Journal des débats 1982-mai-20 | Assemblée législative de l'Ontario

Mr. Speaker: John B. Aird, the Lieutenant Governor, transmits estimates of certain sums required for the services of the province for the year ending March 31, 1983, and recommends them to the Legislative Assembly, Toronto, May 20, 1982.

CORRECTION OF MEDIA REPORTS

Mr. Barlow: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: Regarding a misquotation in the media this past Monday, May 17, I have already received an apology from the author and I now want to clear up the misunderstanding with you so it can be clearly understood.

Last Monday both CFTJ radio in Cambridge and the Cambridge Daily Reporter carried stories that in a Sunday interview I had said, "The Liberals will have egg on their faces with the public because of the measures which will eventually come to a vote and be passed by the majority government."

I have received confirmation from the reporter that there was a period dropped out of the typed story and that the latter part of the sentence, that is to say, "the measures will eventually come to a vote and be passed by the majority government," were not my words but were in fact the words of the editorial.

STATEMENTS BY THE MINISTRY

LAKE SUPERIOR BOARD OF EDUCATION

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, the Lake Superior Board of Education's recent decision to close the Schreiber campus of Lake Superior High School in June 1982, has become an issue of major concern to local residents, the school board and the government. The Deputy Minister of Education and other senior ministry officials conferred with board representatives on the matter on April 15 and with concerned citizens in Thunder Bay on May 11.

In making this statement I wish to emphasize that the Ministry of Education acknowledges fully the right and the responsibility of school boards to determine the number and types of schools within their jurisdictions. The Education Act provides that school boards have the authority to make such decisions, based upon their understanding of the needs and interests of the students and the community. Local school trustees are elected by and thus are accountable to their constituents. It is for them to decide how educational resources should be allocated within their communities.

However, I must say I am concerned about the timing of the Lake Superior board's decision, which was made in April 1982 to take effect at the end of June 1982. On February 4, 1982, the Lake Superior board presented a brief to the Ministries of Education, Revenue and Northern Affairs, identifying problem areas and presenting possible solutions. These ministries are currently in the process of studying the issues outlined in the brief.

In the past, the Ministry of Education has strongly supported the Lake Superior Board of Education through special programs involving correspondence education, computer technology and other special activities. We have assisted that board, and in that spirit of assistance and co-operation I have offered to meet the full board. This offer remains open.

Moreover, in light of the controversial nature of the issue and in view of the concerns which have been expressed to me, it now seems to me to be appropriate to appoint a commissioner to inquire into all aspects of this matter. In the next few days, therefore, I shall name an individual as commissioner under section 9 of the Education Act.

The commissioner's inquiry may proceed well into the 1982-83 school year. Therefore, the Ministry of Education will ensure that the necessary funds are made available for the coming school year, to maintain the current program at the Schreiber campus.

Mr. Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The text of the statement just given to the House by the honourable minister does not follow verbatim what we were given in advance. Could we have a copy of the actual statement she made?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Mr. Speaker, there is no change in intent in the statement at all, which I am sure the honourable member will recognize. If I tend to use my own language in making statements, and as long as I do not deviate from the context of the statement, surely it is not necessary for me to provide an accurate, word-by-word statement in advance. It will be in Hansard and I would recommend that the member read Hansard.

CORRECTION OF MEDIA REPORTS

Ms. Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) I would like to ask you to consider a very serious matter arising from a point of privilege raised by him last Tuesday. In his statement the minister said: "It has been widely reported by the electronic and print media that I said feminine hygiene products are not essential. Today I have reviewed my interview tape with members of the press gallery and now I know for a fact that I did not say, nor did I imply, this."

2:10 p.m.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit to you a notarized copy of a transcript from the media interview. I quote: "The Treasurer: 'In general, I think it is safe to say that consumer items draw tax unless they are considered to be absolutely essential items.' Question, Paul Palango: 'You say that women's tampons aren't being taxed. Well, that is something that is being taxed.' The Treasurer: 'All right, sure. That's being taxed, sure, so is men's shaving cream. I guess I can grow a beard. But the question is, is it a more necessary product than any others that I am taxing already?'"

I believe it is clear from the context of this transcript that indeed the Treasurer did imply that sanitary napkins are no more necessary than any other item the minister is already taxing.

Interjections.

Ms. Copps: I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, on this very serious point of privilege, to rule that --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Just ridiculous. Sick.

Ms. Copps: I am sure it is sick to you. It is not sick to a lot of women in this province, believe me.

I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, in all seriousness, to rule that, upon the minister's return to this House, he correct the record so that the names and reputations of journalists in the press gallery are not impugned and so that the House can be assured that the Treasurer cannot make such inaccurate statements in the future.

Mr. Speaker: First of all, I would have to rule very clearly, that was not a point of privilege, with all respect.

Second, it is not the duty of the Speaker to make any ruling on a matter of opinion. I have no way of knowing who was right, who was wrong, what was said or what was not said. That is up to you, a matter between you and the minister, to be settled by asking the minister questions.

Mr. Mancini: He said it in the House.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No, it is not, with all respect.

Ms. Copps: Could I please speak?

Mr. Speaker: No, you cannot. The whole thing is out of order.

FRENCH-LANGUAGE SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, today it is my pleasure, as the minister responsible for French-language services, to table the annual report for 1981 of the government co-ordinator of French-language services and also a report on the state of French-language services in the government of Ontario, which was sponsored by the office of the government co-ordinator.

I believe honourable members and others who read the annual report of the co-ordinator will be impressed by the breadth of services that ministries and agencies are now able to provide in French to the francophone population of this province. While only a few ministries were able to say that they had a genuine bilingual capacity in their regional offices in designated areas three or four years ago, almost all government offices in such designated areas now are able to deal with the public in either English or French.

Last December, for example, Radio Canada did a telephone survey of Ontario government offices in designated areas. Their callers posed as francophone visitors to the province seeking information about specific activities of each of the ministries they called. They found that overall, 80 per cent of the offices they called were able to satisfy their sometimes complicated requests in French, including 90 per cent of the offices they called in eastern and northeastern Ontario.

While there are obviously still gaps to be filled and an improvement in quality to be achieved, I have been impressed at the progress that has been made.

Last year, as a result of a recommendation from the Council on Franco-Ontarian Affairs, a study was undertaken on the state of French-language services in the province and the organizational arrangements for the government for implementing its French-language services policy. I also take pleasure today in tabling this report.

While the report was sponsored by the government co-ordinator of French-language services and special research staff was engaged to carry out much of it last year, the review was done with the assistance of many people from outside government. The steering committee, for example, included the Council for Franco-Ontarian Affairs and the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages of Canada as well as representatives of the office of the coordinator.

Overall, the report notes a significant improvement in recent years in the extent and quality of French-language services. It makes a large number of recommendations, many directed at internal organization in the government to improve the universality and quality of the services.

I can assure the members that this report is being taken very seriously within the government. In general, I can confirm the basic position of the government that we attach high importance to the heritage and linguistic vitality of the Franco-Ontarians.

We are committed to provide French-language services wherever there are concentrations of francophones and we are giving a priority in 1982 to try to ensure that the quality of these services in French matches the quality and availability of English-language services in the designated areas.

I can assure the members that, as recommended in this report, the fund for French-language services which was inaugurated a year ago is being continued in 1982-83. In its first year of operation, it was responsible for getting off the ground a number of new projects of direct assistance to the francophone community.

The report places high priority on the value of French-language service co-ordinators in the various ministries and on bilingual information personnel. I am pleased to note that, with the recent hiring of a full-time French-language services co-ordinator in the Ministry of Transportation and Communications, 10 ministries now have full-time co-ordinators and an almost similar number also have full-time bilingual information staff.

These are just some examples of the steps that are being taken within this government to meet the spirit of the review. During the coming months, I hope to be able to announce other steps to demonstrate in specific terms the government's continuing commitment to the improvement of its French-language services.

ENUMERATION OF FRENCH-SPEAKING VOTERS

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a second statement.

I am pleased to inform the House that the government is taking the following action in regard to the enumeration of voters in some areas of the province.

Two questions will be added to the enumeration form for the assessment to be carried out by the Ministry of Revenue around the beginning of September. These questions will permit the identification of French-language voters in the 39 school board districts of the province where there now are French-language advisory committees.

This step is being announced now so that changes to the enumeration form can be made in time for lists to be prepared well in advance of the elections for French-language advisory committees which will, of course, take place immediately following the November municipal and school board elections. The lists will enable those responsible for issues relating to French-language schools to contact eligible voters and will, we hope, establish a much more direct connection between those who will be affected by the work of the French-language advisory committees and the committees themselves.

The questions which will be added to the forms in the areas where French-language advisory committees exist are the following:

1. Are you French speaking?

2. If so, do you wish your name to appear on the list of electors for the French-language advisory committee to your board of education?

Obviously, these questions will also be on the form in French. In the two areas of the province where there are English-language advisory committees, the questions will relate to English-speaking voters in order to identify voters for the English-language advisory committees.

CORRECTION OF MINISTER'S NAME

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention a point of privilege that deals with a government minister and a news release under the Ministry of Government Services. It is dated May 17, 1982, and it was released in Kanata. If one looks at the last paragraph, there is a reference to the "Honourable James Sterling, QC, Provincial Secretary for Justice."

I understand that my good friend the minister without a freedom of information bill has not been exactly a high-profile minister in the last few months, so I can understand how one could forget his name, dealing only with freedom of information. But I do feel that in his interest, because he is a member of this House, the Minister of Government Services should ensure that there is a correction made in the next release to refer to him as the Honourable Norman Sterling instead of the Honourable James Sterling.

Mr. Speaker: That was hardly a point of privilege but a matter of clarification.

2:20 p.m.

CORRECTION OF STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Kerrio: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege: I would like to draw your attention, and that of all members of the assembly, to an unfortunate oversight in the standing orders of Ontario, an oversight that should be corrected without delay.

In 1850, the first standing rules and regulations of the Legislative Assembly of Canada were implemented, and the first standing orders for the Legislative Assembly of Ontario were put in place in 1868.

Dating from those early initiatives to this day, May 20, 1982, the standing orders fail to acknowledge the existence of women in this province and specifically in this assembly.

Throughout the standing orders there are at least 60 references, which I have tabled here, which refer only to the masculine gender; for example: "he shall proceed," "his decision," "his court," "his speech," "his opinion," "his direction," "his discretion," "his parliamentary assistant," etc.

In spite of numerous reprints of the standing orders, all these references have remained unchanged. Even the fact that the first woman was elected to this Legislature almost 40 years ago and a number of women have been elected since that time has had no effect.

Do you not agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that these standing orders should long ago have been amended to recognize the women of this province in the rules and regulations that govern the activities of our Legislature? And do you not agree with me that the standing orders should be appropriately amended and without delay?

Mr. Speaker: Whether I agree with you or not, that is hardly a point of privilege.

Mr. Kerrio: The privilege is that women have been abused.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: "Man" is a generic word.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is interesting inasmuch as it is a matter that I have raised myself from time to time. I am told it refers to the universal "he," whatever that may be.

However, I would point out to the honourable members that the Speaker does not have any control or jurisdiction or authority in changing standing orders; that is the responsibility of the members of this assembly.

TREASURER'S ATTENDANCE IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of privilege before the orders of the day.

I note that the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller) is absent this afternoon and that he will be absent from the chamber next week on a trip to Japan. We are dealing with the Treasurer's budget, probably the worst in Ontario's history, and yet the Treasurer is not here today to be accountable to this Legislature and to the people of the province, and he is going to be away next week.

We can understand, the budget being as bad as it is and in view of the problems he has got himself into, that he would not want to be present, responsible and accountable. But at its most democratic form, the Treasurer should be in his place to answer questions from the opposition and to be accountable for that disastrous document.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you very much.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Where is the member's leader and House leader?

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a point of privilege, with all respect.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It's fundamental to the democratic process.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

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

Mr. Speaker: Another one?

Mr. Martel: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: May I just deal with this last one first?

Mr. Martel: It is on the same topic, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: It cannot be the same topic if it is a different point of privilege, with all respect.

Mr. Martel: I did not say it was a different point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, you did. I asked you.

Mr. Martel: I said it was a point of privilege.

Mr. Speaker: No. With all respect, that was not a point of privilege.

Mr. Mancini: I have a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. It is not the responsibility of the Speaker, and again I underline this, to ensure the attendance of ministers in this House or indeed of any other member. If you have questions to direct to the government, you must direct them to the appropriate person, who may or may not have responsibility for attendance.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask Mr. Speaker a question then?

Mr. Speaker: No. There is nothing in the standing orders that allows you to ask me a question.

Mr. Martel: Then maybe you can give me your guidance.

Mr. Speaker: You are out of order.

Mr. Martel: I am asking for your guidance.

Mr. Speaker: No. We will have to confer privately. There is nothing provided for you and I to carry on a conversation.

Mr. Martel: Do you realize what is going on, Mr. Speaker? Several days ago the Treasurer brought in a budget --

Mr. Speaker: Order, please. The member for Sudbury East is out of order. We will talk about it in the office.

Mr. Martel: Well, then it will be too late to get a response.

Mr. Speaker: There is always tomorrow, with all respect.

Mr. Martel: When the Treasurer isn't even here. What the hell kind of response is this?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Throw him out.

Mr. Mackenzie: Tory jackasses over there.

Mr. Martel: What kind of conclusion is this anyway?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Mancini: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: You will recall that on Thursday last, the people of Essex South and the people of Ontario were zapped with tremendous increases imposed by this government. It is now apparent that the Treasurer is not going to be here today or next week. As the member for Essex South, representing the people of Essex South, I will not have the privilege of questioning the Treasurer on those taxes --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: They never give you a chance anyway.

Mr. Mancini: That is exactly what is implied.

Mr. Speaker: Will the member for Essex South please resume his seat.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps, with all respect, the member for Essex South did not hear what I had said to his colleague, the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid). It is not, and I emphasize not, within the jurisdiction or authority of the Speaker to ensure the attendance in this House of any honourable member.

Mr. Martel: I will refer to the rules, Mr. Speaker, if I might. Standing order 18(a) says: "Privileges are the rights enjoyed by the House collectively and by the members of the House individually conferred by the Legislative Assembly Act and other statutes, or by practice, precedent, usage and custom."

It has been a custom, Mr. Speaker, in this House that when the Treasurer brings in a budget, he would at least have the courtesy --

Mr. Ruston: Darcy McKeough was always here.

Mr. Martel: I can think back to people like McKeough and MacNaughton, right down the line, who in fact were in here to hear budget responses. What in God's name is the sense of having critics preparing responses to the budget, when the Treasurer, the man responsible for that, is not even here? It is just a sham.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East, I want to say to you that --

Mr. Ruston: That's right. Bring back Darcy. We want Darcy.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Majority arrogance.

Hon. Mr. Eaton: He was here Monday and Tuesday.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Wrye: Are you going to answer the question?

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing out of order. It is not my responsibility to assure attendance in this House. I would point out with all respect to the honourable member, standing order 28(a), and I would ask him to take it under consideration and to please use the proper procedures.

Mr. Jones: On a point of personal privilege, Mr. Speaker: In the point of privilege from the member for Rainy River, there was an inference that somehow or other the Treasurer was not --

Mr. Speaker: Order. With all respect, I ruled that he did not have a point of privilege and, in fact, was out of order.

Ms. Copps: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I think if the Speaker takes the time to look at the standing order 28(a) he will see that it has to do with oral questions and has nothing to do with points of privilege.

Mr. Martel: Might I ask, on that point, because I have just finished reading it --

Mr. Speaker: You are right.

Mr. Martel: I want to know who I should direct it to, in view of the fact no question has been asked. We are asking the Speaker for guidance with respect to the presence of the Treasurer. Who shall I raise the question with?

Mr. Speaker: I would suggest that perhaps --

Mr. Martel: You are the one who told me to go by the rules.

Mr. Speaker: There is nothing in the standing orders to allow the member for Sudbury East or any other member to question the Speaker or to debate with the Speaker. Now, I would suggest, with all respect, that you direct your questions to the proper person on this --

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Ask your question to your leader if you can figure out who it is.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: No responsibility for the House.

Mr. Speaker: Well, that is not --

Mr. Martel: They're not here. They're not here for the next two weeks.

