprehensible is the way this government has ignored -- and now intends to profit from -- the price gouging of the oil companies.

The federal government's combines branch investigation into oil prices established that Canadian consumers were overcharged $12.1 billion between 1958 and 1973 by the major oil companies. On a population basis, that means that Ontario residents were overcharged $4.3 billion, and that is only up to 1973. Considering the price hikes since 1973, that amount will in fact be much greater today.

3:20 p.m.

We believe the government should have recaptured those ripoffs. It has the power to do so. It could have established a price freeze on gasoline, as it did in 1975, until such time as Ontario consumers had regained their lost income. Instead of protecting consumers from oil price gouging in the first place, instead of forcing companies to pay back their ill-gotten gains, this government decided to get in on the act and tax those very consumers who are paying ripoff prices. This indicates that this budget is unacceptable to us as much for what is missing as for what it includes.

It defies credibility that the Treasurer would bring down a document at this time that makes only passing reference to inflation and interest rates and does not even mention the current crisis in the provision of affordable housing. Now that housing prices have escalated to levels averaging over $100,000 for a single family home in Metro Toronto, with huge speculative profits being made, action must be taken. How does the Treasurer justify ignoring the glaring problem facing families in this city and in other cities in Ontario? It is not good enough for him to abandon to such a marketplace people who dream of owning their own homes. A tough housing speculation tax should have been included in the budget to force an end to the unconscionable speculation in real estate in this province.

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Just continue with your speech, Mr. Wildman.

Mr. Wildman: I am glad the parliamentary assistant is listening. Perhaps the government might have the imagination to be able to design a speculation tax that would not hurt a home owner in the sale of his own principal residence. What we are concerned about is people who are purchasing homes throughout this city and other cities of this province simply for speculative purposes. Surely this government has the imagination to be able to come up with a tax that would deal with that kind of speculation and not be punitive to the home owner who is selling his principal residence because he has to move somewhere else.

With inflation running at 12.6 per cent, the prime interest rate topping 19.5 per cent and mortgages ranging from 18 to 19 per cent, the Treasurer presents no statement of policy proposals for relief. That is really beyond belief. When one considers the comments made in this House by the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett) to questions by my leader regarding the increase in housing costs across this province -- to the effect that people should move to the outskirts because houses do not cost as much there -- and when one then is hit by the increase in gasoline taxes, it is obvious this government is out to get the ordinary families of this province both ways.

Mr. Jones: You heard the Minister of Housing respond to that already.

Mr. Wildman: Well, okay; I recognize the interest rate policy is within the federal jurisdiction. I know that is an argument the government has used in the past, but surely the Treasurer has something to say about it. By his silence he appears to be acquiescing to the federal Liberal government's monetarist policies. The NDP rejects the Conservative-Liberal-central bank policy of slavishly following interest rate policies set in the United States.

New Democrats believe that we need a made-in-Canada policy and we need measures that will lower interest rates immediately. Surely the Treasurer can see the effects of the current interest rates on home owners, farmers and small business people in this province. It is just not good enough for this government to take the position that these problems must be solved in Ottawa. The Treasurer has the responsibility to aid Ontario residents who are worst hit.

Last year, when the bank rate was around 17 per cent, our party proposed the establishment of temporary assistance funds to assist average and lower income people to finance mortgage rate increases. We believe that assistance was warranted for home owners facing mortgage rate hikes to ensure that the gross debt service cost would not be higher than 30 per cent of the family income. Such a temporary program is needed even more urgently today than it was last year and should have been included in the budget.

The Treasurer and the Premier (Mr. Davis), however, continue to wash their hands of the interest rate problem; but their hands are not clean, since provincial economic policy as well as federal economic policy has brought about our present difficulties.

We must not lose sight of the fact that our dependence on foreign investment is one of the main causes leading to the present crisis that we face. Just as successive federal Liberal governments have done, successive provincial Conservative governments have consistently adopted an economic strategy which has relied upon attracting foreign capital. This has meant interest rates have to follow those in the United States, and that is a policy which has guaranteed further deficits will be financed by attracting even more foreign capital, and so on and so on.

The underlying structural weaknesses of our economy and the failure of the federal and provincial governments to deal with them have led us to this present crisis. Obviously then the province, as well as the federal government, shares in the responsibility to provide both short-term and long-term solutions to our economic difficulties.

I would like to deal with the problems facing the Treasurer in developing his economic and fiscal policy. In budget paper A, the Treasurer states the obvious when he says that the provincial finances are sensitive to the performance of the Ontario economy. Therein lies his major problem, and it is a problem with which he cannot come to grips. With the province's dismal economic performance of the late 1970s, government revenues have declined and the government has been caught in a squeeze with apparently little room to manoeuvre.

The government proves itself a master of understatement through the Treasurer, who says Ontario's economic performance slipped towards the mid-1970s and was relatively sluggish for the remainder of the decade, when we consider the real economic growth rate was 0.9 per cent over the last three years. The Treasurer points out that as a result of this slow growth rate the government's revenues slipped as well, averaging almost two percentage points lower in the second half of the decade as compared to the first, falling from a compound annual average of 13.4 per cent to 11.7 per cent.

In order to understand fully the problems facing the Conservative government in dealing with its fiscal difficulty and the province's economic problems, it is necessary to analyse the fundamental changes taking place in the world economy and Ontario's place in it. The confluence of events of the 1970s -- the rapid increase in the price of food and manufactured products exported by advanced capitalist nations, the emergence of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, currency fluctuations subsequent to the abandonment of the gold standard and recurrent turmoils in the international monetary system -- has wrenched the global economy loose from its post-war mooring.

The United States' economic domination, so taken for granted in the last three decades, has given way to a free-for-all among industrial nations, with each trying to grab or preserve as much as possible of the shrinking economic pie. It is these changes, coupled with the recent and ongoing changes in the terms of trade resulting from the Tokyo round of the general agreement on tariffs and trade, that shape the prospects of the Canadian and Ontario economies.`

I think the problem is that the government, just like the parliamentary assistant, has not been ready to analyse these problems and determine adequate policies for dealing with them. Instead they sit there saying, "You are blaming us for these." I am not blaming him for these world trends. What I am saying is that the government has to consider them in determining its economic policy.

3:30 p.m.

Within this framework of change there emerge new patterns of international division of labour and the redirection of the flows of international investment. Industrialized nations such as Canada are experiencing new competition for investment and markets from the newly industrialized countries of the Pacific basin and Latin America. Financial incentives and repressive labour policies in such countries have attracted investment by transnational corporations in industrial development to produce manufactured goods for export.

In 1971, for the first time, manufacturing export earnings in non-oil, underdeveloped nations exceeded their earnings from exports of food and raw materials. While manufacturing employment as a percentage of total employment has been falling in Canada, the US and the industrialized countries of western Europe, it has been growing rapidly in the newly industrialized countries. For instance, between 1970 and 1979 manufacturing employment rose 40 per cent in Hong Kong, 185 per cent in South Korea and 51 per cent in Mexico. In Canada, by contrast, manufacturing employment increased by only 16 per cent, and in Ontario it grew by only 22 per cent during the decade.

Mr. Jones: Do not compare us to Hong Kong -- compare us to Ohio.

Mr. Wildman: Those states that the parliamentary assistant mentions are undergoing the same kind of pressures that Ontario is undergoing.

Mr. Jones: That is right, but we are doing a better job of it.

Mr. Wildman: That remains to be seen.

Canada's trade balance in manufacturing with fast growing newly industrialized countries as well as with OPEC is now in a deficit position. The surge in manufacturing exports from these countries has caused hardship in the industrial sectors of countries like ours -- especially, but not only, in the low-technology industries. While in absolute terms the amount of manufactured products we import from these nations, to be sure, is still small, in recent years we have seen an import wave of more technically intensive products from them -- in particular, auto parts and specific electrical and electronic products.

For example, at present about 40 per cent of our auto parts production is composed of engines. All indications suggest that in the current round of downsizing we are losing our domestic engine production capacity. At the same time we are importing engines from captive plants of the auto majors in Brazil and Mexico. At present we have a deficit of over $42 million in engines from the above countries, a 54 per cent increase in just one year.

In the electrical-electronic field certain subsectors, notably small electrical appliances, lighting fixtures and radio and television, are becoming more vulnerable to imports. Many manufacturers of televisions in Canada, especially black and white production, have phased out domestic production altogether. At the same time imports from countries such as South Korea, where branch plants of Japanese companies have set up in free trade zones, have increased dramatically.

Between 1970 and 1979, for example, imports of electrical-electronic goods from South Korea increased from $300,000 to $43.7 million. In Canada between 1974 and 1979 over 20,000 jobs were lost in electrical-electronic industries, and domestic production of black and white televisions has been totally phased out.

For every million dollars' worth of manufactured goods imported Canada forfeits 160 jobs, $2,590,000 in annual wages and over $480,000 in provincial and federal taxes.

Mr. Martel: And you wonder why you have no money.

Mr. Wildman: That is right. Not only the emerging Third World nations but also the historically underdeveloped regions of Europe such as Spain and Ireland are competing with us for investment and expanding manufacturing enterprises to produce exports.

Canadian companies such as Mitel, Alcan, Cominco, Northern Telecom, Moore Corporation and Seagrams have joined the other transnationals in operating in Ireland, for instance. Along with the shift of multinational investment to low-wage, high-incentive countries has been the corresponding shift of investment into the US. More and more US-based multinationals are shifting their operations back home, and more non-US-based multinationals are increasing their direct investment and indirect investments in the United States as well.

The effects on investment employment posed by this trend for Ontario, with its manufacturing sector dominated by branch plants of United States companies, are only too obvious. With reductions under the general agreement on tariffs and trade scheduled for the 1980s, companies will continue to rationalize their operations. A few examples demonstrate the dangers that Ontario faces from this trend, a trend that has already begun.

The Speaker, I am sure, will be interested and aware that Outboard Marine in Peterborough had its export markets in Europe and Africa reclaimed by its US parent. Winchester-Western closed down its Ontario rifle operation and chose to satisfy the Canadian market from its home base. Essex Wire, a subsidiary of the US giant United Technologies, closed down its electrical harness operation in Ontario and actually shipped much of its production machinery back to the United States.

Mr. Jones: Do you have an equal list of some that have been coming in over the last year?

Mr. Wildman: I am sure I do not have to go into those kinds of lists. The parliamentary assistant seems to be somewhat upset by us trying to bring forward for him the actual problems we face in this economy. I wish the parliamentary assistant was aware that even the Treasurer acknowledges the fears of this government in the face of increasing US competition and competition from Canadian provinces.

Mr. Jones: That is why he responded with this budget with such programs as this.

Mr. Wildman: The problem is that this budget is inadequate. More and more Canadian companies are expanding their operations in the United States. From 1977 to 1979, Canada was the third most active country, after the United Kingdom and West Germany, in total investments in the United States. In the last decade, Canada's direct investment in the United States has tripled in value. I am sure the parliamentary assistant cannot argue that it has tripled in value in Ontario.