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps you did not hear. That is not my responsibility.

Mr. Mancini: The Treasurer is boycotting the House.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: You let the bells ring. What are you talking about?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: I wouldn't talk if I were you.

Mr. Epp: It is a silly game by the Treasurer, to leave here for two weeks while the budget is being debated.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Oral questions.

2:30 p.m.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, before I put my questions I will have to ask for your guidance under standing order 27(h), which says, "Parliamentary assistants may answer for their ministers only when authorized by the Premier."

Obviously I have some questions of the Treasurer, who, I regret, is displaying usual government arrogance by not being here. Whom do I ask over there, since the Premier (Mr. Davis) is also not present to redirect the questions, perhaps to the parliamentary assistant?

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk and the Hansard record obviously will show from the discussion which has gone on that the Treasurer is not here today. I think it should also show that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Peterson) and the deputy leader of the third party are not here today, either.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the honourable members resume their seats, please, just so I may deal --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am recognizing the member for Rainy River.

Mr. Martel: Wait a minute, Mr. Speaker --

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Sudbury East will please resume his seat again.

Mr. Martel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege --

Mr. Speaker: I am dealing with one and I think we should dispose of it first.

First of all, I recognize your problem. Secondly, I hate to point this out but there is nothing in the standing orders to allow questions to be directed to the Speaker. However, having said that, I think standing order 27 --

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Standing order 27(h) is very clear, "Parliamentary assistants may answer for their ministers only when authorized by the Premier." There is no way, obviously, that I can delegate that authority. There is no way that I can assure the attendance of members in this House, so really it is not a point of privilege.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I would suggest -- again it is not my role but I am trying to be helpful -- you seek some guidance from the government House leader.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Then could I hear from the government House leader? Does he want to change the standing orders because of the absence of the Treasurer and the Premier --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, the policy of the government has not been to delegate parliamentary assistants to answer questions during the question period. The Premier will be here in a very few minutes and will be happy to answer any question that members have.

The bill is in the name of the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) and I am sure he will be happy to answer questions concerning the bill. He is going to be carrying the debate on the bill and I am sure he would be happy to answer questions on it.

Mr. Speaker: The member for Sudbury East with something.

Mr. Martel: With something or other.

Mr. Speaker: I would rather have other -- a point of order or a point of privilege.

Mr. Martel: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: My friend the House leader indicated that the deputy leader was not here, nor was the Leader of the Opposition. But those people responsible for dealing with the budget are here prepared to deal with the budget. The fellow over there who brings in the budget, is not here this week or next week. Can you tell me what we are supposed to do?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. I am not going to tell you what do because quite obviously the observation was out of order to begin with.

I would point out to the honourable members that I called oral questions at 2:30. Four minutes have elapsed and there has not been one question.

Mr. Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of privilege arising from the former point. The Speaker will understand that when the Premier was ill, all members of this Legislature understood the situation and did not make any adverse comment about that. I would like to point out to the Minister of Agriculture and Food (Mr. Timbrell), the chief government whip (Mr. Gregory), and latterly the House leader, that the reason for the absence of the Leader of the Opposition today is because of illness.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, in view of the Premier's imminent appearance, I wonder if I could ask one question and then come back to my second one.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that will be acceptable.

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, before I move another motion, I might just say on a point of order that I did not know the Leader of the Opposition was sick. If I had known he was sick today, I would not have mentioned his name.

ORAL QUESTIONS

COLLECTION OF RETAIL SALES TAX

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue since he is going to be responsible for collecting a lot of these taxes. In view of the increases in the retail sales tax it is obvious that there are going to be a lot of fiddles worked and that people are going to be spurred to avoid the tax the best way they can. It is already obvious that we are losing millions of dollars from the provincial Treasury because people are importing cigarettes from Alberta, where they do not attract the tax, and with the increase it becomes even more a very economical and prosperous enterprise.

What steps has the minister taken to increase the number of inspectors to ensure that he is getting every penny of the seven per cent that he is gouging out of the people of Ontario?

Second, is he going to monitor the situation along with the Attorney General (Mr. McMurtry) and the Solicitor General (Mr. G. W. Taylor) to ensure that criminal elements do not get into the business of importing into Ontario items such as cigarettes, where there is going to be a lot of money to be made?

Third, does he not feel that this niggardly approach, this pickpocket approach of expanding the seven per cent sales tax, is going to drive citizens into avoiding the tax in every way they can and the fiddles, the hidden economy, are going to expand in Ontario?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, if I may touch upon the Tobacco Tax Act first, there is no doubt there has been, as there will be with many commodities, some illegal -- and I stress that word, illegal -- importation of cigarettes from other provinces, particularly from Alberta.

Very recently, there has been a co-operative seizure and charges that came out of that illegal import of cigarettes. There was a co-operative effort between Alberta, the policing authorities and the people in my ministry. We think we have cut off a very large source of supply that was coming in illegally. There is no doubt it is an ongoing part of our enforcement of the Tobacco Tax Act. It will continue to be.

The member opposite is in error if he feels there is no tax in Alberta. That is incorrect. It is substantially lower than ours, yes, but there is a tax on tobacco products in Alberta.

In summary, as in everything in terms of overseeing the responsibility of our tax laws in Ontario and enforcing those laws, we also have to be practical in that enforcement and keep in mind the people we are dealing with.

In the context of those who are breaking the law by importing cigarettes, frankly I have very little sympathy with those people. They are definitely in the business and determined that they are going to break the law, and the law will deal with them in the full force of that law.

As to the new vendors who are going to be involved in the administration and collection of sales taxes on our behalf, that is a different question. We have many small businessmen who have previously not been vendors collecting taxes on our behalf. We will be working with them over whatever period of time is necessary to get them involved in the system, not be hard on them, not be auditing them in the sense of a strict dollar and cent audit, but working with them and educating them to become collectors on our behalf in the tax system.

2:40 p.m.

The other part of the question relates to whether we will have more auditors. The answer to that is yes, our sales tax branch will probably grow somewhat, considering the large additional number of vendors who will be collecting on our behalf, but not at all in disproportion to the number of licensed vendors we now have.

Last but not least, are people going to be breaking the law? I would suggest the chances are probably 50-50 that every one of us who gets into his car tonight is going to break the law to some degree. Whether that makes everybody illegal or not, I do not know.

As people become familiar with the new items of tax and know that there is responsibility on the part of the citizens and vendors in Ontario to administer and be a part of the overall tax laws, I do not think there will be any ongoing problem in the administration of those laws.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The minister had better talk to his chauffeur-driven limousine driver about breaking the law.

Hon. Miss Stephenson: What is a chauffeur-driven limousine driver?

Mr. T. P. Reid: Prior to the seven per cent tax on public transit, some of us were taking the subways and public transportation.

I do not think the minister really appreciates the seriousness of the actions of his colleague the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller). He has sent out in the province an additional 60,000 people who will now be designated as tax collectors: people who will be doing repairs on television sets, outboard motors, lawn mowers, a whole gamut of things. I want to know how he is going to police that.

The only way he is going to police it is to again increase the very bureaucracy the Treasurer takes such great delight in saying they are cutting back on. He is not only turning people into tax collectors, he is going to have to swell the ranks of the civil service within his ministry to make sure those taxes are paid and collected. Again, that is a contradiction in the budget. Would he not agree his whole program is poorly conceived, ill thought out and is just nothing more than an annoyance, and the money he does collect is only going to balance the extra costs he is setting up?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: With that kind of logic and that kind of arithmetic, I am glad the member is the critic and not the Treasurer. Obviously, when he adds up two and two it comes to 10. We all know that is not the case. I do not know where the member --

Mr. Kerrio: With $2 billion debt, who are you kidding?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I do not know where the member got his figure for the anticipated additional number of vendors. I wish he would give me a list, because it is a somewhat more substantial number than we perceive we will be adding to our roll. Our guesstimate -- we like to be honest -- is we do not fully know how many there will be. That is for sure.

It is much more honest to come out with something like that than to pick the outlandish, grandiose figure of 60,000 out of the sky. It will be much closer to 10,000, not just a trifle different; 60,000 versus 10,000 is somewhat different. It could end up being 15,000, I will acknowledge that, but that is a far cry from 60,000.

The numbers the member refers to in terms of the administration costs of the Retail Sales Tax Act, again, are all out of proportion. Yes, it is going to cost a little bit more, there is no doubt about that. But the collection costs, the overseeing costs, the education costs, our vis-à-vis program, which is working with vendors outside the audit system, I think will be an investment on the part of the division to work more closely with the vendors.

There is no doubt there will be a period of familiarity with the rules and regulations we are setting up. We are dealing with a new group of people who may not have worked within the tax system to the same degree before. There is no doubt about that either. We recognize that and the staff who will be working with these people will be aware of that and will handle it, as they do the rest of our program, responsibly. The end result, without any great difficulty at all, will be substantial net revenue to the Treasury of Ontario.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I would like to ask the minister if he could table any of the studies and figures he has on the number of people who will now be tax collectors for the province. How much revenue does he expect to get on a breakdown by sector of tobacco, plants, toys, pets and so on? Could he table those figures in the House, and also the background studies that were done for this program by his ministry for the Treasury?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: We will take that under advisement. I think if the member would look back into the documents tabled with the budget, some of the information he has just referred to is already there. As far as the actual breakdown is concerned, we are not going to know absolute numbers until the system has been in effect for a while. We can give some numbers as to what we feel a further breakdown of the estimates would be. The grand total, of course, was in the budget as tabled by the Treasurer.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is interesting the minister should talk about my figures when the Treasurer was out 124 per cent on what his deficit was going to be in the province, and I bet this year he is out another 50 per cent.

TREASURER'S ATTENDANCE IN LEGISLATURE

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, under rule 27(h), I most humbly ask permission of the Premier to redirect a question from the minister of finance, who is not here, to his parliamentary assistant.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to give permission. I am not going to, but I would be delighted to under ordinary circumstances.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would remind some members opposite that parliamentary assistants have been discouraged from handling legislation or other issues for ministers. We are just following the traditions of the House. I think even the member for Rainy River has done that on occasion. If the honourable member wishes to direct a question to a minister, there is no problem whatsoever. I would be delighted to entertain the question myself, although I confess at the outset my knowledge of it probably would not be nearly as complete as that of the very distinguished member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones).

Following the traditions of the House, which all members have played a part in establishing, including the new one last Friday, if the member would like to direct the question to me, I will do my best to answer it or get the information for him.

Mr. Martel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker: The Premier himself indicates we are at a slight disadvantage. He might try to answer questions and, if he cannot, he will try to get answers. The Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller), who determines the date of the budget and his agenda, will be out of this zoo for the next week and a half. We are confronted with this fact this afternoon and for the next week and a half. The Treasurer brings in his budget then organizes a schedule that keeps him out of this House. What in God's name is going on?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I notice that on a very important issue here the other day relating to budgetary matters, the very distinguished member who asked the question was unavoidably elsewhere. I respect that.

Mr. Martel: It is not my budget. Don't play games.

Hon. Mr. Davis: But you are a member of this House, with great respect.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Martel: He is the Treasurer.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us get on with oral questions.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, this is a very important matter --

Mr. Speaker: Just a minute. The Premier has indicated he did not finish his answer.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I express the regrets of the Treasurer. I point out his budget was introduced last Thursday. In Friday's question period we had opportunities for lengthy questions. We could have had Monday, we could have had Monday, we could have had Monday, we could have had Monday, we could have had Monday -- and we had Tuesday.

2:50 p.m.

The Treasurer is in Sault Ste. Marie signing the Department of Regional Economic Expansion agreement. I am sure the distinguished member for Rainy River fully appreciates the importance of the execution of this agreement for northern Ontario.

I can only say that there have been many opportunities and there will be many more opportunities. The budget debate will continue for some weeks. There will be many opportunities to discuss and debate the provisions of the budget. I would say to the member, and I say this very constructively, that on questions related to the budget that do not fall within the ambit of a particular ministry I shall attempt to endeavour to get answers to what I know will be specific, constructive questions. I am not asking the member to do this, but if he has --

An hon. member: What a farce.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Just let me finish -- if he has some questions which he is genuinely anxious to get immediate responses to -- we used to do it this way -- if he will give me those questions by nine o'clock, I will attempt to have the answers for him by 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, the Premier indicated that the Treasurer is in Sault Ste. Marie announcing a sewer and water development instead of being here answering questions on the budget, and he has answered my question. Thank you.

Mr. Mackenzie: On a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker: I am not an expert on the rules, but I think part of your responsibility is order and integrity in this House and the rights of members of this House. It seems to me that what we have going on here, without the Treasurer and without his parliamentary assistant being able to answer the questions, is an insidious sort of muzzling of the opposition in this House. I really wonder whether or not you do not have a responsibility.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order, please; order, order.

Once again I point out to the member for Hamilton East it is not my responsibility and it is beyond my authority to ensure attendance of anybody in this House. I preside over the proceedings. I interpret the standing orders which have been passed by the honourable members. I want to emphasize this, it is not for me to ensure the attendance of any members in this House.

Mr. Cassidy: There is something called accountability, Mr. Speaker, and it is not in evidence in this House now.

Mr. Speaker: When I want your advice I shall ask for it.

Mr. Cassidy: It goes to the heart of the problem. That's what accountability is all about --

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cassidy: -- and you should be defending it.

Mr. Speaker: You are testing my patience, I can tell you that.

Mr. Cassidy: They are testing ours.

Mr. Martel: Our patience is being tested. This is a mockery.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, I can see it is. I would point out to the honourable members that 23 minutes of question period have elapsed and we have had one question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, this is the most important piece of business we will do this year. I am not going to accept the Premier's kind offer, because I am not that much of a masochist. Instead, I will go to the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing if I may.

Mr. Wildman: How come the Premier did not go to open the sewage plant? Why didn't you all go?

Mr. Cooke: There are more cabinet ministers up in Sault Ste. Marie than there are here.

Mr. McClellan: How many cabinet ministers fit into a sewage treatment plant?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Everybody wants to ask questions even though there is apparently no one to answer questions. I recognize the member for Rainy River with a new question. The member for Bellwoods will please just -- contain himself, or whatever.

Mr. T. P. Reid: It is interesting they are up there opening a sewage plant when the Treasurer is also taxing toilet paper. I hope he points that out to them.

Mr. Speaker: Now to the question.

Mr. T. P. Reid: The Treasurer giveth and the Treasurer taketh away.

TAX ON BUILDING MATERIALS

Mr. T. P. Reid: I have a question for the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing. Last Tuesday the Treasurer stated, "We have treated our boards and our municipalities with a degree of discussion and co-operation that we have not had at the federal level."

In view of this statement, can the minister indicate if he, any of his officials or the Treasury officials had any discussions with the municipalities regarding the elimination of the exemptions for materials incorporated into municipally owned and operated buildings and structures?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, the member obviously realizes the budget is exactly the kind of confidential document he spoke of last week in this very House. The parts of that document that relate to the changing of tax positions are obviously the prerogative of the Treasurer to announce at the time of the budget. I have not spoken, nor would it be my responsibility to speak to the municipalities in relation to that prior to the budget date. I have indicated to the Association of Municipalities of Ontario that we are prepared to meet and discuss this further with them at this time.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Since the municipalities have already set their budgets for this year, since the budget unquestionably increases the tax burden placed on municipalities in Ontario, and since the government does not plan, or we have not heard it is going to provide more funding at or above the rate of inflation, does the minister plan to allow our municipalities access to additional revenue sources to cover the additional costs? Or does the minister expect them to cut back on the level of servicing, staff and capital works programs or, alternatively, bring in new budgets and raise municipal taxes?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: In relation to the question of whether we as a government are prepared to extend special or additional tax privileges to municipalities, that would be a government policy and if there is to be any change it will be announced. I have no knowledge of it, nor would I encourage that situation on members of the cabinet.

As far as talking about municipalities is concerned, as the member recalls, the north has been extremely well looked after in the grant formulas for municipalities by our ministry and this government. I said clearly to the municipalities --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Let me just tell the member for Rainy River that 49 cents out of every dollar spent by a municipality in his end of Ontario comes as a direct grant from this government. Forty-nine cents out of every dollar they spend comes from us.

Mr. Martel: How much do you take out?