We cannot accept the argument sometimes put forward by this government and others that these investment decisions by private corporations are in our interest. The profits flowing into this country from these US operations do not in any way offset the loss of jobs and the lost potential for expanding manufacturing capacity here. The mobility of private investment capital makes it difficult for governments like this one to use traditional methods to influence those decisions in our economic interest.

Investments have been flowing from Ontario, not only to foreign jurisdictions but also into energy-related developments in Canada's western provinces. While investment is shifting to the west, higher energy prices are further undermining Canadian manufacturing in Ontario. How harmful to Ontario's economy the effects of these developments are can be seen when one considers the statistics on layoffs in this province.

For the first three months of this year alone, 3,606 workers were laid off and more are scheduled. As well, 23 plants have been permanently closed, while 46 either have been partially closed or have reduced operations.

Mr. Jones: With a net gain on average of 100,000 new jobs a year.

Mr. Wildman: Despite the comments from the other side, obviously the Ontario economy is in trouble. Its traditional non-technology-intensive industries are threatened by imports from low-wage, high-incentive countries. In a world of "free trade," its more favoured industries are open to increased competition from the advanced capitalist countries; its branch plants are unsuited to the changing conditions of international trade and are subject to the rationalizing efforts of their US parents in their own struggle to survive; its strong industries have matured to the point where they now are internationalizing their own operations, and Ontario's traditional domination within Confederation is threatened by the shift of economic growth out of this province.

But this government remains paralyzed. It cannot act. It maintains its almost passive role. It is happy to sit there and say, "Things are not as bad as you say."

When one looks at the budget produced by this Treasurer, one realizes the real tragedy of the government's decision to sock it to ordinary residents of this province with whopping tax increases, while letting the corporations off scot-free. It is the government's blind faith that it is preparing the way for Ontario's economic recovery by remaining "an attractive investment climate" for the corporate sector.

If the Treasurer is so convinced an attractive investment climate is the answer to Ontario's economic problems, why is it we still have these problems?

3:40 p.m.

The Treasurer makes the point that Ontario's treatment of corporations is competitive with other jurisdictions. If that is the case, what has been done to improve our fruit and vegetable processing industry? What has this policy of good investment climate done for our auto industry? What has it done for the machinery and tool industry? What has it done for our mining and forestry industries?

If maintaining a favourable investment climate for foreign corporations is the way to rebuild our economy, can the government please explain why we do not have a strong mining machinery industry? Can the government explain why profitable plants are being relocated? Perhaps the government can explain why we have all the problems we now have if all we have to do is maintain the policy it has had all along.

The Treasurer is in a trap. The only way he can explain his situation is to suggest that other jurisdictions are developing better investment climates and therefore perhaps Ontario needs to give even more tax concessions to private enterprise. If this is the policy of the government, the future for Ontario is clear. In that kind of investment poker game, Ontario will be left holding the jokers instead of the aces we were dealt.

The budget does not set forth any new government initiatives to respond to the real problems of this province's economy. It demonstrates a complete inability and unwillingness by the Conservatives to recognize the underlying causes of our sluggish performance and to design strategies for its counteraction.

Basically the government cannot deal with the severe structural weaknesses of our economy. But, to be fair, even the Conservatives cannot completely ignore the need for government action to counteract the basic weaknesses of our economy. How could they when they were faced almost daily in this assembly over the last three years by my predecessor as NDP Treasury critic, the member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Laughren). He has been explaining the need for government action over the last three years and identifying various sectors of the economy where Ontario has opportunities for profitable expansion.

How can the government ignore it when confronted with the seemingly endless round of layoffs and plant shutdowns? The government just cannot ignore the fact that in 1971 manufacturing as a percentage of Ontario's employment was 27.3 per cent but now it has dropped to 25.2 per cent. Our machinery and electrical products industries have lost 4,400 and 3,500 jobs, respectively, since 1975. Canada is the only industrialized nation that imports more than 50 per cent of its industrial machines and tools.

The government has been scrambling to give the impression that it is responding to NDP calls for action. But, while ministers like the Minister for Industry and Tourism (Mr. Grossman) continually spout rhetoric in pronouncements about strategies for stemming the tide of economic decline, they have only proposed their wholly inadequate Board of Industrial Leadership Development program. Other than regurgitating that package of election goodies, with only $150 million budgeted in each year over the next five years, the Treasurer has nothing to say in his budget about new economic policies.

The absence of any real measures that turn the tide of outflow of capital and jobs in the budget belies the oft-repeated statement of various ministers about their commitment to concerted action to prevent serious dislocations facing Ontario in the 1980s.

Mr. Martel: We got an advisory committee for mining equipment.

Mr. Wildman: I am going to get to that.

The only significant direct job creation project mentioned in the budget -- since the parliamentary assistant wants me to talk about what the budget says about BILD -- is the thrust in the BILD program for electrification. But at a time when the Treasurer argues that expenditures should be curtailed, Ontario Hydro has excess capacity of 45 per cent and Wesleyville and Lennox are being mothballed at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, Darlington is being accelerated at a projected total cost of about $6 billion. It takes an unbelievable leap in logic to accept that there is justification for this public expenditure in a saving of $60 million in coal.

To attempt to characterize nuclear as some kind of alternative clean energy source -- the salvation of a province threatened by acid rain -- while Ontario Hydro continues to drag its feet on the installation of scrubbers at its coal-fired generating stations is ridiculous and intellectually dishonest.

Mr. Jones: You are against expanding our electrical capacity.

Mr. Wildman: The member just does not understand.

Mr. Jones: Oh yes, I do. I have to sit here and listen to it.

Mr. Wildman: This government talks about limiting expenditures on the one hand and then continually wastefully spends more and more. Then it says, when we talk about their expenditures, that somehow we are against development. The member really does not understand.

Basically the budget is characterized by a complete absence of any direct economic stimulus for short-term job creation. There are more than 292,000 people currently unemployed in Ontario. The budget does not contain a single job creation scheme.

Even the Treasurer's corporate friends do not believe in his forecast. Ben Gestrin, the chief economic adviser to the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, is quoted as saying, "I can't foresee these forecasts materializing." He is talking about the 106,000 new jobs. The Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce does not foresee them being materialized.

I will not embarrass the government by quoting the reactions of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business or the Toronto Home Builders' Association. It is enough to talk about even closer friends of the government. There is one comment I would like to pass on. It is the assessment of the Tory finance critic in Ottawa. Mr. Speaker, do you know what John Crosbie had to say about this budget?

The Deputy Speaker: No.

Mr. Wildman: He called it "a pretty grim concoction." Then he went on to say, "I can only commiserate with the people of Ontario."

Sometimes John Crosbie is right on in his assessments. More often he is not, but sometimes he is right on.

This government asserts that 106,000 jobs will be created this year related obliquely to the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development, but it does not explain how these jobs will be created. The net result of the creation of all of these jobs, even if they are realized, will still be 295,000 unemployed in this province. That is a great record, a great prediction.

By and large, the Conservative government's long-term policy for developing marketing opportunities for our products in our manufacturing sector are inadequate and wrong-headed. Faced with the prospect of accelerated corporate rationalization and withdrawal of the branch plant operations in Ontario, the government is desperately trying to adapt its branch plant production to increasing competition for markets.

Multinationals in Canada have a number of options. They can respond to changing conditions by rationalizing production along the lines of the auto pact or by continuing to withdraw to the United States and serving the Canadian market from there, or they could grant their subsidiaries some form of product mandate for select production lines.

Since the Conservatives are not capable of challenging the leading role of the multinationals in our economy, the Treasurer continues to argue that Ontario must attract foreign investment if our resources are to be utilized, despite the fact that the need to avoid tariffs walls for access to the Canadian market after the general agreement on tariffs and trade will no longer induce multinationals to establish subsidiaries here.

3:50 p.m.

The Tories are not blind, however, to the difficulties facing Ontario because of their dependence on the investment decisions of the multinationals. They see the disastrous imbalance resulting from the operation of the auto pact with a $3.8-billion deficit in parts manufacture in 1980. This resulted in a loss of more than 16,000 jobs.

They are scrambling to avoid further plant shutdowns in other sectors. The government hopes to prevent further contraction of Ontario's manufacturing by persuading multinationals to choose global product mandating.

The recent report of the Task Force on Global Product Mandating concluded that multinationals with plants located here would need to be given significant incentives before establishing product mandates. The Minister of Industry and Tourism has assured the private sector that the government is prepared to provide them.

No wonder the Treasurer cannot increase corporate taxation. Instead, in an attempt to induce multinationals to maintain subsidiary jobs in Ontario, the Treasurer has indicated that he is even considering further tax breaks to the corporations.

I will not dwell on the reasons for our fundamental disagreement with the Tory policy of concessions to multinationals aimed at rebuilding our manufacturing base by developing product specialization for subsidiaries for world market penetration.

Our economy is already increasingly vulnerable to import penetration. Ninety per cent of the domestic market for agricultural machinery, 90 per cent of the market for mining machinery, 70 per cent of the market for forestry machinery and 53 per cent of the market for power generating equipment is already supplied by imports.

My colleagues have repeatedly explained our view that the opportunity for import replacement must be given top priority in any long-term industrial strategy for Ontario. We estimate that 115,000 new jobs could be created in sectors such as machinery manufacture, electrical products and food processing if half the total imports were replaced by domestic products. This would require government action in directing investment in this province.

The benefits for Ontario would be substantial. The provincial economy would save $12 billion now spent on imports. Provincial tax revenues would grow by $168 million and federal tax revenues by $412 million directly.

But strong political leadership is needed to stem the tide of imports. This government backs away from direct government intervention because it does not possess the political will. The Treasurer's statement about the need to "maintain an attractive investment climate" reconfirms the philosophy of the Tories' so-called industrial strategy.

The initiative for economic recovery is to be left to the private corporations, and the engine is corporate investment. Since the Conservative government is committed to this view, its influence on economic development is indeed limited. The government is prevented from playing an active, constructive role in the management of the economy.

Important investment decisions will remain private rather than public, undemocratic rather than democratic. A Conservative government is restricted to pointing to where they would like to see the private capital directed and to encouraging the private sector to move in those directions through incentives.

To assure private capital that the investment climate in this province is indeed "attractive," the Minister of Industry and Tourism has stated that the government will be supportive and will compete with other jurisdictions in terms of taxation, assistance and incentives. The ministry has advertised corporate incentives, high depreciation allowances, low corporate tax rates and the absence of restrictions on profit repatriation to attract foreign capital. These kinds of policies will only reinforce our dependence on multinationals for new development.

Some of the forms this government uses to assist the private sector are the direct public grants to corporations like Ford, the pulp and paper industry handouts, and various employment development fund and BILD grants and loan guarantees like those worked out with Chrysler. These constitute a drain on the Treasury, with very little return in terms of employment opportunities. Indeed, many of these grants are totally unnecessary.

According to studies by Lakehead University, investment in the pulp and paper sector would have taken place without any public subsidies. In fact, the vice-president of Spruce Falls Power and Paper stated that they did not need and did not want the grants that were being offered by this government. He said he believed in free enterprise and that their companies had the expertise and the money to be able to modernize and to compete without government intervention.