Mr. T. P. Reid: You have depended on the resources of Northern Ontario for --

Hon. Mr. Bennett: No one ever forgets that. That is why the grant formula is predicated to give a favourable position to those who do make a contribution to this province. We have never denied that in any way, shape or form. Indeed, in the grant formula for the current year, we averaged a 10.5 per cent increase to our municipalities, which is a greater increase than the ministry itself received. Obviously, that grant from this government was to try to curb some of the additional requirements of raising taxes on property at the local level.

I have nothing further to add than to say that I believe this government has treated its municipalities as fairly and openly as possible by making sure they got a fair grant increase. I will make one other point. As I said to AMO, and I repeat it in this House, as the minister reporting for municipal affairs, I have said very clearly --

Interjection.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: If the member will listen for a moment, I have said very clearly to the municipalities and to AMO that as the minister representing them in the cabinet I was not asking the Treasurer of this province to give grant increases in excess of or equal to inflation. I thought their governments, this government and the national government have a responsibility to curb inflation and that is not done by increasing grants to an unlimited position.

3 p.m.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister is aware of the press release put out yesterday or this morning by AMO reacting to the regressive budget. I want to quote two sections from that press release. It refers to the job creation program the government included in the budget. It states:

"The association believes that such programs will result in greater costs to municipalities than the actual employment creation benefits that would be achieved. Although the association firmly believes that job creation and economic stimulation are extremely important and essential objectives of the provincial government to fulfil, the 1982 Ontario budget does not contain the tools, vehicles or initiatives to attain such goals."

Is the minister aware of that? Did he have any consultation with the municipalities before he or his Treasurer put this initiative into the budget and then taxed back all the building supplies in such a way as to make these kinds of job creation projects not nearly as viable to create the 31,000 jobs that his government says it will be creating?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, there are a number of items in the budget related to job creation. Indeed, the renter-buy program, which comes under this ministry and through the Ontario Mortgage Corp., will create a very substantial number of jobs in the construction industry.

Mr. Di Santo: Do you qualify?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: The honourable member should read the newspapers and not take it so lightly. His community is going to benefit from it, and the figures already indicate it.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: We have indicated on the renter-buy program, just one of many programs in the field of housing, that 38,000 man-years of employment will be created. If we look at the other aspects of job creation announced by the Treasurer, $35 million relates to the municipalities. We only have to go back a few months -- and the members on that side of the House have been repeating it -- to when the municipalities asked this government to look at the possibility of reintroducing a make-work program, such as the winter works programs we have had federally and provincially in this country for some time.

We will announce some time next week the details of our $35-million program in relation to how the moneys will be disbursed to the various municipalities, the types of programs it will cover and how many jobs we expect it will create for the individual municipalities of Ontario.

Mr. Cunningham: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware that the removal of these exemptions will cause the following increases in the Hamilton-Wentworth area: for the new Hamilton Mountain transit garage, an additional cost to the municipality of $96,000; for control and communication equipment for transit, $52,500; for the expansion of Burlington Street, $210,000; and an additional cost of somewhere in the area of $416,000 to $544,000 for the expansion of sewage treatment plants for the treatment of sludge?

Can the minister tell us where the municipalities are going to get the money to pay for all of this?

Hon. Mr. Bennett: Mr. Speaker, obviously the honourable member is aware of the fact that a very substantial portion of those capital cost programs, regardless of whether they include taxes, is subsidized by the various ministries of this government. In the case of transit there is a 75 per cent grant by the government, and for sludge there is a grant program through the Ministry of the Environment. This government picks it up even if it is a tax being returned to us. The fact is that 75 per cent of it is still paid through a grant formula.

The balance of it is like other costs and expenses incurred by municipalities. Whether it be a municipality or the private sector, they have to review their whole budgetary requirements to see whether there are some areas they could eliminate. Whether it be in the municipal government or in the provincial government, when certain unexpected costs come your way your senior people are required to sit down and review the budget and, if necessary, cut; if not, then to prepare for whatever it takes to accommodate the expenditures, even if it means deferring them for a period.

TAX BURDEN

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Premier; but before I get into the question, I would like to pass over some "Miller dollars" to the Premier. These are being handed out, I understand, in Toronto. On the back they have two portions to rip off to send to the Liberals and one section for this government and what its sales tax is doing to people's buying power in this province. I would like to send these over to the Premier.

Mr. Speaker: And now for the question.

Mr. Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The question is also to the Premier. I would like to quote two more sections from the Association of Municipalities of Ontario press release that was put out yesterday:

"AMO records strong objection to those new provincial tax initiatives that place additional financial burdens on local government. The association views these additional taxes imposed on municipalities as a move shifting the tax burden from the provincial government indirectly on to the municipalities."

Since the verdict is in from AMO and from a great number of people across this province, is the Premier now, on behalf of his government, prepared to do what he is urging Mr. MacEachen to do, and that is to change his regressive budget?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I cannot reply to that in short order. The shorter answer to that is no, of course, but that would not satisfy the member. Shall I try to explain why not?

Mr. Riddell: No.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know that explanations are never the long suit of the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell). He never wants to listen to reason or logic; it would confuse his thinking.

But I say to the member for Windsor-Riverside (Mr. Cooke) that there is a very distinct difference between the budget presented by the Treasurer of this province and the budget presented by the federal Minister of Finance. If he pursued both budgets very carefully, he would find that in terms of tax burden the Ontario budget is minimal compared to that of the government of Canada.

In another essential area, the question of investor confidence and job creation, and the kind of budget that creates some degree of stimulation and some degree of investment, he will find that the budget of the Treasurer of this province has been welcomed by small business, by the housing community and by those many people who are going to be the direct beneficiaries of the economic activity that takes place. If the member pursues Mr. MacEachen's budget carefully, I think he will find there is no such single group.

I say to the member that I understand the political realities. Any time there is an increase in the tax base it receives a fair amount of attention. No Treasurer likes to increase or add additional tax burdens; it is not the most comfortable of obligations. But he also has an obligation to look after the financial affairs of this province, and I think in this budget he has done it extremely well.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, is the Premier aware that the additional cost to the city of Cambridge as a result of the budget is at least $35,500; to Cambridge Transit, at least $22,700; to Cambridge Memorial Hospital, at least $27,200; to the Waterloo County Board of Education, which includes the city of Cambridge, $665,000; and to the Waterloo County Roman Catholic Separate School Board, at least $70,000?

Is the Premier aware of those statistics, and is he aware of what they mean to the people who are paying property tax in that area? If that is not a shift to a further regressive tax and does not very clearly demonstrate, as he said in his first answer, that his friends are the winners and the beneficiaries of this budget, is the Premier still not willing to reconsider this budget to help those people who are on medium and low incomes?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, there are many people involved in the small business sector who would consider themselves as being part of the "middle-income group." If the honourable member wants to say the small business community is a "friend of this government," I would be delighted to have that become a reality. If he is saying small business is not a friend of his party, I would express the personal point of view that this indicates great judgement on their part.

I cannot give the member the specifics on every single item, but I will give him an example. If in the city of Brampton the Brampton Transit System were to decide to buy X new buses and if they paid sales tax on those buses, the total cost of those buses would be eligible for the same degree or measure of percentage grant from the Ministry of Transportation and Communications. If the level of grant happens to be 75 per cent, which I remind the member is about the most generous grant in transit available anywhere in North America, MTC is picking up 75 per cent of the seven per cent additional cost.

There is no question that there will be some impact in terms of the local community, but the impact will be shared, if it is eligible for grant, by the ministry of this government.

Mr. Epp: Mr. Speaker, what advice does the Premier have for the more than 800 municipalities of Ontario and the more than 100 school boards which have already set their budgets for 1982? What advice has he got for them now that the budget of Ontario has come down and they are going to have large deficits? Does he suggest to all of them that they go back and have another budget meeting and re-evaluate their taxes for this year, or is he going to come forth with some additional money for them so that they can meet their budgets? As the Premier knows, they are not supposed to have deficit budgets the way this government does.

3:10 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I have every sympathy for the municipalities. There have been some years --

Mr. Laughren: That will make them feel good.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Let me finish. If the honourable member does not want the answer -- well, he does want the answer. My recollection is that the municipalities, and on occasion even the school boards, have set preliminary budgets even before a provincial budget or, on some occasions, even before the grant regulations were available. I will give as an example the Peel Board of Education. I think last year the grant regulations went out some time in March or whatever --

Hon. Miss Stephenson: Yes, in March.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I can only tell the member, and I am sure this is also true of the Waterloo county board, that the Peel board was very close to the establishment of the budget and the mill rate even before the grant regulations were available. So I happen to know there is some measure of flexibility.

I should point out to the member that we are probably talking about half of one per cent of the total budget of any community; some will be slightly more, some will be somewhat less. Taken in the context of their total budget and that there is some measure of flexibility -- some municipalities I know are allowed to have contingency items in there -- if we calculate into their expenditure patterns some of the areas where the sales tax will apply, if, in fact, it is eligible for provincial grant it could be far less than one half of one per cent of the financial obligation they may have to try to find.

Mr. Cooke: I would like to ask the Premier whether he is aware of what the superintendent of the Cambridge Transit told us he intends to do. Their biggest major cost, in addition to the sales tax increases, will be the Ontario health insurance plan premiums they have to play for their employees. Is the Premier aware that what he told us is that they intend to take that out of the wages of the workers who work for the bus company?

In view of the Premier's argument and the argument of the Treasurer that OHIP premiums by and large are paid by the employers of this province, does the Premier not now realize that OHIP premiums are paid, in one way or another, by the employees, the workers of this province? That is a regressive tax, and when is that going to be changed in this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I will not dispute that being a supplementary, because it is very definitely a new question; you know that and I know that, but I will answer it anyway.

Mr. Di Santo: I have a supplementary.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: With respect to the member for Downsview (Mr. Di Santo), I have not finished with the member for Windsor-Riverside.

I think the Treasurer has made it quite clear that with respect to the financing of the health care system, and there is a paper contained in the budget, that this government has never been reluctant to explore alternatives, although I think all members will understand that when we get into exploration of alternatives other than some of the simplistic ones, we find that the premium system still has a workable basis for it.

I would say to the member that we all acknowledge that whether it is paid by the employer or the employee, it is all paid into the health delivery system of this province. I do not think the Treasurer has ever debated the assumption the member has made.

AID TO PENSIONERS

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, this question will also go to the Premier. The Premier set up the Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions in Ontario, and the select committee on pensions also studied that problem. The select committee on pensions stated that "the government of Ontario should increase without delay the payment for Gains to bring single persons up to the adequacy level of 'available income'."

Since that was recommended by the royal commission, and that recommendation was supported by the select committee of this Legislature, why is it that in this budget there is absolutely no provision to implement these recommendations for the people of this province?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I am only going by memory again, but the royal commission report on pensions was about yea high. It contained, as I recall, many recommendations, not just this one. The select committee on pensions report, I think, also contained many recommendations. The honourable member has asked about a specific recommendation and, of course, does not deal with the many others that are contained in both reports.

I would say to the member it is not a question of acceptance or non-acceptance of that or its appearance or non-appearance in the budget. Of course that is a matter of concern to the government of the province. I think it is fair to state that all matters that relate to our pensioners or to welfare recipients have not been dealt with necessarily in the budget, and the exclusion of them does not mean the government is not aware of them or not considering them. I do not think the member really can refer to it as being specifically something that should or should not be in the budget. There are a lot of things that are not in the budget.

Mr. Cooke: Does the Premier not realize that not only is this recommendation not provided for in this budget but also, through the implementation of several regressive taxation measures, senior citizens in this province are going to be worse off, thanks to him and his Treasurer's budget? Does the Premier not realize that? Why has he not taken steps to assist those senior citizens who are living in poverty in this province, when he has not taken the necessary steps to assist them as a caring government should?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not want to take issue with the member. I understand the rhetoric we use in this House, but I say to him once again, with the greatest respect, when it comes to the senior citizens of this province, this government makes no apology for the initiatives, assistance, encouragement and recognition that we attribute to the contribution the senior citizens of Ontario have made. We take some pride in the programs we have introduced and will continue to maintain.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Premier's clichés have not all been said, although I know he never runs out. His budget is going to increase the costs of every senior citizen in the province by a minimum of $21 to $30 a month, with the expansion of the seven per cent sales tax on goods and services in Ontario. They do use toilet paper, they do use underarm deodorant --

Mr. Speaker: Now for the supplementary.

Mr. T. P. Reid: -- some of them have pets and all the rest of it. Some of them are already below the poverty level. What is he going to do to bring those who are below the poverty level up, and what he is going to do for those who are going to suffer under this increased burden of tax as a result of the broadening of the seven per cent retail sales tax?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be the last one to comment on the platitudes I use, after I read some of the platitudes and rhetoric of the very distinguished member in his budget speech contribution. Some of it was refreshing, but to say it was cliché-ridden would be an understatement. Some of it was clever, some of it not so clever.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Would you like to hear my speech again?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I even suspect and guess who the author of the honourable member's poem was.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You're looking at him. I don't have all the speechwriters you do --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, come on. I happen to know the member's wife has far more talent than he will ever have. He knows that, and I know that.

Mr. T. P. Reid: She is more talented than all the women in your cabinet, that's for sure.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Can the Premier get back to the question?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will get back to the question that was raised. I think the member, if he does a little more homework, will find his figures are really significantly high. He should do a little homework and --

Mr. T. P. Reid: Give me a figure of your own.

Mr. Van Horne: We would like to see your figures.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I will check and give the member a guesstimate. The guesstimate from the Minister of Revenue (Mr. Ashe) is somewhere around $2 to $4 a month. That is --

Mr. Mackenzie: You wouldn't take his word, would you?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Who knows exactly what the figure is?

Hon. Miss Stephenson: When do you ever go shopping?

Hon. Mr. Davis: You know who does the shopping in your family.

Mr. T. P. Reid: I do.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I would say to the member that this government has always recognized the needs of our senior citizens. We will continue to do so. In fact, a couple of years ago we recognized them in a fashion that totally upset the member's former leader. It has upset every member of the Liberal caucus. The member did not want us to proceed with some of the programs for our senior citizens, because he thought we might get some modest degree of political credit for it.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Mr. Speaker, I hope the Premier will admit that a budget does state the financial priorities of any government. He will admit that although he protected successful small businesses and he made sure there was nothing in the budget that was going to affect the major gains the doctors have made in our society in the last little while, there is no mention in that budget of senior citizens.

Will he not agree that he has added to the senior citizens' financial burdens by taxing items that were never taxed before -- magazines, personal hygiene items, denture cleaners, denture adhesives and prepared foods? How can the Premier stand up today and say senior citizens are a priority for him today?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The member for Scarborough West has the floor.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: How can the Premier say they are a priority for him when there was no mention or suggestion that he would help them in this tough time by increasing their sales tax credit, or at least their property tax grants, to accommodate that extra burden they are going to be taking?

The Premier hinted in his opening remarks that it may not have been in the budget but that it may be forthcoming. Will it be forthcoming? Why was it not stated as a priority by his government?

3:20 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is fair to state that a budget contains every priority of the government. If the government did that, the members would be here for a week listening to the budget.

I would only say to the honourable member not to read anything into what I say might or might not happen. The general statement I made, and I repeat it -- and I think the record supports what I am going to say -- is that this government has been as sensitive as or more sensitive than almost any other government with respect to provisions of support and assistance to our senior citizens. That is the case, and it will continue to be the case.

In my limited travels I may have met fewer senior citizens than has the member but I am not sure and, somehow, I doubt it. I have found that senior citizens of Ontario understand this; they recognize it, and they appreciate it.

TAX ON RESTAURANT MEALS

Mr. Sweeney: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the Minister of Revenue. Given that the budget speaks of trying to help small business, how can he as a member of the cabinet and therefore of the government and, I suppose, having some influence on this budget -- and as the minister responsible for carrying the legislation, as the Premier just said -- justify increasing the cost of eating out in lower-priced establishments, which are also small businesses, when we know that even before the budget was introduced, the customer count in those smaller restaurants had already declined by 25 per cent? How is he helping those small businesses by this budget implication?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, the honourable member has obviously come to some conclusions that I do not agree with. First of all, and he has already alluded to the fact, many restaurateurs are small businesses and not part of a chain; they are on their own. Even many of the so-called chains are franchises, as the member well knows. In fact, because they are small incorporated businesses, they will qualify for the part of the stimulus coming out of the budget of my colleague the Treasurer which gives them a two-year tax holiday. This, obviously, will be of benefit to them.

As for the implication that the change in the tax rate -- which has not come into effect, by the way; it does not until June 14 -- will itself produce a substantial net decrease in the restaurant business in the long term, I disagree with that. Yes, there is a general decline, I think it is safe to say, in most areas out there. That is one of the reasons this government, through this budget, had to attempt to put some stability and some confidence back in the economy, which has been so badly eroded since the federal Liberals' budget of last November.

It is very difficult for one provincial government in one budget to offset that massive document; but we think the overall measures in this budget will at least offset some of that.

Mr. Epp: Have you ever been brainwashed.

Mr. Kerrio: Blame the Americans, blame somebody else.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Virtually all restaurants, other than the straight take-out type, other than the McDonald's type of restaurant and something beyond, sell food which, particularly in the evening time which I would suggest a vast majority of the time comes to more than $6 per person. In fact, what will happen on June 14 is that the tax on those meals will be decreased by three per cent. I suggest that if one looks at the overall week in most sit-down restaurants, the sales tax changes will not have one iota of negative impact.

On the other side of the coin, small businesses, if they are incorporated, will qualify for a two-year tax holiday. That is much more stimulus than what came out of the federal budget last November.

Mr. Sweeney: Surely the Minister of Revenue is aware that the tax holiday for two years is going to be most beneficial to those businesses that are earning a profit and therefore are paying taxes. The minister has just agreed that the very kinds of low-cost restaurants I have been talking about are already having trouble. They already have a declining customer count and those same businesses account for an employment level of 250,000 in this province.

Does the minister not realize that what he is doing is affecting and potentially reducing employment at that level? Did he not take that kind of potential effect into account when he brought this measure into the budget, a budget that was supposed to increase employment, not decrease it?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I suggest the supplementary question was really the same question all over again with a few different words. If the member would like me to repeat it all again with a few different words, I would be happy to do so. As I think I answered, the long and the short of it is that I do not agree with the member that the budget measure in itself will have any negative impact on the restaurant business over any period of time.

Mr. Sweeney: You want to discourage people going out to eat dinner.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: That is the member's opinion. If any people have been discouraged from going to restaurants, from buying goods and services, from doing anything, not only in this province but also elsewhere across Canada, it is the member's federal colleagues who have caused it to happen.

Mr. Wildman: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the minister would agree that the major problem facing the small business sector, and one of the main reasons for the tremendous increase in bankruptcies over the last couple of years in that sector, is the ill-conceived and ridiculous high interest rate policy of the federal government. The fact is that his budget did not do a thing for those people.

A tax holiday for people who are making a profit does not help one person in the small business sector who is in trouble because of high interest rates and is not making a profit. Why did he not do something for those people if he really wanted to help the small business sector?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: Mr. Speaker, there is one thing the representative of the third party and I agree on, that the great majority of our difficulties within this province and this country are caused by the high interest rate policy of the federal Liberal government. Since we acknowledge and accept that, there is no difference of opinion.

Mr. Epp: Tell us about Suncor.

Mr. Ruston: Joe Clark agrees with it.

Mr. Wildman: Why don't you do something about it?

Mr. Sweeney: Part of the high interest rate is the $650 million going out of this country.

Mr. Kerrio: You don't care who you get into bed with.

Mr. Mackenzie: Make him answer the question, Mr. Speaker.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the minister please address the question?

Hon. Mr. Ashe: I always answer the questions, always directly and I never provoke. I think it has been acknowledged in other jurisdictions within Canada, and not only this one, that it is extremely difficult for a provincial government to have any influence on interest rate policy or even to offset some of the negatives of that policy.

Within the rather narrow movement area the Treasurer had, he chose, in the context of assistance to small incorporated businesses, a policy that will definitely favour those that have at least some degree of success, namely, those that are making a profit. There is no doubt about that. It would be literally impossible for this province to fiscally offset the negative implications for so many sectors of our economy caused by the federal Liberal government's high interest rate policy. We simply cannot afford it, and we have to select our places within the fiscal restraints and constraints that we have.

3:30 p.m.

AID TO FORMER PSYCHIATRIC PATIENTS

Mr. McClellan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Health, if he has recovered his composure from his emotional display yesterday.

In light of the two reports that were released today, Madness, by the Ontario Public Service Employees Union, and The Housing Gap, released by the Supportive Housing Coalition, which documents the need for housing for ex-psychiatric patients, may I ask a question about yesterday's announcement?

Is it correct that the $1 million fund the minister announced yesterday is the same $1 million fund that is in the hands of the Metropolitan Toronto District Health Council; that the health council has received a number of project proposals it intends to prioritize and, in fact, has prioritized; that the $1 million will be spent among nine projects that have already been given priority by the Metro district health council; and that among those nine projects are a total of 20 beds that will be funded by this $1 million fund for ex-psychiatric patients? This would make, by my count, 14 beds for Regeneration House, 40 for Dewson hospital and 20 from the $1 million fund for a grand total of 74. Is that information correct?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: As usual, no, Mr. Speaker. There is no question about a couple of things. First, I have set aside at least another million dollars to help solve the problem in Parkdale. Second, the Supportive Housing Coalition, which, as the honourable member knows, we have funded to hire an executive director to help solve the problem, puts the figure at about 250 or 260 beds needed. We have already accounted for 74 of that figure.

We are continuing to use the $1 million and perhaps more to cut that figure once again. As we go further in this area I will obviously be looking to the district health council priorities, which deal with many of those things, because I do believe, and I know the member believes, that the DHC has a great sense of priorities in this area.

Finally, I know the member has a hard time envisaging the fact that people who belong not to his party but to my party -- and indeed, to the Liberal Party, to be fair -- can and do get quite emotional about some of the circumstances faced by the people in this city and other cities who are ex-psychiatric patients. I have never risen in this House to suggest that the member was going through some sort of phoney emotional display, and I think he shows a fair degree of condescension when he presumes to be the only person in this House who cares about ex-psychiatric patients. The members sitting opposite me care, and every single member on this side of the House cares equally.

Mr. McClellan: Has the minister received a copy of The Housing Gap? Is he aware of the information in that report, specifically that 53 per cent of the patients discharged from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre during the survey period, which I understand was in April 1982, required 24-hour-a-day supervision; that seven per cent of the patients being discharged from the Queen Street Mental Health Centre in April 1982 were being discharged onto the street with no place to go; and that, as of April 1982, there were 249 ex-psychiatric patients living in the hostels in Metropolitan Toronto, another 241 ex-psychiatric patients who were so disturbed that they were barred from living in the hostels, and another 171 ex-psychiatric patients who were on what is called a caution alert -- again, too disturbed to live in a hostel?

Can the minister tell me, please, how his 74 beds are going to address these problems?

Hon. Mr. Grossman: First, I am not acknowledging that those figures and that analysis are correct. The report has only now been received. Let me assure the honourable member and those who were involved in writing the report that I will read the report carefully. If there are any constructive suggestions contained therein, we will certainly follow them.

I will not take the time of the House to review the various initiatives undertaken by this government. Many of them were undertaken before I became minister and more have been undertaken since. The member knows what is happening at Queen Street which will solve many of those problems.

Mr. McClellan: Your predecessor Mr. Timbrell and your government caused those problems.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: I know even the member will not find it within himself to criticize Dr. Malcolmson, Mr. O'Keefe or Sister Janet Murray. They are the persons who will be in a position to solve a great number of those problems.

Mr. McClellan: No. I am criticizing you.

Hon. Mr. Grossman: In terms of our responsibilities, I would remind the member that we run the Queen Street psychiatric facility. Those people report to and work for us and they are solving many of the problems identified in that report. I would also remind him that a great number of the issues raised in that report, as I understand it, deal with community services.

As he knows, almost every initiative I have undertaken in the area of mental health in my short three months as minister has been related to providing more community-based facilities. The initiatives we will undertake with our further $1 million will again be based in the community so that almost all the problems he is identifying either have been addressed, are in the process of being addressed or will be addressed.

Mr. Speaker: The time for oral questions has expired. I might point out to the honourable members that I have used my discretion to extend question period by more than six minutes.

Mr. Wrye: Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order based on the comment you just made about extending question period by six minutes.

Clearly, my colleague the member for Hamilton Centre (Ms. Copps) wished to address a question to the Minister of Health on this important matter. You allowed the member for Bellwoods to have a supplementary question beyond the 60-minute limit of the question period. In view of the importance of this matter, it seems to me it would have been appropriate for you to allow a final supplementary from the member for Hamilton Centre.

Mr. Speaker: That is a very interesting opinion but, with all respect, that is all it is.

MOTIONS

ESTIMATES, MINISTRY OF COMMUNITY AND SOCIAL SERVICES

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that the time allocation for consideration of the estimates of the Ministry of Community and Social Services be reduced by five hours. Motion agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Hon. Mr. Wells moved that, notwithstanding standing order 64(d), Mr. McNeil and Mr. McKessock exchange positions in the order of precedence for private members' business to be debated.

Motion agreed to.

3:40 p.m.

INTRODUCTION OF BILLS

MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Bennett moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Wells, first reading of Bill 119, An Act to amend the Municipal Elections Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Bennett: This bill contains a number of amendments in two major categories: first, it includes provisions to enable municipal councils to pass bylaws regulating campaign contributions and requiring the reporting of expenses and contributions; second, it includes a number of changes to the election procedures and to the wording of the act, to improve and clarify the municipal election procedure.

CERTIFICATION OF TITLES AMENDMENT ACT

Hon. Mr. Elgie moved, seconded by Hon. Mr. Baetz, first reading of Bill 120, An Act to amend the Certification of Titles Act.

Motion agreed to.

Hon. Mr. Elgie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to introduce an amendment to the Certification of Titles Act that will greatly reduce the time it takes to do a title search of subdivided properties.

By way of background, this act was passed in 1958. It gives land owners the right to apply to have titles to their land certified or guaranteed by government. This means that a person wanting to buy the property has to search back only to the time when the certificate was issued. The amendment to the act takes this concept one step further. It authorizes the ministry to certify titles to plans of subdivisions already registered in the land registry system.

Subdividers will not have to apply for certification. This work will be carried out by ministry staff. They will search the title and, if it is sound, the certificate will be effective as of the day the plan was registered. This will eliminate the most difficult part of the usual 40-year title search for lots in subdivision plans.

WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION AMENDMENT ACT

Mr. Haggerty moved, seconded by Mr. Newman, first reading of Bill 121, An Act to amend the Workmen's Compensation Act.

Motion agreed to.

Mr. Haggerty: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill is to broaden the criteria used by the Workmen's Compensation Board in assessing the impairment of earning capacity resulting from an injury that causes permanent disability. The act currently states that the impairment of earning capacity shall be estimated from the nature and degree of the injury. The board is authorized under the act to compile a rating schedule of percentages of impairment of earning capacity for specific injuries that may be used as guides in determining the compensation payable in permanent disability cases.

This bill repeals the provision that authorizes the board to compile a rating schedule and directs the board to estimate the impairment of earning capacity in the light of the circumstances of each individual case.

ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS ON NOTICE PAPER

Hon. Mr. Wells: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table the answers to questions 32 to 51, 119, 126, 128, 130, 132 to 134, 138, 141, 146 and 151 and the interim answer to question 129 standing on the Notice Paper [see Hansard for Friday, May 21].

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. Kerrio: On a point of order: Would I be in order if I were to ask that the member from the government side be now heard?

Mr. Speaker: I would think not.

Mr. Cooke: Mr. Speaker, before I get into the text of my comments today I want to thank the Premier (Mr. Davis) for sticking around this afternoon and filling in for the Treasurer (Mr. F. S. Miller).

The other day, when the official Liberal critic for the Treasurer was speaking, the Treasurer was in town but attended only about 10 minutes of that member's speech. It is an indication of how far we have gone in this Ontario Legislature, of how arrogant that government over there has become, when they show no respect whatsoever for the legislative process. They govern only by polls and what they think will get them votes, and to heck with the opposition, which happens to represent over 50 per cent of the people of this province.

Mr. Riddell: That's it.

Mr. Wrye: That's it.

Mr. Cooke: Now that a couple of Liberals have agreed with me on that, and again before I get into the text of my speech, I want to make a couple of comments about my colleagues to my right.

Ms. Copps: Not philosophical comments.

Mr. Cooke: It is absolutely amazing. These people, who are members of the Legislature, are members of the Liberal Party. There is only one Liberal Party in this country. There are not two Liberal parties in this province. Is the brother of the member for Rainy River (Mr. T. P. Reid) a member of a party different to the one he belongs to?

Mr. T. P. Reid: I am Liberal-Labour as well.

Mr. Cooke: Is the brother of the member for London Centre (Mr. Peterson) a member of a different Liberal Party to the one he belongs to?

Mr. Wrye: I am glad my brother is in Nova Scotia, but he is a Liberal, too.

Mr. Cooke: They come into this Legislature and they say they are against high interest rates. They are in favour --

Mr. Kerrio: What about Lenin and all those bums?

Mr. Martel: You're the biggest buffoon of them all, Vince.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Hey, the enemy is over there.

Mr. Cooke: Yes. I think the enemy is over there. We are surrounded on three sides.

We talk about interest rates in this province. That party supports the high interest rates because they are their party's. They say they do not believe it, but it is a basic issue. If they believe that foreign investment is wrong and that the Foreign Investment Review Agency should be strengthened, that is another basic issue.

If the members of the party to my right do not agree with the policies of the Liberal Party, it is incumbent on them to resign from the Liberal Party and sit as independents; not to try to play a con game on the people of Ontario to convince them that they are somehow different from Liberals. A Liberal is a Liberal is a Liberal and they are stuck with it.

Mr. Ruston: We are used to his boloney; after five or six years in Windsor we're used to it.

Mr. Cooke: We had a hot line show --

Mr. Bradley: Are you running federally next time? Tell us, are you giving up your seat for Bob Rae?

The Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed some freeway in your opening remarks. I think it will soon be time to get into the budget.

Mr. Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wanted to point out that this provincial budget was the subject of an open-line program in my home town. They took a poll on the bell-ringing that went on last weekend. The vast majority of the people who called said: "If it was any other party" -- that is, the party to my right -- "it was believable." They know what Liberals are like and they do not want David Peterson to do for Ontario what Trudeau is doing for all of Canada.

An hon. member: Trudeau and Peterson.

An hon. member: Have mercy.

Mr. T. P. Reid: Tell us about the Saskatchewan election. Let's talk about Saskatchewan.

Mr. Cooke: Now I would like to get into the text of my speech.

The Deputy Speaker: Yes.

Mr. Cooke: Last week, the budget was brought down by this government. It was a classic Tory budget. It offered help to those who needed no help, and increased taxes on those already struggling to make ends meet. It offered help to those who can already afford to buy a home but it forgot those who cannot afford to keep their homes because of Liberal mortgage rates. It offered a tax holiday to small businesses which are making money but it forgot those that are going bankrupt because of Liberal interest rates.

It gave $1 billion to the doctors and said that the disabled, the elderly and single parents dependent on government must continue to survive with increases at a rate less than inflation.

3:50 p.m.

This budget was mean and heartless at a time when thousands of Ontarians were counting on this government to be compassionate and understanding.

The Liberals demonstrated the same philosophical approach to middle- and low-income families in last November's budget. They gave a large tax reduction to the wealthy by lowering the tax rate. Specifically, 45,000 Canadians earning $100,000 a year had their taxes lowered by $4,970. Now this regressive Conservative budget will finish the job that Allan MacEachen began.

At a time when 575,000 people are out of work in this province, this budget promises 31,000 temporary jobs and says that a recovery is around the corner.

At a time when the Conference Board of Canada and virtually every economist in this province is predicting negative growth, this government says we should be optimistic about our future.

At a time when the structural difficulties in the manufacturing sector of Ontario have never been so obvious, this government takes no new initiatives and simply re-announces the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development for the fifth or sixth time.

No action was taken in the auto sector where thousands of people remain laid off. No action was taken in food processing or mining machinery where literally thousands of long-term jobs could be created through a program of import replacement. In fact, the government refused to accept that this recession is anything other than a cyclical downturn in the economy. Instead, it insisted that when the US economy picks up, so will ours and all will be well again.