Frankly, if this government is as true to free enterprise as it would have us all believe, it must be very sorry it has induced people like the vice-president of Spruce Falls Paper to accept such tainted money.

Mr. Jones: And Chrysler and Ford didn't need it. You did not want those jobs.

Mr. Wildman: The parliamentary assistant seems upset.

Bad as these grants have been, far more insidious are the hidden grants to the private sector through tax concessions. Two of these concessions alone -- the retail sales tax exemption on production machinery and equipment and the fast write-off on corporate income tax for machinery and equipment -- together cost this Treasury about $345 million in 1980.

In their desperate attempt to induce increased activity in the private sector, governments have created numerous deductions, credits and exemptions in the tax system. There is no evidence available to suggest that tax concessions to the private sector actually accomplish what they are supposed to.

As a matter of fact, Professor Richard Bird of the University of Toronto -- the most respected tax economist in Canada despite the comments made about him by the Premier when I raised the question in the House -- has argued that "the weight of such evidence as exists does not seem particularly favourable," and "there is some element of smokescreen in the usual budgetary justifications of incentives."

Even the Treasurer indirectly admits there is a problem with using the concession route to realize economic goals. In his budget, the Treasurer acknowledges that research and development in Canada is well below the federal target of 1.5 per cent of the gross national product by 1985.

He acknowledges that the incentives already in place have not achieved their goals, and I quote from the budget statement: "We already have in place generous tax incentives. It is apparent that substantial increases in tax subsidies would be necessary to alter the current research and development investment behaviour." The Treasurer goes on to admit that "Ontario simply cannot afford such measures."

It is testimony to the bankruptcy of ideas among the Tories that, after admitting the failure of tax incentives, the Treasurer proposes further tax measures by the federal government since he says this province cannot afford it. The cruel irony of the government policy aimed at fostering economic growth and employment through corporation tax expenditures is that such measures appear to increase profits rather than investment. Often, even when they do generate new capital investment, they induce labour-saving technology, resulting in a net loss of jobs.

Certainly the maintenance of tax expenditures gives the corporations room to move, but they are most ineffective in generating capital investment. The net effect for the provincial Treasury is simply to increase the deficit and add pressure for the recovery of lost revenue from other taxation.

One person's tax dodge is another person's tax burden, of course. To make up for the forgone revenue as well as the decline of tax revenue resulting from the erosion of our manufacturing base, the Treasurer turns to ordinary individuals and families of Ontario. To keep his revenue deficit below $1 billion, the Treasurer increases Ontario health insurance plan premiums by 15 per cent and personal income taxes by nine per cent. The provincial taxes paid by an Ontario family of four making an income of up to $25,000 are the highest of any province in Canada. It is obvious who benefits and who pays in Conservative Ontario.

While higher income earners will be somewhat shielded by the total impact of these tax rate increases, since they can take advantage of exemptions such as registered retirement saving plans and registered home ownership saving plans, lower wage earners will bear the full brunt of the Treasurer's decision against increasing revenue from the corporate sector.

4 p.m.

The provincial government increasingly relies on regressive forms of revenue like OHIP premiums paid by individuals and families because it is unwilling to tax the corporate sector.

Because of dwindling government revenues, the Treasurer faces a difficult problem. I will admit it is a difficult problem. Unless he can increase revenues and/or limit expenditures, he must accept what he views as an increasingly unmanageable deficit. As a Conservative, the Treasurer is wedded to the ideological view that only the private sector can spur economic growth that will alleviate his fiscal difficulties. That is why he is loath to raise corporate tax rates. Considering the interest represented by the Tory party, his choice to raise personal taxes was almost inevitable.

In dealing with their fiscal problems, the Conservatives not only have chosen to tax the average wage earner while continuing their tax breaks for the corporate sector but they have also decided to maintain their attack on health and social services in this province.

Despite the Treasurer's statement in the budget about quality services for people, the fact is that the Tories have abandoned any commitment to creating social equity in Ontario. The sick, the poor, the injured, the elderly and single parents are all victims of a government restraint program carried out so that assistance to the corporate sector can be maintained.

The human services share of the provincial budget has decreased from 63.7 per cent in 1975-76 to 62.3 per cent in 1981-82. How can the parliamentary assistant justify that? The Ontario government has held budget increases to hospitals well below the rate of inflation and the increase in federal government funding contributions as well.

The result is hospitals are operating beyond their optimal capacity. There is a shortage of active treatment beds in this province, and many people have to wait excessive lengths of time before non-emergency operations. Emergency wards are overcrowded and cannot provide sufficient services. Inadequate chronic care facilities mean that chronically ill patients have nowhere to go when this government closes active treatment beds or does not provide the needed number of beds.

In 1979, the Conservative government introduced the most unjust health care tax I know of, the chronic care copayment fee. It taxes the elderly and the chronically and terminally ill by forcing them to pay a daily fee for care. Also in 1979, ambulance fees were increased by 300 per cent. Again, these costs hit the elderly in particular.

Since 1975, levels of social assistance benefits have rapidly fallen below the rate of inflation. Today they are not adequate for the basic needs of food, shelter and clothing. Of the total social assistance case load, 77.8 per cent consists of people who are disabled and/or single parents, yet the much-needed support services such as life skills training, vocational guidance, education upgrading, job placement and affordable day care are seriously lacking.

The Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto estimates that 114,000 children of working parents in Metro alone need day care. The provincial government only subsidizes 20,000 throughout the whole province, and the budget will provide an increase of only about 1,000 to 1,500 more spaces this year. That is really abysmal. The Tories mistake tokenism for commitment to affordable day care in this province.

The Treasurer's determination to protect the corporate sector has meant social services have suffered -- suffering that need not take place, because there is another way. New Democrats do not believe the answer to Ontario's economic ills lies in tax concessions to private corporations, raising regressive personal taxes and user fees and restraint aimed at the most vulnerable in our society.

The Treasurer would have us believe that, because of his fiscal difficulties and the need to attract private capital, the government has no other route to follow. If he would take off his ideological blinders, he could see he has ruined the manoeuvre in dealing with the province's economic problems, both in the short term and in the long term.

He could begin by ending some of the provincial tax expenditures like exemptions and fast write-offs for machinery and equipment. They would provide an additional revenue of $340 million. There are a number of other tax options open to him: re-establishing succession duties on the top three per cent of estates would yield at least $50 million this year --

Mr. J. A. Reed: Rob the dead.

Mr. Wildman: On the succession duties, my suggestion is being objected to by the member for Halton-Burlington. I would submit we rob the sick, the ill and the poor by not collecting them.

Moving into the untaxed 50 per cent of corporate and personal capital gains would bring about $315 million this year.

The Treasurer could also consider a surtax on personal income tax for high-income earners rather than an across-the-board increase. The government is really locked into the view that we have to have that climate. They have been trying to provide a good investment climate for years and years and still we have the problems, and they have no other options, no other suggestions.

For another thing, why does the government not consider a one-point increase in the corporation tax, which would generate about $82 million this year? Also, if the government were to move Ontario towards the levels of revenue returned on metal and nonmetal resource industries in Saskatchewan, up to an extra $450 million would accrue to the provincial Treasury -- $450 million, and we are not including gas and oil in that.

Mr. Jones: No, but you are using potash rather than nickel and copper.

Mr. Wildman: We have Inco; we have nickel. As a matter of fact, since the member raises that, as a northern member I am particularly determined that the right to write off on provincial taxes the cost of processing ore offshore should be removed immediately. These are just a few of the possible alternative progressive tax measures --

Interjections.

Mr. Wildman: If we want to be serious about it, these are some of the alternatives for progressive tax revenue that the Treasurer could have considered in his budget, and then he would have had the revenue and would have been able to avoid the regressive measures of his budget.

With the required financial resources from these sources, an NDP government would become directly involved in planning and rebuilding the manufacturing sector for the benefit of all the residents of Ontario. We would build it on the economic strength of this province -- our enormous forest and mineral wealth that has been sold off and given away by this government for years. As I indicated before, import replacement would be our main goal in the manufacturing sector. Government would utilize all the economic tools available to it -- planning agreements with the private sector, public ownership, crown corporations and joint ventures with the private sector. New Democrats believe that the social consequences of underdevelopment are so important that the government must use all the means at its disposal to eliminate them. Public sector development of our publicly owned resources is the natural way for the community to ensure advancement of its members.

As my colleagues from the Sudbury basin have repeatedly argued, a crown corporation to produce mining machinery for the enormous Canadian market should be established -- not some kind of mining machinery institute for Sudbury as proposed in the BILD program and, as a matter of fact, not even mentioned in the budget. By the way, other than the program for forest seedling stock and a vague statement about reviewing stumpage fees, the budget completely ignores economic development in northern Ontario. What has this government got against my part of the province? They do not even mention it in the budget.

The great potential for replacing $400 million worth of imported mining machinery provides us with a high job creation potential in this sector and an institute of some sort is not going to provide it. A public mining machinery corporation would form a vital link between resource extraction and manufacturing, creating a demand for component parts and encouraging the growth of the machinery and tool industry. In other high technology areas we would select particular sectors where we have a large domestic market and where imports capture a large portion of that market. We must not be left behind in the areas such as the development and application of silicon chip technology.

4:10 p.m.

Our trade deficit in computers and office equipment alone surpassed $1 billion in 1980 and continues to escalate. Besides electronics, electrical products, transportation, processed foods and beverages, synthetic textiles, health care products and energy conservation are all examples of sectors that need rebuilding. This is not new. My colleague from Nickel Belt has continually brought these matters to the attention of the Treasurer.

Again, this government in most cases has responded by attempting to persuade the private sector to move in with incentives and offers of grants of assistance -- through BILD in some sectors -- but it remains unwilling to act directly to become involved in the development, diversification and growth as an NDP government would.

The provincial government must take action to maintain the leading edge already established in Ontario in the telecommunication sector of high tech development.

An Ontario NDP government would expand skills training for professional and technical experts that high tech industries need and we just do not have enough of in this province. We want to be directly involved in the creation of new wealth that could then be used to fund the expansion of the social services needed to develop the egalitarian and fair society to which we are committed.

An NDP government would shift the priorities in health care spending to more appropriately meet the health needs of Ontario residents. Funding of hospital services would be geared to needs of the community and not to some existing arbitrary bed ratio. We all know what determines how much is spent in this province is a 3.5 ratio in southern Ontario and a four-bed ratio in northern Ontario and the government has never attempted and does not know how to explain those figures. They do not know and nobody, including the health councils, knows how they ever arrived at them.

We believe that spending should be redirected to increased home care, chronic care and to counselling. Community health and social service centres would be actively encouraged with capital support and development funding. Expanded roles for nurse practitioners and other paramedical professionals would also be encouraged by such a program.

We would immediately freeze OHIP premium levels and move to abolish user fees. The ambulance and chronic care fees would be eliminated. The costs of medical care would be shared by society through the increasing general revenues of the government and changes in the tax structure and the revitalization of the economic growth in the province.

The NDP is completely opposed to this government's policy of imposing financial burdens on the sick. The NDP is committed to funding a full range and mix of day care services to assist working parents and to enable single parents to re-enter the work force and to break the cycle of dependence on social assistance.

This would include group centres, part-time care, private home care, night care and care for children with special needs.

There has been a lot of discussion about the problems in our economy. There is substantial agreement that action is needed to rebuild our manufacturing sector if we are to provide the jobs and health and social care services that we need. We all recognize that there is a great potential in Ontario, but this government has done little to redress the fundamental structural barriers to the development of a more self-reliant economy.

The New Democratic Party proposes an industrial strategy to build a more equitable, stable and just social and economic environment for Ontarians. The necessary human and material resources exist to implement this strategy. The missing ingredient is a government with the political will to make the available resources work for the people of this province rather than outside investors. This party has that will. We have confidence in the ability of the people of Ontario to build a dynamic manufacturing sector. I regret very much that the Tory government does not share that confidence.

I began by saying that the NDP rejects the budget and the economic policies of this government. This budget does not deal with the severe structural weaknesses in our economy. The government prefers to view our problems as short-term cyclical fluctuations resulting from dislocations in world markets. As a result the opportunity to begin to use Ontario's enormous wealth of resources to build a vibrant, expanding economy producing secure employment and a stable tax base is missed.

The government perpetuates and exacerbates the chronically slow rate of industrialization that fails to finance the services of a fair and more equitable social system. The government's budget is regressive and doomed to failure. The budget is taxing Ontario families at rates higher than any other province in Canada by increasing personal income taxes and OHIP premiums while continuing concessions to the private corporations.

The government persists in its policy to direct grants and tax expenditures benefiting the private sector. By instituting ad valorem sales taxes the government intends to profit from inflation at the expense of Ontario residents. The government has failed to produce relief from high interest rates and to protect home purchasers by instituting a housing speculation tax. It refuses to provide the political leadership necessary to deal with the structural weaknesses of our economy.

Instead of developing a strategy aimed at rebuilding our manufacturing sector through import replacement the government accepts our continuing dependence on foreign capital, and pins its hopes on global product mandating. The government has failed to spur the needed industrial research and development of high technology and to establish a public presence in sectors such as mining machinery manufacturing. It ignores the need for direct job creation programs to provide employment for the 292,000 jobless in Ontario.

Finally, the government is continuing its attack on the province's health and social services by refusing to fund community needs and increasing reliance on the regressive user fees. For these reasons we cannot accept this budget.

The Deputy Speaker: Mr. Wildman moves, seconded by Mr. Grande, that the amendment to the motion be amended by striking out all the words after "that," and that the following be substituted therefor:

"This House rejects the increase in personal income taxes, OHIP premiums and regressive taxes and the refusal to increase taxes on private corporations and to end corporate tax concessions; deplores the failure to provide relief from high interest rates and to institute a housing speculation tax; condemns the lack of commitment to rebuilding our manufacturing sector and to creating employment opportunities; censures the continuing giveaway and mismanagement of our natural resources; and finally, disapproves of the underfunding of health and social services and the increasing dependence on user fees, and for these reasons the government no longer enjoys the confidence of this House."

4:20 p.m.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, it is a tremendous honour for me today to speak to the Ontario budget presented by our Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) last week. It is a tremendous honour to be part of the government that is presenting such a responsible statement as to what is required for this province. I am able to speak in favour of it unequivocally and with pride because I know the kind of research and thinking and the depth of concern that is being expressed by this budget to the people of Ontario, not only for 1981 --

Mr. Peterson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, if I may: Is this the honourable member's maiden speech? Because if it is not, we feel we can heckle and bring some veracity to the distortions he may make. Can we find that out before he commences? If it is his maiden speech, we will give him a free one.

The Deputy Speaker: It is my understanding that indeed this is the first opportunity the member has had of speaking in the Legislature.

Mr. Cousens: Mr. Speaker, I would welcome any interchange coming from the honourable members because --

The Deputy Speaker: Continue the debate on the budget.

Mr. Cousens: I want to work up to the budget. The budget is not just something that is presented; it is presented by a government, and a government with a majority that is concerned about the needs and the wellbeing of the province.

As one who has come into this government replacing an honourable Liberal, I come with a sense of humility. The person whose seat I have taken is a greatly respected man and a man I also like very much, Mr. Stong, who is no longer with the Liberal Party.

One of the reasons I am here is because of the Premier (Mr. Davis), because of the Treasurer, and because of the leadership that this party I am with has shown and has demonstrated and which the people of Ontario saw on March 19. As I come here, I come with great pride and great humility at the opportunity to do something worthwhile, not only for my own riding of York Centre, but as well for the people of Ontario.

With respect, I listened to the member for Lincoln Centre yesterday, and I would hope he has the same respect to listen to me today. I have also listened to the member for Algoma (Mr. Wildman). Some of the comments made by the honourable members are the kind of thing that requires the taking of pills or Tums, because the statements really are inadequate and inaccurate; such as, that it was the most shameful budget ever seen; a dishonest approach by the PC government; or that Board of Industrial Leadership and Development is in disrepute in most areas, with little substance. A comment was made that even the federal government did not know how to understand it. That is more an indication of their inability to understand something that is very basic and fundamental.

As I listened yesterday and as I listened today, when they start talking about distortions or a degree of cynicism or if they are knocking education or knocking other things, I find a certain sense of failure on the part of the second party and the third party to appreciate what it is that this budget document does contain. I think the most unkind, unjust, unbecoming statement made by the member for Lincoln Centre yesterday was --

Mr. Peterson: It is London Centre by the way.

Mr. Cousens: Oh, is it London Centre? I apologize.

It was when the member for London Centre accused our Treasurer of having no philosophy, no changing philosophy, or understanding how the philosophy could change at his whim.

I see the Treasurer having a responsible approach to the needs of our province, the needs of our economy and the needs of our people. The problem is that when the members start to say these things often enough, they might even start to believe them. I do believe that what the members opposite know about finance and the economy, one could put in the belly-button of a gnat.

As I listen to the member for Algoma I also see the same kind of inability to look at the fact that the government is facing up to what is needed to keep the economy strong. We have to be forward looking; we have to be coming forward with a responsible approach.

I, as well as many others, noted that the budget speech did not contain some things and I was pleased it did not contain them. It did not contain some burdensome taxes on the businessman. Some people always seem to find money to do what they want to do by taxing business -- small business, large business, any business they can. How are we going to attract business into this province so that we can maintain a strong economy? How will they expand? Why should they even come here if this province is not going to have a good climate, a good context for business to establish itself?

What we need, and what this budget says we must have, is a strong economy. We will support business by ensuring we have a climate that is attractive to them. I am a businessman and I am aware of the value of government keeping its hands out of business. I would like to see more businessmen in government so that government runs like a business.

The kind of thing this document did not contain was a statement about speculation tax as it would have affected the real estate people and the whole speculation that is going on there.

As we begin to look at what government did not do in this budget, it said to business: "Let's have business strong. Let's have a climate in which the BILD program, with its fine forward-looking future for this province, can be implemented."

This province right now -- something the members opposite probably do not appreciate -- has a Standard and Poor's credit rating that is triple A. It does not obtain a credit rating of that high level without having a responsible approach to fiscal management. I believe we must continue to have the emphasis that is implicit in this budget statement -- that is, to respect and honour the fact that we want in this province a strong business climate.

Something else the budget statement did not contain is a fine, cute, beautiful cushion for those people who want to be protected from inflation. What we have to sit down and realize is that inflation does not begin in Ontario. We are part of it. The whole effect of inflation is something that is beyond this jurisdiction. In fact it has its origin in the federal government and in jurisdictions beyond our country. For this province to start to soothe the whole population from all the bad effects of inflation is something that just opens up the door to unlimited irresponsible spending on the part of this government.

When I listened with care to the statements being made by the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Henderson), I listened to a man who is as genuinely concerned as anyone about the needs of our farmers in this province. There he was in his presentations to the federal minister trying to gain some understanding for the hardships that our farmers are going through and the kind of statement he gets back is a very dreadful type of thing which has affected us with a tax rebate. There is also the effect on the hog stabilization program -- again a statement by the federal government that does not appreciate the needs of our farmers in this province.

I listened to the member in front of me, the Minister of Housing (Mr. Bennett), who is as concerned as any person in this House about the cost of housing. But what can he do magically? It is something that goes beyond this province's jurisdiction to respond to the needs of high interest rates. That is something that can be done within the federal jurisdiction.

I strongly believe the government in Ontario cannot and should not try to solve world problems. The federal government holds the key to monetary policy.

4:30 p.m.

A statement in the Economist of March 21 points to the three ways in which one can fight inflation. In the article it says: "There can be relentless monetary and fiscal squeezes. There can be widespread indexing. We can reinforce a policy of moderate monetary and fiscal restraints." As it goes on, the real statement is this: "There is no free lunch. Curbing inflation without direct control over wages requires a Draconian fiscal and/or monetary policy, severe demand compression and high unemployment and idle capacity."

We do not want that. What we have seen in this budget is a responsible approach by responsible people, saying to the people of Ontario:

"We want to maintain a climate of a good economy but we realize some of the problems are beyond our control. Where we can control them within our own house we will do our best to do so." Our provincial government's policies on fiscal restraint and the reduction of the provincial deficit will work to slow inflation in Ontario and that is implicit in the whole document.

One other thing this budget statement does not contain is a statement on the government's determination to contain and control government spending. I believe as much as any member on this side of the House that it is not just the members opposite who have a sincere interest in trying to find ways of reducing the costs of running the civil service.

As a member of the standing committee on public accounts and as one who is genuinely concerned about making sure we do not spend more money in the delivery of the service, I will be looking into that as much as anyone to see that this government continues to find ways of cutting the cost of doing business.

What we are most interested in having is customer service so that the taxpayers and people of Ontario are in a position to receive the kind of service they deserve and so that their tax dollars are spent wisely.

Carl Brunner said, "The true measure of the tax burden is what the government spends, not what it collects." How the government will spend its money over the next year and over the next many years will be a deep, true statement about what we are going to do to help with day care, to make the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development happen and to provide more services for senior citizens. As members of this party, we have a genuine, deep and abiding interest in the needs of the people of Ontario. That genuine concern is implicit in this statement.

What does the budget do for us? It is rather harsh and hard for us to accept, but it does attack head-on the shortage of funding for programs required by this province. All we have to do is look at tables C-7 and C-8 of the document to see the way major programs are being supported and advanced.

Grants to school boards, transportation, social development policy, in health and education and many of these different sources of requirements for funding in this province are being substantially improved in 1981. That is possible by having this kind of budget.

We have to find the money somewhere. Where will it come from? There is no magical way to find money as the member for London Centre would have had us believe yesterday. He did not show us the way in which he would fund any of the fantastic things he was talking about.

This government has said that for people to have the things they truly need at this time we must and will continue to provide funding so that education, hospitals and all the services that are so important to our society can be continued, can thrive and can be built upon. We are not ending it. The promise is kept for the people of Ontario.

But there is a cost to that. The cost at this time should not be coming from the corporations, as the members of the third party would have it, but from those people who are enjoying this high standard of living. As a government, we cannot continue to increase the deficit. We are served well in this province. Through this budget, we will continue to be served well. Our people, the people who make it strong, will receive the benefits of continuing support.