At a time when we needed imaginative initiatives, this government has done nothing and has said: "Have faith in the future."

Of the people who renew their mortgages this year in Ontario, 32,500 of them will be in trouble because their payments will be over 30 per cent of their monthly income. They were looking to this government for help. Other provinces have taken action, but this province instead decided that the federal mortgage assistance program was adequate, even though to date only 342 people have qualified for aid, most of them with interest rate deferrals which in fact means that at the end of the year they will owe more on their mortgage than they did at the beginning of the year.

Mr. Ken Gauthier, who lives in my riding, renewed his mortgage last year. He did not qualify for the federal mortgage assistance program. He is working at two jobs just to keep up the payments on his house. His payments went from $272 a month to $433 a month. Mr. and Mrs. Furler, also in my riding, had their payments go from $448 a month to $599 a month. Both of these families were looking to this government for help.

Mrs. Therese Leclerc, also of Windsor, could not get a mortgage and she has since lost her home. She could not get her mortgage because her payments were so high after the renewal that she did not qualify for a renewal of her mortgage.

Linda Philips of Welland, who contacted my colleague the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) a week ago with the problem that she could not get her mortgage renewed, has since lost her home as have apparently other people in her subdivision. The reason is their mortgages are all coming up for renewal and payments will be well over the 30 per cent of their incomes and the mortgage companies will not renew their mortgages.

These people and thousands more were looking for help from this government, but no action was taken.

A 59-year-old woman named Mrs. Dixon came into my office a couple of weeks ago. She lives on $2,700 a year from welfare from the city of Windsor. She, along with 500,000 other people in this province living on government assistance, was hoping that this government cared enough about them that they might get some help.

However, instead of an attack on poverty, this government through its regressive taxation policies has attacked those living in poverty. It has done this by eliminating the exemptions from sales tax on many necessary items. Mrs. Dixon, who lives in her own home, because of the increases in taxation and the increased property tax she will be paying, could very well be forced out of her home because of this increase in taxation by the Conservative government. This government says last week's budget was fair and equitable. Well, Mrs. Dixon does not believe this government's budget was fair and equitable.

At the same time, another constituent of mine, Mr. R. Tebbs -- perhaps the Premier knows him -- first vice-president of Hiram Walker, who earns $788,000 a year, can now go to the most expensive restaurant in Toronto or any other place in Ontario and he will have the rate of tax on his meals lowered from 10 per cent to seven per cent. Mr. Speaker, I ask you, is that equity? Home owners, small businesses, farmers and entire communities are suffering, yet this government has done little.

In Hamilton, 29,000 people are unemployed and want jobs. Layoffs have occurred this year at Brown Boggs Foundry, Otis Elevator, International Harvester and Stelco, to name a few.

In St. Thomas, unemployment is up nearly 40 per cent this year over last. Smiths Falls has 1,963 unemployed people, compared to 1,411 around the same time last year, a 40 per cent increase.

Cornwall has 5,281 people looking for work, up by 550 from last year. In that city 16 per cent of the municipal budget goes for welfare. In the Algoma district 6,811 people are unemployed, compared to 4,200 a year ago, a 60 per cent increase in that area.

In the Thunder Bay area, 7,575 people are looking for work and 15 per cent more people have been forced onto welfare this year compared to last.

In St. Catharines, 12,284 people are unemployed, a 17 per cent increase from last year at this time. The Welland area has 5,858 people out of work, compared to 3,523 last year, again a 60 per cent increase.

In my home community the unemployment rate remains very high at around 20 per cent, with unemployment among young people over 25 per cent; and that before universities are even out for the summer.

Mr. Martel: We have three cabinet ministers.

Mr. Cooke: Yes, we have three cabinet ministers. Only two Liberals are left in the House though.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: This has been the most successful attack on the Liberals I have ever seen.

Mr. Cooke: Maybe they do not need bells to stay out.

Mr. Speaker, these are only a few of the communities in this province that are suffering from the deepest recession since the 1930s. The statistics certainly tell how serious the problem is; and, as honourable members know, all they have to do is go to their constituency offices on a weekly basis and talk to those who are unemployed to understand in human terms how this recession is affecting people. Yet in the light of this disastrous state of our economy, the Treasurer has decided that 31,000 temporary jobs are adequate.

Unlike Liberal John Evans, we in the New Democratic Party do not feel this budget is a realistic attack on our serious economic problems. I gather some Liberals do not agree with John Evans either.

4 p.m.

The position of the party to my right is that there should be no increase in the deficit, no increase in taxes, no cutbacks in services; at the same time it endorses aid to home owners, small businesses, hospitals, colleges, universities, etc. This typical Liberal position has contributed nothing whatsoever to what should have been a serious economic and budgetary discussion for this province.

A couple of weeks ago, we in the NDP put forward a comprehensive set of budgetary proposals. These proposals recognized that persistent inflation, record interest rates, tremendous uncertainty about the future, together with the ever-increasing concentration of world economic power in the hands of multinational corporations, that all those factors combined make the job of government and the management of the economy very difficult. We stated we did not expect miracles from the provincial budget, but that we did expect this government to come to terms with the human consequences of our economic problems. We established five principles by which we would judge this government's budget.

The principles were as follows: (1) the need to protect the security of Ontario's families from the impact of high interest rates and inflation; (2) the need to defend the poor, the handicapped, the elderly and others at the lowest income levels from a continually eroding standard of living; (3) the need to create immediate jobs through short-term stimulation; (4) the need to create permanent, long-term employment with a serious industrial strategy, not the Board of Industrial Leadership and Development; (5) the need to eliminate the unfairness in the tax system.

We suggested each of these principles must be addressed by specific programs in the budget. I would now like to test the specifics of this Tory budget with the five principles we set out.

To repeat, the first principle was the need to protect the security of Ontario's families from the impact of high interest rates and inflation. Ontario's families are being asked to bear too great a share of the Liberal and Conservative governments' fiscal assault. The Liberals' punitive, high interest rate policy is causing widespread hardship, a hardship that is being borne disproportionately by those unfortunate enough to have their mortgages come up for renewal.

The Treasurer, in one of his backgrounders to the budget, made it clear what the aggregate cost of high real interest rates is in terms of real wage drops, but he ignored what the specific tangible costs of these interest rates are to Ontario home owners and tenants. This budget should have addressed that concern, first, by introducing what we have called for, a mortgage moratorium; and second, by introducing an interest rate assistance program.

A family earning $25,000 a year, renegotiating a $40,000 mortgage that was taken out five years ago, is now facing mortgage payments whose effect is to reduce its income by $2,700 a year. We know this kind of bite out of a $25,000 income is devastating. We know it has meant and will continue to mean the difference between owning a home and losing it.

Even in those situations where people can maintain their homes, it means a greatly reduced disposable income. The Tory version of "My home is my castle," has become for many families, "My home is my millstone." In order to save their homes they must forgo so much in the rest of their lives.

If each of the families which is negotiating or renegotiating a new mortgage this year pays out an average of an additional $2,000 a year in principal and interest charges, that represents a loss to the economy of Ontario of $500 million. That represents a great deal of consumer demand that could have been put into purchases of such things as appliances, furniture and automobiles. It could have created jobs.

The Treasurer and his government have always talked a good line on interest rates. At a pre-election rally in Waterloo on September 11, 1975, the Premier made a promise of a mortgage interest subsidy plan. The Premier was offering help to those families whose mortgage rates exceeded 10 1/4 per cent. The Premier at the time defended the program as a necessary response to Ottawa's high interest rate policy.

Listen to the Premier's words: "This government is not prepared to stand idly by, to give up the housing objectives, and to give up jobs and homes to a federal policy..." It is amazing what hypocrisy exists. It is amazing what difference a Conservative majority makes to the people of Ontario.

This government has constantly claimed that in the face of the federal government's refusal to provide interest rate relief this government would act on its own.

For the last two years it has repeated the same song, "We are waiting for the feds." What happens when the feds do not act and it comes down to the wire? Weeks ago the Premier stood in this House and rejected the federal government's interest rate relief program as inadequate. He made it clear that he would not endorse such an inadequate program.

By budget night the government had a change of heart. The Treasurer claimed: "The federal government has introduced a program to help people who have extreme difficulty renewing their mortgages. Since this program was introduced early last month, hundreds of Ontario families have received assistance." It goes on to say: "Little would be gained by a provincial initiative that would only duplicate a program that seems to be working." What a shift in policy. What a shift in thought in the matter of just a few weeks.

The Liberals to my right would probably like to hear and enjoy the praise that was given to the federal mortgage assistance program by this government in the budget. However, it is so typical of these Tories to blame the federal government when it suits them but then to praise it when it gets them off the hook. That is exactly what this is all about.

Two weeks before the budget the Treasurer gave a speech in which he stated: "I want people to believe that Ontario is the province of opportunity. If my budget has any objective it is to restore a sense of hope and optimism in our economic future." He went on to state: "Unlike Mr. MacEachen, I am not one of those who say because his means are limited, nothing can be done. I simply say, here are the tools I have. I am going to work with them within their limitations."

Where is the hope the Treasurer talked about? Where is the optimism in his budget, and where are the tools that he could have used to help the people of this province? For home owners who may lose their homes there is no hope, there is no optimism; it is clear the tools of government have rusted from lack of use.

In our budget proposals, the New Democrats argued that it was necessary to give a clear message to those who are threatened daily with the loss of their livelihood. We argued that the government should make clear its intentions to introduce legislation aimed at providing workers with greater income protection and job security. In particular, we have proposed the following:

One, expanding severance pay provisions to cover all workers in this province who lose their jobs. Two, strengthening advance notice provisions in the event of layoffs. Three, improving pension vesting and portability rights for laid-off workers. Four, improving standard reporting practices for layoffs. Five, establishing manpower adjustment committees to retrain and find jobs for laid-off workers. Six, guaranteeing workers' rights to be transferred to other plants operated by the same employer in the province of Ontario. Seven, providing collective agreement protection in the event of plant relocation.

Finally, and I think the most important in this package, a public justification procedure for proposed plant closures and major layoffs.

The Treasurer must be aware that thousands upon thousands of workers have lost their jobs as a result of plant shutdowns and cutbacks. He must be aware of many workers who have lost their pensions as a result of existing vesting and portability provisions. He must be aware of the thousands of workers who do not qualify for severance pay under the existing inadequate legislation.

But did the Treasurer say to those workers there is hope, there is optimism and the government will use the tools at its disposal to assist them? The answer is obvious. He did not. He did not use the Employment Standards Act. He did not announce, nor did his Minister of Labour (Mr. Ramsay), that these particular measures would be enacted in Ontario.

In perhaps one of the most misdirected attacks ever on the public sector, the Treasurer stated, "It can be argued that those insulated from job insecurity should not be fully protected against inflation." It is hard to believe that the Treasurer and his government could actually present such a choice to the working people of this province: the choice between job insecurity on the one hand and the reduction of real wages on the other. That kind of philosophy and that position are unacceptable to this party.

4:10 p.m.

The budget claims that the government of Ontario continues to regard the control of inflation as a major priority. New Democrats made specific recommendations on this point. We urged the government to translate its legal authority to regulate prices within the province into a concrete legislative responsibility by establishing a fair prices commission. We argued that the commission should have the authority to investigate and to roll back unjustified price increases and to act as an advocate on behalf of Ontario consumers before rate-setting regulatory bodies at both the provincial and federal levels.

The need for a program to cushion families against the impact of rapidly rising prices, particularly for food, shelter and energy, is a glaring failure of this government. The failure of this government is simply reprehensible. Inflation is a complex problem -- there is no argument about that at all. However, it can be controlled, and there are steps this government can take. The government's perception of inflation and putting the blame on the working people of this province suggest to us in this caucus that this government has the vision of a Cyclops.

From the government's perspective, inflation fighting means controlling wages. There is nothing contradictory, in the Treasurer's eyes, in telling the people to demand less in their wages but to pay more for everything they consume.

Even the Treasurer -- or if not the Treasurer then surely his officials -- must recognize that to increase taxes on the average family by over $300 a year is anything but anti-inflationary.

New Democrats made a plea to the Treasurer. We argued that in tough economic times as well as in good economic times the mark of an effective government is compassion and sensitivity. We urged the government to recognize its obligation to protect Ontario families from the ravages of high interest rates, inflation and recession. There is a considerable cost to such programs, but in my view and in my party's view government must take action. They have the social and public responsibility to do so.

I want to move on to principle two. The principle we outlined was the following: the need to defend the poor, the handicapped, the elderly and others at the lowest income levels from continually eroding standards of living. We are now in a position to judge this government on how it has met the intent of that principle. First, let me reiterate what we expected from this budget, which should have taken the protection of individuals and families as its highest priority. We were very specific in our concerns and in our proposals. This is what we said before the budget:

"Ontario's poor and disabled have been ignored and forgotten by the Conservative government. Periodic increases in benefits have failed to keep up with rapidly rising increases in the cost of living. As a result, over 500,000 individuals are living well below the minimal poverty line."

The 500,000 individuals in this province who are single seniors or who rely on general welfare assistance and family benefits live on incomes well below the most minimal standard of what is required to live a decent life. The government's failure to maintain benefits has resulted in an intolerable situation where it would now require between $500 million and $600 million to raise their incomes to the most modest poverty line of $128 a week for a single person and $236 a week for a family of three.

The shameful fact remains that injured workers in Ontario are still expected to fight inflation with declining incomes. The compensation pension granted in 1971 has lost 40 per cent of its purchasing power since then. The Conservative budget should have begun to address this injustice by providing substantial catch-up for the injured and disabled workers of this province.

The Conservative budget should have contained other specific programs for Ontario's poor and should have addressed the increasing poverty gap. The budget also should have contained provisions to address the problems of the working poor.

I would like to comment now on the minimum wage of this province. For a large number of workers the minimum wage is the only income protection they have. In Ontario, those at the minimum wage have found themselves falling behind both inflation and the average industrial wage. For example, since May 1975 the consumer price index has increased 88.3 per cent and the average industrial wage 81 per cent, but the minimum wage has increased by only 45.8 per cent. In May 1975 the minimum wage was 47.1 per cent of the average industrial wage; today it is 38.3 per cent.

The Ontario minimum wage of $3.50 an hour is increasingly out of line with that of many other provinces. For example, British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and Nova Scotia all have minimum wages that are higher than that of this province. A minimum wage of $3.50 an hour means a weekly income of $140, an amount that cannot provide a decent standard of living in Ontario today. The government should provide for a substantial improvement in the minimum wage, while at the same time providing an offsetting tax adjustment to small businesses unable to immediately adjust their businesses to meet the new wage structure.

For women, the importance of establishing in law the principle of equal pay for work of equal value cannot be stressed enough. The marginal status of so many women in the work place is a heavy enough penalty in these recessionary times without at the same time shortchanging them on their weekly paycheques. By being paid wages that are, after all, only fair, many women in the work place who are supporting families or adding a vital second income would enjoy a better standard of living.

Further, it is time the government moved to make universal high-quality child care a reality in Ontario. Too many women are denied the chance to work or are denied career opportunities because affordable child care simply does not exist. Too many children who could benefit from early childhood education are denied it because of cost and a shortage of spaces. There are about 400,000 children under the age of six in Ontario with working mothers, yet there are only 67,000 licensed child care spaces in the province, and only 20,000 of these receive partial or full subsidies. In 1980, a study by the Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto concluded that in Metro Toronto alone 114,000 new spaces were needed.

The need for child care is obvious; the failure of this government to provide it is glaring. As an immediate child care initiative this government should implement the following program. First, it should establish a $5-a-day child care space subsidy to all nonprofit day care centres; second, it should establish 10,000 new subsidized child care spaces in Ontario; and third, it should establish a task force to better plan for child care needs in this province.

How well has the Treasurer met the standards we expected? Under income for those on social assistance, instead of increases there are explicit threats, in this budget, that they will not get increases even close to the rate of inflation; under child care, not a single word was devoted to this subject in the budget; under equal pay for work of equal value, there is not a word in this budget; and under minimum wage, again, there are no pronouncements from this government to date.

4:20 p.m.

The Treasurer did, however, provide the poor in this province with his own perverse brand of fiscal madness. He gave them higher Ontario health insurance plan premiums. He increased them by 17.4 per cent to $648 a year for a family.