One of the things the budget has is the income tax reduction program. The honourable members can see on page 18 how our government will reduce the tax burdens for another 60,000 Ontarians in addition to the more than 400,000 already being helped. It takes some of the bite out for those people whom the second and third parties are concerned about. We are concerned about those who cannot afford some of the costs. So part of that is being passed on, and another 60,000 Ontarians are benefiting from that program.

I have heard people be very disparaging of the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program. It is because they probably have not read it; or, like the federal government, because they do not understand it; or because they do not really want to believe it. What our government has done with that is to crystallize and put together significant thinking on a significant subject that was the basis of a campaign fought and won on March 19. What we are seeing here is the wise use of Treasury funding that can stimulate the economy.

Here Ontario is addressing the age of high technology. For instance, we have a new organization called the IDEA Corporation. It has been formed to represent business, academic, labour and government research communities and it has a mandate to co-ordinate our government's efforts and to promote new technology, the supply of skilled labour, and the practical application of new technology and new ideas by industry. We feel -- and this is so important to what the BILD program is all about -- that a sound and comprehensive technological base is an essential requirement for a competitive manufacturing industry.

Innovative high-technology industries provide the major stimulus for job creation. New technologies in such fields as communications and microelectronics not only will affect routine day-to-day activities but also will play an increasingly crucial role in assuring Canada's continued economic growth and viability as an industrialized nation. More than ever our international competitiveness will rest upon a high degree of product specialization accompanied by a strong technological effort.

Experience shows that high-technology industries have grown almost three times as fast as low-technology industries. Experience shows that productivity, which is the output per employee, for high-technology industries was double that of low-technology industries. And experience shows that employment in high-technology industries has grown almost nine times as fast as that in low-technology industries.

Canada's trade deficit in high-technology manufactured goods has been steadily increasing over the past 10 years. Nevertheless a strengthened high-technology sector offers substantial potential for growth in our export trade. The National Research Council has estimated that a doubling of the current $20-billion contribution to the Canadian gross national product by the technologically intensive sector by 1990 would significantly reduce Canada's trade deficit in goods and services.

When we start looking at what BILD is all about we see there something that is going to create the climate for Ontario to continue to be able to provide the services that are so important for the people. We want to see more services for people -- the elderly, the young, people of all ages in need. In this the International Year of Disabled Persons we want to do our share so they can participate actively and responsibly in society. But the money has to come from somewhere. And if we have an economy that is strong enough to sustain the social services that are such an integral part of the kind of society we want then we will be able to expand and open up these people's services.

We must be more creative; we must be smarter than other jurisdictions. We are doing that now. The member for St. David (Mrs. Scrivener), in her committee's report on the future role of rail, has addressed that one aspect of transportation. It is going to begin to open up for us the potential of public transit in a way that Canada has never seen, but in a way in which Europe has enjoyed it for generations. It will do great things for my riding because people who live in Richmond Hill and Thornhill looking for rapid transit in and out of Toronto will be able to have it as we expand the GO train service. We will see benefits in Unionville and Markham as people will have more than one train down and one train back per day.

4:40 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker: Is that the GO train to Oshawa also, Mr. Cousens?

Mr. Cousens: We will do what we can for Oshawa too. That kind of effort being provided by the insight given by the rail committee is something that will benefit us all.

When we look at the energy needs of the province, let us not forget we are very fortunate in having natural energy resources. We are able to provide energy within our own means, within our own capabilities. We have hydroelectric power, we have uranium, we have the centres to be able to build it and provide it so we do not have the brownouts people have in other parts of the world. As we look at this whole situation we are getting into, we will have a situation in Ontario that will continue to be something of which other jurisdictions will be envious.

I would like to comment on some of the ways the BILD program and the government program we are supporting can help my community, my area and my riding. My riding consists of several communities just to the north and east of Toronto: Markham, Unionville, Thornhill, part of Vaughan, and Richmond Hill.

In 1980 in Markham alone construction was $191 million. Of that, $76 million was invested in residential and $115 million was spent developing and expanding commercial requirements. A total of 2,679 acres of industrial land has been allocated as the town's share of the capacity of the York-Durham servicing system. All this capacity has been designated in the official town plan with the exception of 232 acres. In other words, the industry in my town of Markham is going to expand in a most significant way. The town has requested the province to make available sufficient additional sewerage capacity from the York-Durham servicing system to enable the development of a further 2,000 acres of industrial land. How many areas are there in Ontario that will be opening up more than 4,500 acres of industrial land in the next several years? The communities of Markham and Richmond Hill are adding new businesses to our area. IBM Canada's corporate head office will be located there, as will the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce and Allstate Insurance Company's corporate head office. American Express's Canadian headquarters, the Bank of Nova Scotia computer centre, A.C. Neilsen and many other companies are coming into our area. The community of Richmond Hill has a new town complex that consists of industry and commerce and residences, costing in excess of $235 million.

The needs of a community such as mine are going to be significant over the next number of years. What we are going to be able to do by the growth and by the way in which our community is investing in this province is begin to have a more thriving economy, something that is being made possible by the BILD program. It is not something that is just an instant miracle; it is something that is evolutionary, working towards providing a stable, economic base for the people of the province.

One other area I would like to touch on has to do with education. I was chairman of the York County Board of Education prior to being elected a member of this Legislature and I have had many dealings with the Minister of Education (Miss Stephenson) and her ministry. I speak with a great deal of pride in having been able to put together the strong educational base we have today. I would like to somehow take away the thorn that everybody tries to thrust in her side as if education is a mess, a dilemma and a problem. It would seem to be that from the questions from the members opposite. On the other hand, if we look at the quality of the graduates coming out of our school system and the kind of thinking behind education that exists within the BILD program and in the support of this budget, it is something of which we as legislators can be truly proud.

In considering the goals of this budget as it affects education, I would like to focus your attention on some of the educational objectives and financial requirements to achieve them. There are three aspects of educational needs concerning which I wish to make some points. These are the need for new pupil places, the commitment of this government to equal educational opportunity and the impact on our schools of high technology, and I would like to just touch on these subjects.

First is the need for new pupil places. While it is quite true that school populations in Ontario as a whole are expected to slow over the next number of years, this is not going to be the case in several parts of this province. In particular, according to the statistics prepared by the planning department of the regional municipality of York, the population increase from 1979 to the year 2001 will be: in Markham, from 67,209 to 134,000; Vaughan will increase in size from 20,000 to 130,000; and Richmond Hill will expand from 35,486 to 104,500. In total, the increase in these three municipalities, of which I am a part, will be from 122,826 to 369,000 -- an increase of more than 200 per cent. The resulting need for new pupil places in these three towns will be almost as dramatic as the need in North York, Etobicoke and Scarborough was during the 1960s.

Projections of enrolments in the York County Board of Education system have been developed for the next 10 years, and the method has proved reliable over the last 12 years. The figures now show that at the elementary level in a 10-year period there will be an increase in students in that area of 15,000 pupils and a relatively modest increase at the secondary level.

In the 10 years following that, the elementary population will increase steadily and the secondary population will reflect the dramatic increase experienced at the elementary level earlier. On the basis of current proposed subdivision plans and official plans and secondary plans, the York County Board of Education estimates it will need about 47 new elementary schools and 12 new secondary schools by the year 2000. The York Region Roman Catholic Separate School Board will need about 25 new schools in the same period. About two thirds of these requirements will be in Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill.

A government which is committed to maintaining the quality of its educational system and to equal opportunity for its young citizens must be responsible enough to accept that capital needs, such as I have outlined and which will require about $200 million in Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill alone, can be met only by a realistic provision year by year. This budget by this government will begin to show how we can accept that responsibility, not only in Markham, Vaughan and Richmond Hill, for which I speak in a special way, but also for the rest of the regional municipality of York -- for Peel, for Durham and for Dufferin, where similar but somewhat less intense demographic changes are already taking place.

As an illustration of the capital needs to which a response by this government will be required, I refer to the five-year forecast of the York County Board of Education submitted last November, which included at the elementary level in 1982 an expenditure of $8.9 million; for 1983, $2.4 million; for 1984, $5.3 million; for 1985, $5.9 million; for 1986, $13.8 million. The expenditure compares very closely with the needs of the separate school board in our area, which also has a significant or proportional increase which cannot be overlooked.

Education of our young people is an important aspect of what the whole of life in Ontario is all about. We have shown that commitment in the past, and by the statement we are presenting here, we continue to place a high emphasis on providing for the needs of our youth.

4:50 p.m.

One other aspect about education that is so very important is that this government is interested in the equal opportunity provided in education. A major reflection of this position is contained in Bill 82, which ensures that every child in this province, regardless of any handicap or learning disability he or she may have, will have access to an appropriate education. This budget will allow a substantial measure of support for these programs, which are designed to meet the very special needs of some of our very special young citizens. This is money invested which will come back to the taxpayers many times over in the years to come.

This government has acknowledged that the future of the province in great measure depends on our staying at the leading edge of high technology, and the development of skilled people to replace our aging skilled labour force, most of whom were trained offshore. That indeed is a priority that is being addressed.

There is support for many programs sponsored by the community such as industrial training committees in all areas of this province. There is support for programs designed to answer specific needs in the labour force which have been identified through the co-operative effort of industry and our educational institutions.

My third point on education is the whole new thrust and emphasis being given to high technology. It has been recognized that the students now in our schools must have the kind of familiarity and ease with computers their parents had with books and other printed materials. To accomplish the rational and economic use of these resources, we are investing in the developing of this quality in the work force, for the 1990s and beyond.

A high degree of leadership at the provincial level is required to ensure the productive investment of resources at all levels, but especially in the elementary and secondary schools. These matters are already under intensive study by the Ministry of Education and there will be support intended to ensure that our young people are in the forefront of the world.

This is a document that says very clearly that Ontario is a good place to live. It provides services for its people. I believe that; I know that; I have seen that through the services we have provided over the last number of years, 38 of which I have lived in the province. During the other four years I was too young to know what was really happening at the time.

In the meantime, we are going forward with a program and a plan that puts Ontario at the leading edge. We will continue to have that thrust that allows this province to provide for all of its people, the people who are in need. First of all, we are going to provide for jobs. We are going to see that the economy is strong and then, as we take it to the next level, we will begin to do more and more and more to meet the needs for services of those people who need special attention.

I am pleased to see that our Treasurer, who is also chairman of the BILD program, has presented this statement to us. I am somewhat surprised the members opposite are bringing forward resolutions that would test the confidence of the government, but I know that the people of Ontario have put a great deal of trust into my government. I trust we will fulfil their aspirations by providing them with the service and the support that they asked us to give them on March 19.

I look forward to the vote and I look forward to being able to see this budget endorsed and enforced.

The Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Cousens; what can I say? Mr. Boudria.

Mr. Boudria: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. This is my first experience at speaking on the budget and this was the first budget I have had any opportunity to look at in any great detail. I am somewhat disappointed that the document is the way it is.

I was just listening to the previous speaker, the member for York Centre (Mr. Cousens), and I am wondering if he was speaking about the same budget I am going to speak about right now. We sure do not share the same views on the document. I think the document he read was maybe a 1967 budget or something from those years when Ontario was really prospering the way he says it is prospering at this moment.

Mr. Nixon: Bring back Robarts.

Mr. Boudria: Yes, bring back Robarts. At least things were going well in those years and I do not think they are going all that well right now.

The previous speaker said that with this budget things will go much better and so on. One cannot help but think that after 38 years, if they do not know how to make things better by this time, just how long is it going to take before they finally do learn? One would think that 38 years of practising should make perfect, but we see this is not the case.

The people of eastern Ontario and the people of the great constituency of Prescott-Russell do not like this budget one single bit. They do not think this document is really what is required at this time in Ontario. I do not blame them. I do not think it is all that great either. I do not see very many government members from eastern Ontario in the House right now. I do see one, of course. But I am trying to figure out right now why we do not see very many of them in the House. I think maybe they have been in hiding since the budget came out. I would not want to go back to eastern Ontario as a government member having to tell the constituents of my riding that this is all this government can do for them. That would be terrible.

Maybe the member for Stormont, Dundas and Glengarry (Mr. Villeneuve) has stayed in Toronto since the budget, and I would not blame him for doing that either. I would not want to go back to the people of that riding and tell them this is all the government can do for them. There are only two solutions for those members: they either can stay in Toronto for four years and not go back home or they can cross the floor. There is just no other solution for them. They cannot go back to their constituents and tell them this is what the government plans to do for them.

Let us talk a bit about what this budget contains for eastern Ontario. Maybe we should talk about what it does not contain because we have already talked about what it contains and that is not very much. This is the same government that brought us Edwardsburgh and the Carlsbad Springs $13.8 million land banking scheme. This same government brought us those great visions of earlier years when a certain Treasurer thought it was a good idea to buy land all over the place -- land that everybody knew in our local area was not good to build anything on. Any farmer around Carlsbad Springs would tell them they could hardly build a barn in that area, let alone a housing development. The land was unstable, and yet the government insisted. They spent $13.8 million of our money.

Those same funds could now be used in our area to build us highways. We see Highway 16 linking the 401 to our national capital. It is a disgrace. To think that is the best highway we could have to link the nation's capital with major networks of this country is outright awful. Those $13.8 million, if we sold that land, could build a great portion of Highway 416 and we could now have a road that would lead us to our nation's capital and a road we would not be ashamed of.

Mr. Mancini: What are the Tory members doing in eastern Ontario?

Mr. Boudria: They are not here to a great extent. We only see one of them here now, and I do not blame them for not being here at this time. If I was in their situation I would hide as well.

The farmers in eastern Ontario are located close to their counterparts in Quebec. The government and the agriculture minister of this province can tell some people this is the best they can do for them; that the help they are giving is better than no help. They may get away with that in some regions but not in my region. The people from our area are located right next to their Quebec counterparts and they see the benefits of farming in that province versus the lack of benefits of farming in Ontario. They know that the farmers in Quebec get four times as much help as they do in this province.

The member for Brant-Oxford-Norfolk (Mr. Nixon) referred to it at question period today. There are seven programs offered to the farmers in Quebec which are purely provincial in nature. There is no equivalent for any of these programs in this province.

5 p.m.

We expected to see help for some of our rural constituents in this budget. I was thinking we would see mention in there of the reduction of the rural-urban hydro rate differential, but there is no mention of it. We expected to see help in interest rates for our agricultural areas. We expected to see help for tile drainage.

Let us talk a bit about tile drainage and the ridiculous quota system the province has on those tile drain loans. Those areas of the province which have had the benefit of borrowing plenty of tile drain loan money in the past can still borrow more now because the whole quota system is based on the amount borrowed over the last three years. This means those areas that did not get off to an early start in the program and those areas that could not drain because the certain types of tiles were incompatible to the soil composition in eastern Ontario have had little money in the beginning. Therefore the areas that have had nothing will keep on getting nothing and the areas that have had lots of money will keep on getting lots.

The farmers of our area do not think that system works at all. It has been in place for a few years and it should definitely be removed as soon as possible. I honestly thought there would have been mention of that in the budget but there was not.

I also wrote a letter to the Premier (Mr. Davis) a number of weeks ago asking him to stop the non-resident foreign ownership of our farms. There was a large farm sold in the riding of the honourable member for Stormont-Dundas-Glengarry -- or was in the process of being sold a few weeks ago. Some 2,500 acres were being sold to foreign investors who had never even set foot in this country and probably never will. I have yet to hear an answer from the Premier on that. And I have yet to hear of any policy that would try and restrict the foreign ownership of our agricultural land.

There is precedent for doing this. Other provinces have stopped this outright, except for special cabinet permissions and so forth. I think Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island and perhaps even more provinces have put a stop to this foreign ownership of farm land by non-residents, yet our government maintains this is not a problem and that it does not require attention.

The only thing the government has done is to register the number of farmers who are non-resident in this province. I was corrected lately on that: we do not just register them; we register them once a year. Big deal. That does not do anything. The only thing that does is keep a log on the number of non-resident farm owners we have in this province.

This practice is highly speculative. The problem caused by these foreign owners is that our young farmers can no longer buy land -- the price is driven sky-high by European investors who want nothing except to take their money away from Europe because of the problems in Poland and so forth. They want to bring their money into North America and buy anything with it so their money is tied down far away from Europe. That in no way helps our agricultural industry.

I want to talk a little bit about the OHIP increase --

Mr. Philip: You fellows voted against the speculation tax.

Mr. Boudria: We can talk a little bit about the speculation tax. The speculation tax in no way separates out the foreign owner. What we need is a foreign ownership land transfer tax which is far higher than the one that exists there now. In some areas it does not even exist at all. We have to have controls to discourage non-resident ownership, especially in farms.

I was about to start talking about the increase in Ontario health insurance plan premiums. I think that increase is shameful. Perhaps in some constituencies this is not as big a problem as it is in others, but in a constituency like mine there are many small businesses, many farmers, many people who pay their OHIP premiums themselves as opposed to having 100 per cent, 75 per cent or 50 per cent paid by their employers. The great majority of my constituents have to pay for their OHIP themselves by sending in cheques at three-month intervals.

For them this is nothing less than another form of taxation. To call this anything else is not correct. It is a tax because, with few exceptions, those premiums do not exist in other jurisdictions in this country. We can only interpret that as another form of taxation, and a regressive one at that, because the lower the tax bracket a person is in, the higher the percentage he ends up paying in health insurance premiums.

I want to talk a little about the gasoline tax. In an area where communities are far apart, such as in my constituency and in that of the honourable member across the floor, one has no choice about the method of transportation. One either walks or drives. One does not get rapid transit, trains or other things to travel within the constituency. Our constituents have to use cars to get from one community to another. These people are now going to have to pay this new ad valorem gasoline tax, which is a tax designed to create inflation instead of to fight it.

What credibility is this government going to have when it tries to argue with the government of Alberta not to increase the price of oil? Premier Peter Lougheed is going to laugh at them.

Mr. Nixon: He laughs at our Premier all the time.

Mr. Boudria: Maybe he laughed at him in the past. Now one can assume he will laugh louder.

One problem we have is that Mr. Lougheed is going to look at the Premier and say, "Every time we increase our taxes it is good for you as well, Bill." What answer will the Premier have to that other than to go along with it? There is no other choice because it is true, except he will be able to blame Mr. Lougheed for the taxes he has increased. That is deceiving the people of this province.

We heard mention in this budget -- this was before I was a member -- about the mini-budget of last fall. That is interesting. It says that mini-budget actions stimulated the economy and goes on to describe how this mini-budget was a good thing. I am sure this is just coincidence, but that mini-budget came down right in the middle of a by-election campaign which the government at that time figured it was going to lose. I am sure that was purely coincidental. It would not have done a thing like that intentionally. I wonder if my colleagues think this was intentional or not, but I will leave --

Mr. Van Horne: They would not stoop so low.

Mr. Boudria: No, I am sure they wouldn't.

That mini-budget which lowered taxes was supposed to stimulate the economy. It is a strange coincidence: tax discounts before an election; tax increases after an election. It is another of those coincidences that cause one to scratch one's head a little and think, "Perhaps if economic conditions change." I do not think they did. It is the same province and the same problems. Only one thing is different: a Tory majority. Everything else is the same as it was last year when they brought that mini-budget down.

5:10 p.m.

A little further in the budget we read about accelerating the speed at which we are going to construct this fine electricity generating station known as Darlington. This is an election goody that was promised to attract votes. It was popular. The people of Ontario were concerned about unsure offshore oil supplies, and it sounded good to tell the people, "We are going to build this giant facility to give you energy."

Mr. Philip: The Hydro commercials prepared the public for it with their own money.

Mr. Boudria: That is right. The government has made this unusual, and I would say ridiculous, election promise. Now they are faced with having to live with it. Maybe they did not expect to get elected and did not think they would have to live with such a promise, but I wonder what the thought was behind making it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: The chairman of Ontario Hydro did not agree.

Mr. Boudria: That is right. The chairman of Hydro changed his mind three times before he finally agreed that this was the right thing to do. Of course, when you get right down to it, I guess that even he can be convinced who is the boss and who is not the boss. I think the government should admit that it was a mistake. They should withdraw those ideas.

Yesterday I asked the Premier a question. He was concerned about keeping the corporate tax policies and designing them to attract investment and all those things. He said, "We do not want our investors to take their money elsewhere." If that is so, then why is it that we are creating a personal income tax situation and an economic climate that drives our people elsewhere? Our young people are leaving for Alberta; our skilled technicians are leaving for other jurisdictions, because they are better off elsewhere than they are here. We will end up having lots of corporations and no people if this keeps up.

I want to talk a little bit about some of the grants discussed in the budget, and in particular the grants to the regional police forces and many other grants to the regional municipalities.

The government of this province realized some time ago that the people did not like regional government and that they did not want regional anything imposed on them any more. The government very cleverly devised a new method to implement regional government: instead of doing it by force, they just twist the arm a little bit around the back; it does not look as bad, and they end up getting their way and achieving the same results.

One of the things the government does is to offer higher grants to regional municipalities than to municipal councils. An example of this is the grants to the regional police forces, which are considerably higher than those to the municipal police forces. These grants are intended to stimulate the idea that the municipalities should regionalize and that by doing so they will receive financial benefits.

They are trying to buy their way into regional government, because they cannot get it any other way. The reason they cannot get it any other way is that the people of Ontario do not want it. It is lucky that the Liberal Party of Ontario has spoken on behalf of the people on that issue. In areas where there are regional municipalities -- I am thinking especially of Hamilton-Wentworth -- the governing party has not done all that well. As a matter of fact, I understand they have a hard time getting 10 people to a meeting in those areas.

Mr. Kerr: How many members have you got?

Mr. Boudria: We have quite a few members in the Hamilton-Wentworth area.

I represent a constituency, part of which belongs to the regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I beat a 14-year incumbent three to one in that part of the riding which was regional. Surely that must indicate that regional municipalities are not all that popular with the people of this province.