Instead of increased child care, the Treasurer chose to tax babies' skin care preparations. Instead of raising senior citizens' guaranteed annual income supplement support, the Treasurer chose to tax denture cleansers and denture adhesives. Instead of raising the minimum wage, the Treasurer chose to tax a cup of coffee and a hamburger.

Instead of providing support for the working poor, the province chose to raise OHIP premiums by 17.4 per cent, to tax clothing patterns and textiles and to increase costs for municipalities and school boards, forcing them to raise property taxes. Instead of encouraging employment, the Treasurer chose to tax the labour on repairs to cars.

This budget is so consistently wrong-headed that, if I were kind, I would have to say the Treasurer is only inept, but in fact this budget is the product of a Treasurer who is trapped by his own ideology.

Before I am accused of being partisan --

Mr. T. P. Reid: You people know all about that.

Mr. Cooke: The member has no principles. He has no ideology. He is all over the map every other day.

Mr. T. P. Reid: You cannot have it both ways, David.

Mr. Cooke: He should talk to his brother about that.

Before I am accused of being partisan, let me refer to two outside authorities whose credentials in these matters are impeccable. To quote the perennial friend of the working class of this province, the Toronto Sun and its columnist David Oved, he stated, "One sick aspect of the Davis government's new budget is that it taxes the working class most heavily, while laying the lightest burden on the prosperous." That is the winners' budget philosophy.

This ideological view of the budget is shared by the Globe and Mail as well, in the person of Orland French, who commented: "If you're a tangible success, whether in your personal life or business endeavours, the Conservative government will reward you with money. If not, just ante up when the taxman sticks out his hand and soldier on ... Life's losers or even those treading water without making progress, need not apply for assistance."

This Treasurer is so transparent in his attack on victims of the recession and the economic crisis that even the most conservative of observers are forced to recognize the inequities and the mean-spirited nature of this budget. It is a sad day when the budget can be so obviously attacked, even by people like David Oved from the Toronto Sun.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I do not know that David has ever been known as totally objective.

Mr. Cooke: He certainly could not be accused of being left-leaning.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I never accused him of being right-leaning.

Mr. Cooke: I would like to move on to principle three, which was the need to create immediate jobs through short-term stimulation. The Treasurer's main short-term stimulation measure is his renter buy-back program -- or renter-buy program.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That's better.

Mr. Cooke: The buy-back program is another one of his programs which is an utter failure.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Keep them straight. I don't want to get confused.

Mr. Cooke: The only people who will be stimulated are the Premier's developer friends. This aspect of the Treasurer's budget demonstrates that this indeed was a pork-barrel budget. The Treasurer has maintained a well-established Tory tradition of rewarding their friends at the expense of low- and modest-income earners. The Treasurer's refusal to assist those families which may lose their homes at mortgage renewal time in favour of providing incentives to those who can already afford a home is a clear example of helping their friends at the expense of others in this province.

In this province, there are 32,500 families which may lose their homes because of mortgage renewals. Those who get laid off from Massey, from General Motors, Chrysler or from other companies will also lose their homes. Yet in the face of recession and high interest rates, absolutely nothing was done to assist these people other than to increase their taxes.

The $5,000 interest-free loan to would-be home owners comes after the fact. A tenant must have a firm contract to purchase and must already have a successfully negotiated mortgage before he is eligible for this new government program. If one is a tenant and can afford a home, the government will lend that person $5,000. However, if that person is one of the 92 per cent of tenants in Ontario who cannot afford a home, he does not qualify and he need not apply for this program.

Who does this program help? In Toronto, in order to afford an average-priced home, even after the $5,000 interest-free loan, one would need an income of $53,000 a year. Does the Treasurer have any idea -- and does he even care -- how many families in Toronto make that kind of money? The Treasurer may well point out that house prices are much lower elsewhere in the province. That is true. So what does the Treasurer do? He provides a $5,000 loan to those in Brantford, Windsor or wherever, who can afford a top-of-the-line home which costs $90,000. In my home town, a $90,000 home is something a doctor buys, and we know how this government feels about doctors.

Hon. Mr. Davis: I know the member's town a little bit and he is not quite right.

Mr. Cooke: A $90,000 home is not a bad home in the city of Windsor these days. The Premier has not been there for a while. Since the last time he was there, the real estate market has collapsed even more. Does the Premier remember when he opened up that industrial park, the one that is still empty? That was three years ago, I believe.

Thanks to the Election Finances Reform Act, we know in this province who the friends of the Tories are. Thirty-one major Ontario developers donated $116,000 to the last Progressive Conservative election campaign. The Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) alone received donations from Markborough Properties, York-Hannover, Nu-West, Carma, Campeau, Costain and McLaughlin.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Costain?

Mr. Cooke: I am not a friend of the developers, so I am not sure how to pronounce all these names.

They received $116,000 from these people and now they are returning the favour. The Treasurer knows who his friends are all right, but he tries to pretend his program is other than just helping his friends.

For instance, in his budget the minister claims, "This program will provide $75 million for the purchase of 15,000 new homes which represent 38,000 man-years of employment." The implication is that the Treasurer is creating 38,000 new jobs in Ontario. The fact is that his own officials in the lockup would not stick by the 38,000 and said the figure could not be defended.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He said 38,000 man-years, not dollars.

Mr. Cooke: Pardon me?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Never mind. You made a modest error, but go ahead.

Mr. Cooke: Didn't I say $75 million?

The implication is that the Treasurer is creating 38,000 jobs, and the fact is that 38,000 jobs will not be created by this program.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Tell us, Michael, that you are not retiring.

Mr. Breaugh: I am not retiring.

Mr. Cooke: Tell us, Bill Davis, when you are retiring.

Hon. Mr. Davis: In 1995.

Mr. Cooke: Our proposals dealt with the housing and interest rate problem, the critical shortage of rental units in this province and the financial burden of tenants. A comparison of our proposals with those of the Tories is instructive. It demonstrates so clearly the fundamental differences between their party and our party.

4:30 p.m.

We recognize the need to create more reasonably priced rental units throughout Ontario, specifically in Metropolitan Toronto and surrounding areas, as housing that could be afforded by those on low and modest incomes. We decided against providing developers with incentives to construct rental units, and we decided against providing financial bonuses to those who did not need them.

Instead, we decided to address the scarcity question directly by providing the co-operative and nonprofit sector with the financial means of constructing 15,000 new units. These will not be units that are already sitting on the market as unsold inventory, as are many of the 15,000 this government has announced, but units that would actually create 30,000 jobs.

In addition to our housing construction proposals, we also put forward a program designed to achieve quick results in the area of residential energy conservation. We proposed a four-point program consisting of a free energy audit, loans financed by Ontario Hydro, approval and guarantee of contractors and a complete reinspection. This conservation program would have created between 15,000 and 20,000 jobs in the province in the first year of the program.

It is instructive to compare this program of ours with what the Treasurer has done for energy conservation in Ontario. He has made it more expensive for municipalities to own and repair their public transit vehicles. He has removed the sales tax exemption on thermal insulation materials, storm windows and storm doors; heat pumps, heat recovery units and chillers; solar cells and solar furnaces; windmills and wind-powered generators; time-controlled thermostats; wood-burning stoves and furnaces; and wind deflectors for trucks. He has terminated the rebate for self-built solar heating systems.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Better is best, or whatever the new slogan is.

Hon. Mr. Davis: No, best is better.

Mr. Cooke: I hope the best still is not to come. In the budget of 1980, the Treasurer removed the sales tax on certain energy conservation products. In his speech, the Treasurer heralded his own foresight by claiming: "A central thrust of Ontario's energy policy is to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels by developing new conservation measures... Tonight I propose a number of new tax incentives to promote energy conservation."

Two years later, and after an election in which the government received a majority, the government has obviously changed its policy and decided that energy conservation is no longer a priority.

The other measures, which the Treasurer so proudly calls "employment creation," are equally bankrupt of any substance. The co-operative projects employment fund is a fancy name for a share of the unemployment fund. Instead of being proud, the Treasurer should be ashamed to be calling it a job creation program, since all it does is share the misery of unemployment. What a devastating spectacle it is to see the Treasurer extol a program that shares unemployment rather than one that creates jobs in Ontario.

Hon. Mr. Davis: He didn't really extol it.

Mr. Cooke: It sounded that way to me and to the people of this province.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You're an academic.

Mr. Cooke: No, I am not an academic. Social workers have never been called academics -- just lawyers.

As well, the Treasurer has announced the acceleration of capital projects. That seems fine. If we are, in fact, accelerating capital projects --

Mr. Martel: What about lawyers? What have they been called?

Mr. Laughren: Are there any lawyers not disbarred?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Mr. Speaker, I wish members would not heckle their own speaker.

Mr. Cooke: How much longer is the Premier sticking around?

Hon. Mr. Davis: I said until quarter to five.

Mr. Cooke: That was an hour ago. I want the Premier to stick around to hear our no-confidence motion.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Well, you've got six minutes.

Mr. Cooke: I will not be done in six minutes. Stick around for about 16.

The Acting Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cooke: On one hand this government encourages municipalities and school boards to get into capital projects, but on the other hand it is going to be taxing the materials they will need to proceed with those projects.

The program for youth employment is embarrassingly inadequate. Given the tremendous need, with more than 16 per cent of our young people unemployed, the Treasurer has resorted to announcing programs, some of which were announced a number of months ago and for most of which the application deadlines have already passed.

I quote the co-ordinator of the youth secretariat's employment program: "Students are out of luck if they hope to get a summer job with the government and have not already applied. The Ontario youth employment program may have a few openings left, but for others the applications are now closed."

Last Thursday, the Treasurer pretended these programs were part of a new short-term job creation package, yet this obviously is not the case. Even when dealing with the measures announced in the agricultural areas, the Treasurer is reduced to counting last year's expenditures as if they were part of new initiatives. In fact, only $11 million is being provided in new funds this year to one of the hardest-hit sectors in our entire economy.

The entire package of short-term programs announced by the Treasurer is a sham, is devoid of content and devoid of imagination. It is long on rhetoric but short on substance and action. The unemployed in this province deserve better than a rehash of old programs.

Principle 4 is a need to create long-term employment with a serious industrial strategy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: That's right. Nationalize.

Mr. Cooke: You don't have an industrial strategy.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Yours is to nationalize the auto industry.

Mr. Cooke: That is absolutely silly. Stuart Smith called for nationalization of the auto industry, not us.

Hon. Mr. Davis: So did you.

Mr. Cooke: No, we haven't.

Hon. Mr. Davis: You call it another name.

Mr. Cooke: We will send you our program.

Mr. Breaugh: The difference between you and us, Bill, is that we would like our country to nationalize it, not France.

Mr. Cooke: That is right.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Listen, I am going to tell that to the fellows at American Motors.

Mr. Cooke: How do you feel being the member who represents the workers who work for the only state auto company?

Mr. Breaugh: You should have been embarrassed to ride off that assembly line with that Socialist, just because he kept your plant going.

Hon. Mr. Davis: The guys on the line know more than you do.

The Acting Speaker: The Premier will allow the member for Windsor-Riverside to continue.

An hon. member: Oh, he named the Premier. Throw the bum out!

Mr. Martel: The Tories' type of socialism is to buy a noncontrolling share of Suncor.

The Acting Speaker: Order. The member for Windsor-Riverside has the floor.

Mr. Cooke: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. If my House leader would shut up.

An hon. member: Let the record show.

Mr. Cooke: I heard that. Hansard had better not record that.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: Hansard will record it.

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, we'll make sure it does.

Mr. Cooke: Ontario's unemployment line now extends 325 miles. The cost to our economy of unemployment is now $17 billion on a yearly basis in terms of lost production, lost purchasing power, lost tax revenue and the cost of unemployment and welfare benefits. That is a staggering amount of money to be lost from the economy of this province.

The Treasurer talks about new opportunities, of economic recovery in Ontario as if it could be accomplished by some statistical sleight of hand. By some quasi-magical projection he says that the Ontario economy should strengthen during the balance of the year, that real growth for the gross provincial product in the second half of 1982 will be four per cent on an annual basis.

The Tory government has been waiting for this recession to end ever since the first one began in the early 1970s. My party has made the case before. We have argued strongly --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Obviously with great success.

Mr. Cooke: It is coming, it is coming.

Mr. Martel: We didn't have $9 million, like your slush fund.

Mr. Cooke: We can say we are on the move with confidence. We have seen the polls. We know where they are going, and we know what is going to happen to the Tories after this budget.

4:40 p.m.

My party has made the case before. We have argued strongly and consistently for an economic strategy based on permanent job creation, regional development, public sector investment and industrial restructuring. We have argued that the government must use whatever tools are at its disposal to deal with the problems, and on many occasions we have detailed specific proposals for particular resource and industrial sectors.

Years of government neglect have led us to the point where the economy of Ontario is under siege. Branch plants are withdrawing, domestic industries are unable to withstand the onslaught of foreign competition, private sector reinvestment is falling short of what is needed for retooling, and product innovation and changing patterns of international investment are leaving Ontario's industrial base vulnerable to future economic shocks.

Ontario's economic troubles will not be resolved when the recession in the United States ends. Canada's relationship to the United States is such that, in economic terms, when the United States wins, we lose, and when they lose, Ontario really loses. The seriousness of the economic crisis necessitates the dramatic reevaluation of existing economic policies and programs. Old solutions, such as encouraging more foreign investment, offer little hope to Ontario. New programs and policies, such as megaprojects and global product mandating, are equally limited in their ability to turn this economy around.

The Board of Industrial Leadership and Development program is this government's substitute for such a strategy. The major weakness of BILD is that it is long on political rhetoric but really short on substance. The budget provided a clear indication of BILD's inadequacy.

The goals of BILD are well known, as they should be, considering that this budget had reannounced BILD for the fifth or sixth time. BILD is supposed to launch Ontario "upon a massive industrial expansion program aimed at creating jobs, reducing inflation, increasing trade and improving productivity." BILD is supposed to "revitalize communities, build on our natural resources, restructure our manufacturing sector, develop our energy potential, build on our cultural foundations, upgrade tourism and propel Ontario into the 21st century of research, development and high technology."

That is what BILD is supposed to do. The budget has added yet another goal to BILD: "the co-ordination and administration of the government's employment stimulation program."

This government must be glad there is no law that calls for government in Ontario to advertise truthfully, because if there were such a law, surely the government that advertises BILD, this government, would be in court for false advertising. BILD is supposed to accomplish all this with a budget allocation of only $170 million. Compare that to the budget decision to spend $250 million by eliminating the corporate income tax for profitable small businesses.

Ontario's economic health will not be restored until we break out of the rigid cycle of resource exploration and industrial dependence. Giving free rein to the corporate sector to determine the direction and pace of economic development in Ontario will only reinforce the under-development of Ontario's manufacturing capacity. Ontario's problems will not be resolved until we come to grips with two facts of economic life: (1) that foreign ownership has truncated the growth of our industry; and (2) that foreign ownership has left the Ontario and Canadian markets for manufactured goods wide open to imports.

Our budget proposals outlined a $450-million investment program that would begin to address these problems, with outline proposals for the automotive sector, the machinery sector, food processing, energy development and resource development. We do not claim that such programs will transform Ontario's economy overnight. We realize only too well that 39 years of Conservative government have left us with a major task of industrial restructuring. But we do know where to begin, and we know what our principles and priorities are. We do recognize the need for government leadership and initiative. Above all, we do --

Hon. Mr. Davis: Off to Vegas.

Mr. Cooke: The Premier is off to Vegas? Is he going with the Treasurer to Japan?

Hon. Mr. Davis: Oh, no. I'm taking your money to Vegas.

Mr. Cooke: Oh, I'm sorry. Play Monopoly with it. That's great.

We do recognize the need for government leadership and initiative. Above all, we know what the vague and ever-shifting goal of the Conservatives is that of restoring a climate of confidence. We know what that means. It means suffering for the ordinary people of this province.

I might just point out, as the Premier is leaving, that maybe he can at least try to get the parliamentary assistant in here, a cabinet minister or somebody. There will be a continuing budget debate after I am finished, and perhaps the government could show a little respect for the Legislature.