Monsieur l'Orateur, je voudrais parler un peu du budget, et comment ce budget va affecter les gens de la circonscription électorale de Prescott-Russell. Ce budget nous vient d'un gouvernement qui est devenu totalement insensible envers les problèmes de notre population. Le gouvernement n'a pas d'argent pour aider les agriculteurs. Il blâme le gouvernement fédéral pour cette situation.

Comment se fait-il qu'on a de l'argent pour l'hydro nucléaire pour construire une usine, et qu'on n'a pas d'argent pour aider nos agriculteurs? Comment se fait-il que notre argent est si mal placé que ca? Le gouvernement nous parle, dans son budget, du Collège de Technologie alimentaire et agricole d'Alfred. Chose fort intéressante, Monsieur l'Orateur, on va s'arrêter et reculer un peu dans l'histoire.

Ce gouvernement nous a promis dans un discours du Trône, il y a déjà un an ou deux, qu'on aurait un collège de technologie agricole qui serait localisé à Alfred, Ontario. Le gouvernement a décidé de faire cela à ce moment-là, après avoir désigné un comité consultatif qui était censé renseigner le gouvernement sur la viabilité d'un tel projet. Avant que le comité ait pu arriver à des conclusions, le gouvernement a décidé d'aller de l'avant, dans son discours du Trône, pensant qu'il y aurait une élection pas longtemps après, et d'annoncer tout à coup, l'ouverture du Collège de Technologie alimentaire et agricole, sans savoir si le projet était viable. On sait maintenant que le projet est une bonne idée.

On nous l'annonce dans le budget, de même que dans d'autres documents précédents, aussi bien que dans le discours du Trône de l'an dernier, et l'an avant je crois, que le Collège va ouvrir en septembre 1981. Mais l'on sait, Monsieur l'Orateur, et puis ça fait assez de fois que le gouvernement nous le répète, que les électeurs le savent. Depuis les années 1920 les électeurs de ma région veulent un collège agricole pour desservir la population francophone de l'Ontario. Je crois qu'après avoir attendu 50 ans pour un tel projet, il est grandement temps qu'il soit accompli. Cette situation n'est plus nouvelle, et en y référant encore une fois dans le budget, on n'annonce pas grand-chose de nouveau à personne.

Je suis heureux de savoir, Monsieur l'Orateur, qu'il n'y aura finalement pas de cohabitation entre les délinquants du Collège Champlain et les étudiants du Collège de Technologie agricole. On se souvient que le Ministre des Affaires communautaires et sociales a laissé entendre dans la Législature, il y a quelques semaines, que c'était de ma faute si les employés du Collège Champlain avaient été congédiés. C'est peut-être populaire à dire, Monsieur l'Orateur, parce que le gouvernement tente de fuir ses responsabilités en disant ça. Mais c'est faux, et les électeurs de mon comté le savent aussi. Je regardais l'autre jour un éditorial dans un journal anglophone de mon comté qui se nomme le Vankleek Hill Review qui discutait comment le gouvernement voulait justement s'éloigner de ses responsabilités et blâmer un député de l'Opposition des congédiements qu'on avait dû faire.

On sait, nous, Monsieur l'Orateur, que les offres d'achat sur le terrain pour les mini-institutions avaient été annulées le jour avant que j'ai soulevé le point dans cette Chambre. Alors, c'est de l'hypocrisie de dire que c'est de la faute d'un député de l'Opposition que les mini-institutions pour les délinquants ont été abolies.

D'autant plus, Monsieur l'Orateur, même si c'était vrai, même si j'avais soulevé ce point dans cette Chambre avant que le ministre ait annulé les mini-institutions, est-ce que le ministre dit aux députés de l'Opposition dans cette Chambre qu'il est interdit à un député de se lever et de parler en faveur de ses commettants? Est-ce que c'est une attitude d'arrogante que le gouvernement ose prendre envers un député de l'Opposition? Peut-être qu'ils sont majoritaires, Monsieur l'Orateur, mais cette situation ne durera pas toujours. Il y aura d'autres élections un jour, et ils auront à répondre à ces accusations.

D'autant plus que les remarques qui ont été faites par le même ministre envers les commettants de langue française de mon comté n'ont pas été terriblement appréciées, comme vous savez sans doute.

5:20 p.m.

Aussi dans mon comté, Monsieur l'Orateur, nous avons besoin d'aide pour les petites entreprises et d'aide pour le tourisme. On a besoin de plans d'amélioration pour aider à la route provinciale 17. Comme on sait, la route 17 longe la rivière Ottawa dans mon comté, entre Orleans et Pointe-Fortune, c'est-à-dire tout le long de la côte sud de la rivière Ottawa. Cette route faisait partie de la Trans-canadienne et, à un moment, contribuait beaucoup envers l'économie de ma région. Il y avait beaucoup de touristes qui employaient la route et les effets ont été bénéfiques à mes commettants à ce moment-là en ce qui concerne les industries telles que les restaurants, les hôtels, etc.

Maintenant, depuis qu'on a construit la route 417, les petites entreprises locales ont perdu beaucoup. Beaucoup ont dû fermer leurs portes à cause du manque de touristes le long de cette route. Ce qu'on doit faire maintenant, Monsieur l'Orateur, c'est améliorer la route 17 et fournir des indications aux gens qui s'en vont de Montréal à Ottawa ou un peu partout, qu'on peut aussi employer la route 17 pour se rendre à Ottawa, et non seulement la route 417. Il faut encourager l'utilisation de cette route afin de pouvoir faire revivre l'industrie touristique de ma région.

Mr. Speaker, I do not think I will be speaking much longer on the budget. I have already explained that the people of the great riding of Prescott-Russell and the people of eastern Ontario in general do not like it. We know they do not like it, because it is going to create hardships for them.

I do not think the people of the province like the fact that the corporate sector is being told, "We are not going to increase your taxes because we know that you need help," when at the same time the individual's taxes are going to be increased that much. One can only assume the attitude of the government is that individuals do not need help. If they do not increase the corporate tax because they need help and they increase the other one, one can only deduce that is what the government is proposing at this time. That is something the members of our party do not like one bit.

We are told by the Treasurer that the rate of taxation in the province is still going to be one of the low ones in this country because it is going to be 48 per cent of the federal tax as opposed to 44, which is what it used to be.

What the Treasurer does not tell us is that, to get a true picture of what we are really paying, we have to add the OHIP premium on top of the provincial income tax, because it is a form of indirect taxation. When we do this we end up with Ontario paying 58.5 per cent of the federal rate, and that is the highest in Canada. The people of this province are not getting a bargain. As I said a while ago, the people at the lower end of earnings -- that is to say, the people making the least money -- are paying the most in percentages because of these OHIP premiums.

I have heard that the government tends to make its budget sound a little worse than it really is before it is brought out. We heard rumours that slipped out a few weeks before the last federal budget to the effect that it was going to be a really harsh one. When it came out it was not all that bad; so people were happy because it was not as bad as they figured it would be. I do not know whether this government tried this same tactic but, if it did, it did not succeed. This budget is worse than anybody could ever have imagined.

The media, the newspapers -- everybody has said this budget really hurts the people. We all know, on both sides of this House, that had this budget been introduced before the election, the government would have been turfed out. We got rid of Joe Clark for much less than that, and now we are looking at a budget here that will hurt the people of Ontario a lot. We have to remember it is this province that got rid of the federal Tories because of a budget that was unacceptable to them. It is the people of this province in the next provincial election who will get rid of this government for the same reason.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Halton-Burlington.

Mr. Nixon: You mean there are no NDP or Tory members ready to speak? Oh well.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Mr. Speaker, we will go on and continue to present the truth from this side of the House as we see it.

Mr. Riddell: I think you had better define truth to those people.

Mr. Philip: We have had the left-wing version. Now we will have the right-wing version.

Mr. J. A. Reed: In the remaining few minutes we have this afternoon, I am going to try to define some of the realities of March 19 as seen from this side of the House.

There were big winners in the last election. The winners were a well-financed, well-oiled Tory dynasty, a dynasty continuing now for another four years. It is unfortunate that the losers were not the Liberals or the NDP; the real losers in this election were the citizens of the province. I regret that very much --

Mr. Kerr: You are saying that from your heart, are you?

Mr. J. A. Reed: I speak from my heart. I regret that through a process of delaying tactics, a process of connivance, a process of calculation, sleight of hand, con artistry, jingles and misrepresentation, they have elected a majority Tory government.

Mr. Kerr: At last.

Mr. J. A. Reed: The honourable member says, "At last," but I would like to suggest that the last five years in this Legislature, since the election in 1975, have resulted in some rather productive measures. At least they had the opportunity as a government to have the input into legislation of whatever sense prevailed on this side of the House through amendments. As a matter of fact, those members who are here for more than their first term will remember legislation that was improved through the efforts of the opposition party in a minority government.

We also benefited by not having the kind of budget that has just been presented to us. The government in those years would not dare present a budget that would index taxation. We all understand the realities of taxation and the fact that the government's responsibility is to tax and redistribute money as it sees fit. But to impose index taxation is a clever attempt by this government to absolve itself from the painful reality of having to impose some tax at a time closer to the next election.

5:30 p.m.

It was interesting, too, that in this budget there was absolutely no change in corporate taxation. Let me guess when corporate taxes will be changed and moved up: about a year or less than a year before the next election. I do not think it takes too clever a person to figure that out. By the time we get down to a few months before the next election, the people will be faced with their indexed taxes and their ad valorem taxes, but they will not show up in a new budget. The corporations will get it and then the Tories will go out to the people and say: "What good boys are we. In the last X years we have not raised personal taxes." This is the way it goes.

I was interested in commenting on some of the taxes that were raised. Some of them have not been mentioned, and some of them have been mentioned this afternoon. One is the increase in taxes on cigarettes and alcohol. These are the wages of sin. It is quite a reflection -- I think I have said this before in the House -- of our Victorian past that when we need a few extra shekels we tax those things we consider to be somehow subconsciously sinful. We all feel it is very acceptable and we feel quite good about it. The government, on the other hand, continues to live off the avails of that taxation. Those are the wages of sin.

We can all stand up and feel very righteous about putting a tax on alcohol and a tax on tobacco, and the poor old guy who wants to take a drink, like perhaps myself, will pay a few cents more for a bottle of liquor. Or, if I smoked, which I did years and years ago and do not now, I would be content to pay a few cents more for a package of cigarettes. But the government is living off that. It is profiting from that. That is something that is rather unacceptable. I expect that before time goes on too long all those things that are subconsciously considered sinful will be taxed one way or the other.

Then there were these unconscionable increases in Ontario health insurance plan premiums. I think the government knows today that the premium approach is not the way to finance health services in this province; it really is not. For certain reasons, we left in the premium, which I understand is the highest in Canada and is applied by only a few provinces now. Perhaps it was because once the status quo is there it becomes quite a challenge to transfer that into the tax base or to move forward and do something progressive.

But to take that premium and add to it, particularly at a time when the government itself is considering alternatives to the premium system -- right at the time when they are considering alternatives -- is unconscionable. There are a lot of people who have limited incomes but who are required to pay the whole of their health insurance premiums. They will suffer greatly because of that increase in tax. It is a tax regardless of how one looks at it.