The fifth principle we outlined in our budget proposals was the need to eliminate unfairness in the tax system. In 1960, for every dollar collected in personal taxes, $1.79 was raised in corporate taxes. With this budget, for every dollar raised by personal taxes, only 14 cents will be raised by corporate taxes.

This huge shift in the burden of taxes, which penalizes families at the expense of corporations, has become especially pronounced in the last few years. For example, as a result of the last three budgets, revenue from personal income tax has gone up 56 per cent, revenue from OHIP premiums has gone up 32 per cent, and revenue from retail sales tax has gone up 43.5 per cent. At the same time, revenue from corporate income tax has declined 29 per cent and revenue from mining profits has declined 75 per cent.

This budget also shifts the burden in another way. Not only does the unprecedented elimination of exemptions under the Retail Sales Tax Act attempt to shift taxes on to the consumers directly but also the impact on municipalities and school boards will surely mean either higher property taxes or a cut in services. Why are we in a position today where the only response a Conservative government has to the recession is to increase taxes on people and shift them to municipalities, school boards and universities, colleges and hospitals? I suggest, by taking a broader perspective, we can begin to understand the response of this Treasurer.

I have already pointed out that much of the weakness in Ontario's economy is its structural imbalance and the dominance of branch plants in our manufacturing sector. As the recession deepens and as foreign firms begin to withdraw by shutting down plants in Ontario, the Conservative response has been twofold, as it has been when the economy deteriorated in the past. The decline in revenues resulting from lack of economy activity spins them into looking for new sources of revenue; thus we have increased personal income tax, OHIP premiums and retail sales tax. At the same time, the decline in economic activity and the rise in unemployment give them political concern. The only way they can respond is by attempting to bribe the private sector to invest by giving them grants and tax incentives. These giveaways, which are an extremely poor way of stimulating the economy, also mean a serious loss of revenue for the government.

This same scenario has been played out by the Liberals at the federal level. The fiscal crisis of the federal government is a result of the weakness of the national economy. The Liberal policy of corporate handouts has prompted them to shift the burden of taxation on to families and the provinces. To his dismay, Mr. MacEachen has found that shifting the burden is not politically painless. I believe the Treasurer of this province will also find that his shift of taxation to moderate- and low-income families, to municipalities, to school boards, to colleges and to universities will not be politically painless either.

4:50 p.m.

I would like to take a closer look at what this budget has done by its primitive and regressive tax measures. Before I do, I want to take a few minutes to deal with our proposals for tax reform which we outlined on May 6.

We advocated several measures of tax reform and review. We advocated those measures because of the unfair and regressive nature of Ontario's tax system. I have already pointed to the disparity between personal and corporate taxes in this province.

The tax impact of this budget on families is severe. We estimate that the average family will pay at least $305 more in taxes this year than it did last year. That does not include the effect of property taxes which will result because of the assault of the budget on local governments.

Even before this budget, Ontario families at incomes up to $20,000 were the highest-taxed in all of Canada, while at the $25,000 and $30,000 income level we were only exceeded in taxation by Quebec.

We proposed a five-year program of phasing out OHIP premiums, with a reduction of 20 per cent the first year. The Tory response was instead to raise OHIP premiums, a regressive tax, by 17.4 per cent.

We called for a tax credit system to replace the present premium assistance plan, but this budget does nothing to change the inadequate program that exists. We called for an enriched property tax credit, but the budget gave us additional expenses for the local government sector which will force property taxes even higher.

We called for a full-scale review of all tax expenditures, but this budget instead gave us an across-the-board increase in tax giveaways. The scatter-gun approach is best exemplified by the $250-million tax holiday for small businesses that are incorporated and profit-making. Instead of taking that money and targeting it on the areas where it is needed, this Treasurer has instead chosen to grandstand and give taxes back to business where it does not need the break.

The Treasurer has indicated that 10,000 jobs will be created by this $250-million tax expenditure. The fact of the matter is that, since there will be about 4,000 small businesses that will go bankrupt in this province because they will not receive assistance from this government, we will lose 18,000 jobs, for a net loss of 8,000 jobs, even if the optimistic figure of 10,000 jobs created comes true.

Our budget proposals indicated a number of areas where tax giveaways should be re-examined. We pointed out that untaxed capital gains resulted in lost revenues of $205 million. The dividend tax credit is $186 million. There are lost estate taxes of up to $75 million. These are all items that benefit the richest groups in our society and add to the burden of taxation for the rest of us. They should be assessed to determine whether they have contributed in any positive way to the economic development of this province.

Instead of tax reform, this budget gives us increases in the most regressive ways imaginable through increased health premiums and increased sales tax payments. Instead of beginning the process of reform, this budget leaves us deeper in the inequities of the past.

Mr. Jones: I don't believe this.

Mr. McClellan: The member for Mississauga North (Mr. Jones) is not allowed to speak.

Mr. Cooke: The member has not been here for most of the afternoon.

Mr. McClellan: Read the instructions. You are not allowed to talk.

Mr. Jones: You think people are going to believe that --

Mr. Cooke: I will tell the member what is happening out there right now. People do believe it, because day in and day out the ordinary family will be seeing the $305 they are going to have to pay through the government's sales taxes. They will be reminded time and time again right up until 1985.

Instead of distributing the tax burden more fairly, this budget punishes middle- and low-income people. Instead of being progressive, this budget regresses to the point where Ronald Reagan would indeed be proud. Instead of being bold, imaginative and compassionate, the tax measures of this --

Interjections.

Mr. Martel: So you can invite Ronald Reagan back.

Mr. Cooke: Ronald Reagan is not right-wing enough for the member for Mississauga North.

Instead of being bold, imaginative and compassionate, the tax measures in this budget are mean, petty and narrow-minded. In putting forward our budget proposals, we suggested that in this time of deep recession, government must create short-term jobs through short-term stimulation and must come to grips with the long-term structural economic problems. In response, this government has diminished considerably the spending power of literally thousands upon thousands of middle- and low-income families, created only 31,000 jobs and demonstrated that it is paralysed as a government.

Perhaps the unfairness of this budget is best illustrated by the fact that a family with considerable financial means can now go to La Scala or Winston's, order a fillet and pay less tax than they did before this budget came down; however, a family of ordinary means must now pay seven per cent more on a hamburger and French fries or a pizza, and even on a pizza they will have to pay for the transportation to have it delivered to the house. And that is what the member for Mississauga North calls a fair tax.

The Treasurer says he knows who his friends are, and this budget clearly shows all the people of this province who the friends of the Treasurer are. My party's budget proposals addressed the short- and long-term problems in Ontario's economy. They did not promise instant solutions, but they did recognize that government initiative was required. This government's budget, however, proves that the Conservatives are tired, helpless and hopeless; they lack the ability to break new ground, and they refuse to break out of their ideological straitjacket. This budget simply does not measure up, and we in this caucus cannot support it.

The Acting Speaker: Mr. Cooke moves, seconded by Mr. Martel, that the amendment to the motion be amended by adding thereto:

"This House rejects the massive shift in the burden of taxation to those least able to afford it. Specifically, this House rejects the elimination of exemptions from sales tax for many essential items and the massive increase in OHIP premiums; further, this House regrets the absence in the Conservative budget of

"(i) Adequate programs to assist the 32,500 home owners facing the loss of their homes because of Liberal high interest rates;

"(ii) Adequate programs to assist tenants whose rents are increasing substantially because of increased finance charges to landlords as a result of Liberal high interest rates;

"(iii) Adequate programs to assist the thousands of small businesses in this province that are suffering because of Liberal high interest rates;

"(iv) Adequate programs to help farmers in this province who are also suffering because of Liberal high interest rates.

"Further, this House rejects the Liberal and Conservative philosophy of only helping the so-called winners in our society, thereby ignoring the more than 500,000 people in this province living in poverty, namely, those on family benefits, disability pensions, workmen's compensation benefits and single pensioners receiving Gains; and this House regrets the absence of any program to create adequate numbers of short-term jobs or adequate programs to correct the structural problems within the economy to enable the creation of long-term jobs.

"Further, this House regrets the fact that the government refuses to introduce legislation to improve the economic status of women, namely,

"(i) Equal pay for work of equal value legislation

"(ii) Affirmative action legislation.

"And this House regrets that this government has not taken steps to provide for universal access to quality child care.

"Finally, this House rejects the additional cost imposed on hospitals, colleges, universities, municipalities and school boards which will, in effect, eliminate the additional provincial grants announced earlier this year, and will also result in a decrease in services and increased property taxes.

"For these reasons, the government no longer enjoys the confidence of this House."

5 p.m.

Mr. R. F. Johnston: I have two points of order, Mr. Speaker: The first would be to ask you to read it again, because you did it so well.

The second would be to move the previous question.

Hon. Mr. Ashe: The only good parts were the high interest rate bits.

Mr. Acting Speaker (Mr. Cousens): I recognize the honourable member for Oxford.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, I take it you did not deign to rule upon those two points of order and therefore, I may proceed. Is that correct?

Mr. Elston: No, we want a ruling.

Mr. Treleaven: I would like to speak on the second of the two budgets we have heard about.

Ms. Copps: Did he answer the question?

Mr. Treleaven: Yes, I believe he did.

There are two budgets. There is the one we have heard the Liberals and NDP address their remarks to and the one I have listened to and studied and believe is an excellent budget. I wish to address my remarks to that second budget.

Since the budget last Thursday night I have heard basically three comments in the riding of Oxford. Two of them are good and one is what one could call a complaint. The good comments are that the small business provisions are very strong, very good and very positive and that the renter-buy program is certainly a move in the right direction. It is receiving wholesale approval from the building industry in Oxford.

One could call the third type of comment I hear annoyance. It comes from people who have never before had to collect retail sales tax; or perhaps have not had vendors' permits and are now required to charge up to London to get these permits; or who are confused about which tax was imposed on May 14 and which on June 14. That is certainly an annoyance. None of us like taxes, that is human; but certainly annoyance is a very small price to pay for the good portions of this budget.

I would like to deal, quickly, with only three portions of the budget. The first is that portion dealing with small business and the two-year tax holiday to incorporated small businesses.

I would like to refer the members to the letter dated May 14 from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, and to the article by Ronald Anderson in the Globe and Mail Report on Business of May 18, headed, "Pro-business Budget Refreshingly Different."

Mr. Cunningham: Read the Saturday editorial.

Mr. Treleaven: Certainly. Of what paper? I really do not get past the Woodstock-Ingersoll Daily Sentinel Review, the Norwich Gazette and the London Free Press.

Mr. Cunningham: Read the Globe and Mail's Saturday editorial.

Mr. Treleaven: I am the member for Oxford and can only read so many papers. The minor ones of Toronto must take third and fourth position in my reading order.

Finally, I would like to refer to the Toronto Star article of May 18 --

Ms. Copps: Which one is more minor, the Globe and Mail or the Star?

Mr. Treleaven: Compared with newspapers serving the magnificent riding of Oxford, all Metro Toronto papers would have to be considered secondary.

May I also refer to the article in the Toronto Star of Tuesday, May 18, headed, "Zero Tax Seen as Business Stimulant."

I have heard my friends to the right of the opposition refer to the people as "winners" in this budget. I do not think the people affected by the budget should be referred to as winners but, rather, as creators and createes: the creator being the one from whom the benefit flows and the createe being the one to whom the benefit flows.

My friends across the way are dealing with the budget in total isolation. I would like to regard the budget not as a single instance but as one of a series of events which began perhaps six months ago. The budget is now an event that will carry on over the next six months. As a result, the budget is just one continuing document in the finances of this province.

I could mention the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program. Had that not come out last December, surely there would have been some similar program or one in replacement at this point. Therefore, one should not take the budget in isolation, as a document standing entirely on its own.

At this point the major thrust of the budget and the major need in Ontario is for job creation. At this point the budget has addressed itself to job creation primarily. This can best be achieved by encouraging the creators.

5:10 p.m.

Now, if the $460 million -- and I am not going to break the figure down; there is not sufficient time, but the figures are there. The $460 million has been given to the creators; if that money had been given to the createes, the majority of it simply would have filled the coffers of the banks; very little job creation would have been stimulated. Therefore, since the emphasis must be on job creation, the funds and the encouragement must be given to those creating the jobs, not to those who will be nothing but funnels or conduits for the funds through to the banks, paying off interest and interest arrears, if you will.

Ms. Copps: What about the farmers?

Mr. Treleaven: The farmers have received $117 million in the last six months.

Ms. Copps: Just conduits, eh?

Mr. Treleaven: In some cases they are. At this point they are createes. There are funds being created for them: $117 million for the cow-calf program, the Ontario farm adjustment assistance program, etc. of last fall and winter. There is also $11 million there for the farmers.

At this point they are createes. The farm community would not be terribly unhappy if corn and soybeans went up $1 a bushel and interest rates, which are under the federal government, fell three or three and a half per cent. The farming community would not be unhappy, provided that hogs and beef stayed at their current market price.

The government cannot afford both of these programs. There is $416 million going to the creators to create jobs. There is a total of $288 million going to the createes, either now or it has done in the recent past. The government cannot afford both of these programs. It would certainly cost towards $1 billion; it cannot be dealt with at this time.

I will expand now on the $250 million that is going to small business under the tax holiday. First, I might point out that this government has not followed the federal government in reducing the capital cost allowance to one half. It is leaving $135 million in the hands of small business for job creation by leaving the capital cost allowance or depreciation rates as they are and not cutting them in half, as the federal government did in its November 1981 budget.

The $250 million that is going into small business is not just $250 million; it is a figure larger than that. In the past, one of the major reasons for incorporating a small business was to average out income between the salary and dividends one takes from the corporation. In the past, they attempted to average it out at 25 per cent through the taking of dividends and salaries. With 10 per cent now dispensed with by the provincial government, if I may put it that way, we now have a situation where we are trying to average the federal government's 15 per cent between dividends and salaries.

Therefore, it is not a matter of just the 10 per cent in dividends or income that the corporation makes; we are also going to gain 10 per cent on the salary side. You are going to get 10 per cent coming down, an average of dividends and salaries, which will therefore increase the $250 million to a very much higher figure.

The next thing that can expand the $250 million is the capital cost allowance that corporations normally take. At this point the provincial capital cost allowance parallels the federal, the rates being the same. Provided that the federal government does not take some step to fill the void in reaction to what the province has done to assist small business, no one can dictate to a corporation what capital cost allowance it will take or when it will take it, subject to its limits.

A corporation can determine what depreciation it wishes to take, whether it be zero or up to the top of its level. Therefore, if it has a two-year tax holiday at 15 per cent, after the two-year term, it will be back at 25 per cent -- or 11 per cent and 21 per cent in the case of manufacturing, farming, fishing, etc. It can, quite legitimately, defer and claim no capital cost allowance for two years, thereby increasing the profit in the corporation and paying on a higher profit at 15 per cent or 11 per cent, as the case may be, and leave the capital cost allowance for the end of the tax holiday when it will be up to a 25 per cent rate, but it will have higher writeoffs through the increased capital cost allowance.

This is quite proper. A corporation can choose for itself when it claims the capital cost allowance. Therefore, the $250 million will be greatly increased to X million, I do not know how many million, dollars.

The second subject I would like to refer to is government restraint. In Oxford county, I have had several comments about the size of government. There are certain zaps one gets and that is perhaps a major one. I beg your pardon?

Mr. Grande: You were talking about the creators. Now you are talking about what?

Mr. Treleaven: Now I am talking about government restraint. While the province's population has grown by six per cent during the last seven years, the Ontario government's civil service population has decreased by six per cent.

Mr. Swart: Lots more people out of work, eh? Isn't that great.

Mr. Treleaven: In Oxford county, higher priority is given to restraint in the civil service than to creating jobs for the sake of creating jobs. Perhaps my friend the member for Welland-Thorold (Mr. Swart) and I differ philosophical on that and perhaps Welland and Oxford counties also differ philosophically.

Mr. Swart: We want jobs, you don't.

Mr. Treleaven: Now that is quite foolish, Mr. Speaker. The people in Oxford county want jobs as much as the people in Welland want them and are suffering from the current Liberal policies as much as the people in Welland are.

At the same time, one public service employee now serves 106 taxpayers; this compares with 94 in 1975. Again, this shows government restraint, a paring of the fat the Liberal leader likes to refer to. There has been a 13 per cent increase in efficiency by this government in that period of time.