Then we had the ad valorem taxes on gasoline and diesel fuel. The incredible part about those taxes is not just the fact that they are indexed but they are being applied at a time in our history when petroleum prices are increasing at an unprecedented rate. We have built in an index that will increase with inflation as the price of these fuels increases.

If there was any calculation on the part of the government to use a tax method or tax base as a trigger for conservation or as a trigger for the development of alternative fuels and so on, it would be one thing, but in order to accomplish that the government would have had to begin a staged price increase at least five years ago, during a time when the rate of increase in petroleum prices was much lower. As a matter of fact, my party at that time advocated just such a staging. But now, in 1981, the government is applying an ad valorem tax to a product that is accelerating in price at an unprecedented rate, and that is immoral. Let me tell them that is immoral.

The BILD program was touted as a very important part of this budget. The budget was constructed to apply the beauties of the BILD program. I can tell the Treasurer that politicians out in the municipalities are not nearly as enthusiastic about the BILD program as are members of the government here. Certainly if one talks to some of the Tory mayors around the province he will find they are still looking for some of the great advantages of this BILD program; and perhaps that is a portent of the future. The BILD program may very well turn out to be a lot of hot air.

We know that all it did was take funding from the employment development program and turn it into something that was re-dressed -- it is the old shell game and I talk about sleight of hand -- and then they came up with a program that actually is lower in amount funded than the employment development program and they called it BILD.

The government did have some tax relief in the budget. I would like to address that because of the capacity in which I serve as energy critic. The government is now introducing a bill that will provide tax relief for vehicles that are fuelled by alternative fuels. I would like to ask the government to be very careful about the content of that legislation because it has been brought to my attention that many of the alternative fuel vehicles will also carry with them an ability to burn petroleum; probably not as efficiently but it could be used in an emergency and so on.

I would not like to think that the tax relief would be eliminated just because an automobile or truck had the ability to have a dual fuel capacity. It seems to me it would make a lot of sense if it was a major alternative fuel vehicle for it to have the other capacity, and I would ask the government to consider not eliminating a vehicle if it did have the capacity to continue to burn petroleum. The reason I say that is that from what we can see --

Mr. Jones: You are suspicious.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I am suspicious that what may happen is that the vehicle may simply be required not to have the capacity to burn petroleum even in emergencies.

5:40 p.m.

We would like it still to be tax exempt, simply because it will be cheaper to use alternative fuels in these vehicles than it will be to use gasoline or diesel anyway, and these things would only be done on short notice or in an emergency.

Through all that, the government comes out every few months or every year with a few more ad hoc tax reliefs on energy items. I have been in the Legislature for nearly six years, and every year I bring up the fact that I have not seen any tax relief for stovepipes. It might interest the member for Burlington South (Mr. Kerr) to know that he can go and buy a wood stove and get it tax exempt, but if he wants to hook it up he has to pay tax on the pipes.

I use that example only to point out that so many of these moves are not a comprehensive effort on the part of the government at all, but a kind of applied ad hockery that goes on from year to year. They say, "Now we are going to do it on these materials and now we are going to do it on those -- and what good boys we are." But there is no program and there is no policy, so consequently something like stovepipes, which are essential if one is going to go off oil on to woodburning, are simply forgotten and left out.

I was interested in this budget because I wanted to see if there was going to be any real move towards the elimination of the differential between rural and urban electricity rates. This is quite intriguing, because if we go back to the mini-budget we see on page 16 the line at the bottom that says, "The government has decided ... to instruct Hydro to eliminate the undue differential between rural and urban electrical rates by 1982."

We found out that the most important word was not "eliminate" or "differential." The operative word was "undue" and whatever the government believes is applied to that word. Now we know that the government has no intention of eliminating the differential between urban and rural rates. They have kicked in a little bit of money that has not come into effect yet, but the most they will achieve is half the differential between urban and rural rates.

So, as my colleague has said, "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," and these words are used to serve whatever purpose serves the hour. But the rural people of this province deserve a better shake, and they are not getting it at the present time.

Rural electric power rates in Ontario, as has been pointed out to this government, are the highest west of New Brunswick. That should not be so in a province that was blessed with a total hydraulic system up until the mid-1960s and even yet produces a third of its power from hydraulic electric power sources, a third from thermal power and a third from nuclear power. They are not getting a fair shake. As a matter of fact one wonders whether all the people of Ontario are getting any kind of shake at all on electric power rates.

I say this because in the budget and during the election campaign the Premier announced a speedup of the completion of the Darlington nuclear generating station. Whether we needed it or not, he announced the speedup. If anybody has done any cursory observing of increases in electric power capacity in Ontario, one has to come to the conclusion that Darlington would probably not be necessary or desirable to come on line before close to the year 2000.

Mr. Kerr: We export power.

Mr. J. A. Reed: The member for Burlington South talks about exporting power. He had better go back and look at those figures and find out where the markets are or might be, because they are not buying, McGee, they are not buying. They are taking a few small lots here and there, but the amount has been declining, not increasing. Why? Because one cannot compete with LG-2 in Quebec. One cannot compete with Baie James. It is hydraulic, more reliable and cheaper. With nuclear power, Ontario will not be competitive with that kind of power.

If we needed Darlington it would make a lot of sense to proceed with its completion, but look at what we have now in terms of excess capacity. We have about 4,000 megawatts sitting around in this province. If we were to put in half a million heat pumps, if we were to electrify the Windsor-Montreal rail corridor, if we were to electrify the GO Transit system and do it all by tomorrow morning -- these are things my party supports -- the increased demand on our electric power system would consist of half the surplus in existence at the present time.

It was interesting. The Premier (Mr. Davis) came along in the election campaign and said, "We are going to speed up Darlington." Then the chairman of Ontario Hydro was reported in the press as saying, "No, we are not." Along came the Premier a few weeks later and said, "Yes, we are." Back came the chairman of Hydro and said, "Yes, we are." The capitulation was complete. The Tory membership was renewed and on we go.

It is interesting to see that day-to-day interference in Ontario Hydro's affairs. I can remember bringing a bill into this House two years ago. It was an act respecting the public accountability of Ontario Hydro. It was a simple enough bill designed to force the government to provide an energy policy framework within which Hydro would work and to amend the Power Corporation Act to allow Hydro to accept the policy and work with some direction.

One of the accusations made against me regarding that bill was that I wanted to start interfering in Hydro's day-to-day affairs. Here we have the Premier interfering in a macro way, in a large way. It was the second major interference in about six months, the other one being the letter that went from the Minister of Energy (Mr. Welch) to the chairman of Hydro on December 15 ordering him to stop environmental assessment processes pending a statement on the report of the Porter Royal Commission on Electric Power Planning. It is rather hypocritical.

I am concerned that the budget did not address the regional system. As the member for Burlington South knows, the regional municipality of Halton was one of the last regions to be formed in Ontario and since its formation that region has never been able to hold its head above water. With all the perks, with all the transfer moneys and with all the back-door stuff that has gone into the Halton region, it is still in a deficit situation, a situation that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs (Mr. Wells) says cannot happen because the legislation does not allow the region to have a deficit. The last deficit figure I heard -- and they go all over the map -- was $800,000.

5:50 p.m.

The people who are going to pay are the people of Ontario. When I said at the outset the losers are the people of Ontario, I meant it. They will pay on their tax bills for years to come for what this one member considers to be a great mistake.

Mr. Jones: Before you finish, tell us where you are going to collect the revenues? Not from cigarettes, not from liquor.

Mr. J. A. Reed: I may be going a little deaf in one ear. I cannot hear the honourable member very well.

There is a problem in Halton region and it is a problem that exists throughout Ontario. This budget has not even addressed the problem. It relates to a promise made by the government in 1972 -- and I am sure the member for Burlington South will remember this clearly -- that eight resource recovery plants would be built in Ontario. An announcement was made at that time. In 1981, when energy prices are escalating at a rate unheard of in our history, when the need to transform our waste into something useful becomes greater and greater as the days go by, we see not one nickel in this budget for those promised eight resource recovery systems.

Mr. Kerr: They are all built.

Mr. J. A. Reed: Perhaps the former Minister of the Environment could tell us where they are. I wish I could. We would like to find out where they are. There is a front-end pilot plant in Downsview that cost $15 million. I believe 75 or 80 per cent of what goes into the front end of that comes out and goes into landfill just the same. One of the great adventures that never worked. We have no resource recovery plants operating in Ontario today.

Mr. Kerr: Oh yes, we have. We have one in North York and two in Brampton.

Mr. J. A. Reed: All right, the member will get his turn. He can get up and tell me I am wrong. The government has gone through the motions; it has made the announcements; it has done nothing.

Mr. Nixon: Watts from waste.

Mr. J. A. Reed: What happened to watts from waste anyway?

Mr. Ruston: No watts.

Mr. J. A. Reed: There is lots of waste though.

These promises are never fulfilled. They are used from time to time to suit some election platform and then they are forgotten. To what extent they are forgotten simply depends on whether there is a majority or a minority government. The government is doing nothing to forward progress in Ontario. It is doing nothing to help us move ahead. It has done nothing to help the most urgent requirements in Ontario today, such as financial stability and energy.

In closing, Ontario, perhaps second to Prince Edward Island, is the most vulnerable province in Canada energywise. We had an opportunity in 1973-74 when it became obvious that we could not continue our dependency on outside energy resources. What has been our solution to that? Our solution has been to move to an all-electric economy -- the mythical concept that somehow electricity will do everything for us. At the same time we have resources that are sitting in Ontario untouched, undeveloped, untapped by an uncaring government that could be providing energy for us at a rate more competitive with electric power and in a form far more useful. Yet we continue to put the lowest of low priorities on those options that are available to us.

We have in Ontario the largest inventory of peat in all of Canada -- the unknown energy resource. We have an amount of wasted forest byproduct that would provide all of our gasoline consumption expectations in 1990 through the production of methanol.

Mr. MacQuarrie: I don't believe it.

Mr. J. A. Reed: My honourable friend across the way says he does not believe it, but his government now believes it. Its own studies say it and believe it. The government did not believe it in 1978. Studies my party did showed it was very feasible. Federal government studies showed the production of methanol from forest wastes was feasible and competitive. Now the people opposite are finally starting to see the light of day, so they should at least spare us the verbiage. If the member wants to enter into debate with the Minister of Energy he can be my guest. He should just remember that the worlds turn because of the efforts of the energy critic of the opposition and some people who have pushed very hard to get changes made in this province.

I am almost finished, and some of the members will say, "Thank goodness."

All this budget is doing is putting $600 million into the coffers to be wasted once again. The members opposite did nothing to decrease the deficit. The deficit is going up. They are taxing the people in the worst possible areas, especially as they apply to the ad valorem gasoline and diesel tax. I and every member of my party are going to do everything we can to bring the message home to the people of Ontario that the government has doublecrossed them. We will say it has been most hypocritical and politically dishonest in the way it has run its affairs over the last six months -- to buy the election with fancy advertising and to stab the people in the back when the election is over.

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

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

26 mai 1981