Ms. Copps: A 400 per cent increase in deficits.

Mr. Treleaven: I find it very difficult to comprehend when a Liberal refers to increases in deficits and increases in the financing costs of carrying our accumulated budget; these costs are over 40 per cent in our federal budget. I find that strange coming from people of the Liberal philosophy. Perhaps that is not the Liberal philosophy; perhaps that is the small "c" conservative philosophy of the majority of the Liberal members of this House.

Since the inception of Ontario's deregulation policy in 1979, 45 government agencies, boards and commissions have been eliminated. That is a net figure. That shows responsibility in trimming the fat by this government. This is a serious matter in Oxford county. I cannot speak for other ridings.

On the question of restraint, I would point out this government's recommendation of six per cent; the request that will come to the members of this House and to senior civil servants, for raises of six per cent and not higher.

Ms. Copps: What about all the parliamentary assistants who are getting paid and can't answer questions in the House? The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Gregory) and 62 freebies over there.

Mr. Treleaven: Of course, not all the members on this side are parliamentary assistants with extra salaries and incomes.

The last item I will refer to is the renter-buy program.

Mr. Swart: I would tell you to quit while you are ahead, but you are not ahead.

Mr. Treleaven: I enjoy the member for Welland-Thorold. He is always interesting in committee and I find him stimulating there and here.

My last point I would like to talk about is the renter-buy program. This has achieved a very positive effect. The night after the budget was announced, the president and vice president of the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada were in Woodstock at a meeting which I attended. They were profuse in their compliments regarding the new renter-buy program. One was from Newfoundland and the other was from Winnipeg.

5:20 p.m.

Ms. Copps: Did you say obtuse or profuse?

Mr. Treleaven: Profuse. The young member for Hamilton Centre seems to have hearing problems with certain words: profuse in their compliments.

Members could refer to the Toronto Star headline, "Interest Free Home Loans Set Off a Deluge of Calls." I understand from the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing (Mr. Bennett) that one builder in Metro Toronto entered into agreements for the sale of 50 homes over this past weekend. That was more than the total number the same corporation had entered into this calendar year prior to the program --

Mr. Boudria: Tell us how many people who are losing their homes are helped by that plan. That is what I want to hear.

Mr. Treleaven: Mr. Speaker, again I stated this is a stimulative budget for the creators. My friend wishes to speak of createes, I am on the subject of creators.

Mr. Philip: How about the creators who created homes and can't sell them?

The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The honourable member has the floor.

Mr. Treleaven: While I have no expertise with regard to stock market matters, I did notice that on Tuesday, May 18, the only indicator which rose on the Toronto Stock Exchange was real estate. All of the other indicators fell heavily. Real estate rose on the Toronto Stock Exchange for no other reason than that this government's budget with the renter-buy program was stimulating the real estate market.

May I also compliment this government, the Treasurer and the Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing for streamlining the processing of the renter-buy loans.

My friend the member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Elston) will certainly be interested in the streamlining of these loans. I know he is very familiar with many of the loan and mortgage processing matters, whereby one sends draft mortgages and requisitions for cheque forms and surveys and surveyors, on and on. The mails get full with that type of thing.

Here there are several good features. I did not realize at the beginning, but mobile homes are covered under this renter-buy program if they are on land that is covered by a lease of at least 15 years. They will take third mortgages, not just second. Of course, the loan is secured by way of mortgage. They will take a third mortgage if the second is a take-back mortgage by the vendor.

There are really five simple streamlined steps, Mr. Speaker. As a solicitor who recently practised, especially in an urban area, you will certainly appreciate the streamlining of any mortgage transaction. There are really five steps.

The first step is that when an offer to purchase is signed, an application which most builders have is completed. If there is a mortgage approval form from the first mortgagee or a consent or approval to assume, those three documents are sent to the ministry. They are examined and then comes the second step; five very easy documents to follow.

This is a situation where the people are createes but the building industry is the creator.

The Deputy Speaker: We have a point of order from the member for Oakwood.

Mr. Grande: Actually, Mr. Speaker, it is just to get a clear understanding of what the member is talking about when he says creators and createes. Is he relating them to masters and servants, by the way?

Mr. Treleaven: No, of course not. I am referring to job creation, job creators and job createes or benefit createes. Those to whom the benefits flow are the createes.

Mr. Wildman: That's all very nice but you're not very creative.

Mr. Treleaven: May I continue with this procedure?

It is simplified when these documents are sent back by the Ontario Mortgage Corp. to the solicitor for the purchaser who is already doing many searches for the purchaser. It is simply a tag-on. There is a mortgage form, an affidavit of bona fides, a retainer, "I will act," and an instruction sheet which also includes a certificate of title. It goes back and that is the end of it until two days' notice for the cheque to be wired. Money is either wired or couriered to the solicitor for the purchaser; two days only.

The member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Sargent) will certainly know that when the government and the bureaucracy say cheques will be there in two days, who else can one believe?

Mr. Elston: Did you say two days for the money to be wired and ten years for the buyer to be wired?

Mr. Treleaven: No, two days' notice and the money will then be wired if it is out of Metro Toronto and couriered if it is within Toronto.

Then the final step takes place. The solicitor has the funds in hand --

Mr. Boudria: Why don't you readminister your senior citizens' tax grants?

Mr. Treleaven: Thank you; I do not need even that.

Then there is one last step whereby the opinion on title is sent back from that solicitor with the duplicate original mortgage and his opinion on title and details of insurance. That is done. No insurance policies or surveys are required. There is no back and forth; it is streamlined. The government is to be complimented on devising the streamlined method for this. It is a great program.

Ms. Copps: Who devised this streamlined speech? I hope it was not the government.

Mr. Riddell: What about the farmers in your riding?

Mr. Treleaven: I referred to the farmers getting the $11 million now and $117 million before. As my friend the member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. Riddell) well knows, it is expected an entering farmer or junior farmer program will be coming this fall. If he would take that period of time, of several months in the past and several months in the future, together with the budget, he would find the farmers are getting the $128 million, past and present, and $X million in the future; plus, remember the tile drainage was raised to $30 million, the highest it has ever been.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for permitting me to address the House on this most excellent budget. I hope the succeeding speaker similarly recognizes the merits of it.

I have one more comment. I was going to lead off my remarks with some negative and disapproving comments about the bells ringing last weekend. However, having done that this morning in committee, and as an indirect result thereof I did get my shirt buttons examined, I thought it better not to repeat that today. I have deferred from that, so I will not upset any of my friends across the way.

Mr. Ruston: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if one would classify it as an honour to be able to get up to speak on the budget presented on May 13 in this House. In my short term here in the Legislature, and in my short life of following politics in the United States and Canada, I have to think this is about the worst budget I have seen in my life.

5:30 p.m.

Hon. Mr. Gregory: Is it worse than MacEachen's?

Mr. Ruston: I think it hit at the very heart of people's ability to pay, a policy which has no rationale at all.

Before I go on, I am going to say one thing. I disagree completely with the problems going on in Ottawa, but I just had an interjection over here about Mr. MacEachen's budget. Two or three fellows came to me after that budget -- and, of course, some people get confused as to whether they are in Ottawa or Toronto; I am sure others get that once in a while -- and one of them said his cheque at the end of January was $29 more than it had been at the end of December, thanks to Mr. MacEachen's budget.

He said: "That is typical of the Liberals in Ottawa. They are so dense they do not think of putting out the word when they are doing something for somebody. Then, of course, everybody finds fault with other parts of it." So they did not get the word across. Anyway, I think there were about 10 million people who got a little more money from MacEachen's budget. Of course, the interest rates kill all of the effect of that, as we all know.

The leader of the Conservative Party in Canada said the other day in Montreal that he had no answer to the present interest rate policy of the Liberal government in Canada and he had no recommendations to make. I think there was a member from Toronto here, a Conservative member of Parliament -- someone mentioned his name, Mr. Michael Wilson -- who was supposed to be one of the stars of the Conservative Party of Canada, and he too says the policy Mr. Reagan is following in the United States is proper.

We do not have any New Democratic parties in power in the vicinity to know what their policy might be. I heard one fellow say he thought interest rates should be six per cent. He was a New Democrat, and I said to him: "You had better tell your mother and father that. If they are living on a pension and living on some of the savings they have accumulated over the years, when inflation is 11.5 per cent they cannot exist on six per cent interest." So there is a conflict there, depending on how one looks at it.

Anyway, I am not dealing with the federal government and I am not dealing with the United States government; I am dealing with the government of Ontario. They have responsibility for over eight million people, and I am dealing with their budget.

If we look over the budget for 1971, when the present Premier (Mr. Davis) took over -- this book only goes back to 1973-74 -- they have a strange way of putting it. Darcy used to call it "net cash requirements." I said this to a fellow the other day, and he said, "What the hell are you talking about?" I said: "You do not know what net cash requirements are? If you went into a store and bought something for $30 and you had $20 in your pocket, you would have a net cash requirement of $10." He said, "I could not buy it." I said: "Maybe you could not, but the government can. That does not make any difference to them because they have this net cash requirement and they do not worry about whether it is met at the end of that year or whatever year." It has not in Mr. Davis's 10 or 11 years in power; he never did know what that word meant.

In the Treasury office he has a fellow working for him now by the name of Mr. Conklin. He was a federal Conservative candidate in 1979 and he was defeated. The day after the federal election I was driving my nephew's tractor. We have earphones to put over our ears, with a little radio so the noise of the tractor does not bother us. I was listening to the radio all day, and all Mr. Conklin could talk about the day after the election was the terrible way the newspapers had treated him as a Conservative candidate -- in the riding of Kent-Essex I believe it was at that time.

Now he is working for the government of Ontario. His father was a Conservative candidate back in Essex South many years ago, a very active businessman. He ran a number of lumber companies in the area and had a branch in the little village of Woodslee, where I was in the hardware business. Mr. Conklin used to come in once in a while and compare the price of his nails, or whatever he was selling, to mine. We would have a little chat. I had occasion at times to do some business with him.

The day I was elected in 1967, one of the first telephone calls I had the following morning was from Mr. Conklin, to congratulate me on my victory. He said: "Dick, I wish you would tell those fellows in Toronto that the way governments are supposed to work is when times are good they should have a surplus. The people will pay. After all, we know there are no trees growing money in Toronto or in Ottawa. We have to make the people understand that. Tell them we would then have some money when times get tough, and the government could come in and pump-prime." The trouble is with the stupidity --

The Deputy Speaker: Is that the father or the son? I am curious.

Mr. Ruston: The father. Mr. Conklin ran in 1945 or 1950.

The Deputy Speaker: Who phoned you?

Mr. Ruston: The father phoned me. Pardon me. The son would have just been a youngster at that time.

Mr. Wildman: Did either one of them win?

Mr. Ruston: Neither one of them won.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for listening so intently. When one gets involved with two different people it gets a little confusing. I apologize for that.

What he was stressing to me was that this is part of the problem with government. I think it really is a problem of being too long in office. I say the same thing, sincerely, about Ottawa. I sometimes think that when one party is in power for 12 or 15 years, it really does not know what is going on.

The bureaucrats and civil servants, for whom we have great respect in most cases, really control things. Sometimes the party appoints special people who are party people, but the bureaucrats keep hiring their friends so that they get on a one-track basis. Then, when we have economic problems over a period of years, they really do not know what to do. It is always patchwork.

That is what happened in Ottawa when Mr. MacEachen brought down his budget. I sometimes swear to goodness that he did not even see it until the day he read it. I have the feeling it was written by about the third deputy minister.

This budget before us today, I think probably the second deputy minister wrote it. I hope it was not the one I mentioned a while ago, who is working for the ministry office, because he did not do as well as his father did in business. That is too bad but that happens at times. They do not always follow in their father's footsteps.

I am speaking of young Dave Conklin, who is working in the Treasury office as economic adviser. I was always told that when you hire an adviser, you hire one who has been successful. I think it is better to take his advice than to take the advice of one who has not been successful.

I recall that many years ago, when times were not that bad, a fellow lost his farm and was given a job by a government agency. Then he started going around telling other farmers what they should do. I could tell you what my father told him the first time he came around, but I will not repeat it. I do not think my father swore at him, but the man soon left.

The budget deficits are really mortgages. The Treasurer should get up and say, "I mortgaged the people of Ontario in 1973-74 for $708 million; in 1974-75, for $977 million; in 1975-76, for $ 1.799 billion." That last one was the budget for an election year.

In 1976-77, it was $1.319 billion; in 1977-78, the deficit, mortgage, the net cash requirements, or what one of the Treasurers sometimes used to call a shortfall, was $1.762 billion. In 1978-79, the deficit was $1.180 billion. But then, in 1979-80, it came down to $584 million, a real drop; but I have been told by some of the experts who followed all the budgets that they did a little shuffling at the end of the year to try to bring it down to that.

In 1980-81, the deficit was $803 million. The interim deficit for 1981-82 was $1,560,000,000 and the estimated deficit for 1982-83 is $2,232,000,000. I would estimate the deficit for 1982-83 will be closer to $3 billion than it will be to $2 billion.

5:40 p.m.

One of the reasons for that is the interest we are paying on the purchase of Suncor, an oil company from the United States that has no bearing on the province whatsoever. One day in crossfire with the Premier I said if the government wanted to go out and gamble on the stock market it would have been better off to go and buy some shares in General Motors or Bell Canada. It would have been better to do that than to buy an oil company that many other people were asked to buy and none would.

Mr. McLean: I hope you don't get cold some night about 10 years from now.

Mr. Ruston: I will not worry about getting cold. When we are elected, we will have alternative fuels ready immediately. We will set out these things in programs. We will be experimenting with the many alternative fuels that can be used. I am sure that will not be a problem.

Many people assume the sales tax is regressive. Most sales taxes are regressive. This one has to be the worst I have ever seen. The other day, one of our own members went to buy a bag of potatoes to plant and he was charged sales tax on it. A bag of potatoes! It is just unbelievable. I bought a tree two weeks ago, and it is a good thing I got it when I did. Shrubs, bushes, seeds, including bird seed, seedlings, cut flowers and plants are no longer exempt. John White took the tax off plants and flowers one time when he was the Treasurer. John liked flowers so he took the tax off. But this Treasurer does not like flowers, and he put it back on. He also put it on bulbs for growing plants or flowers, growing plants, flowers and the containers in which they are growing.

Of course, there is also a tax on the delivery. They are now getting 30 cents a gallon gas tax, but when that truck goes out, they want to get some more tax. So now they have put on a delivery charge which has to be taxable.

Mr. Runciman: I thought you guys didn't use the word "gallon."

Mr. Ruston: That's right in the member's line. I am glad to see the member for Leeds here. I agree with him, but he had better talk to the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations (Mr. Elgie), who was on the radio a couple of weeks ago in Windsor saying: "We will never stop the metric system in Ontario. As far as I am concerned, it is going to go."

Mr. Runciman: You should talk to your friend Ouellet in Ottawa.

Mr. Ruston: The member has some friends there too. His friends were in power for nine months. What was the matter? They should have stayed in power.

Some of the other things now being taxed are really bad, such as personal hygiene and household cleaning items. Just unbelievable. Everything one can imagine, like soaps and detergents. In plain common sense, it just does not make sense. No wonder we got mad last Friday and walked out of this place. We should have walked out before May 13 and not allowed the government to introduce the budget. If we had known it would be that bad, I would have recommended that we got out the night before and stayed out. It would have been better for the people of Ontario. We would have done them a good service. That is an idea.

"Magazines sold by subscription, purchased for use by schools, universities and public libraries are exempt." -- they are even putting taxes on going to school now, on school books of all kinds. Another thing is student supplies, such as blank exercise and work books, looseleaf paper, books for drawing upon, music manuscript paper, schoolbags and satchels. It is just unbelievable that anyone with any kind of reason would put taxes on things like this. Then they wonder why we get so disturbed about it.

"Bar soap, disposable combs, facial tissues, matches, paper bath mats, soap flakes..." It is just hard to believe.

It includes "buses for public transportation," which was brought up in question period today. What is it going to mean to the municipalities? "Building material for capital works, local services boards and volunteer groups" are taxable effective May 14.

I am going to attend the opening of a new township office. While I was reeve of the township, we built the office and new road works building. They are building an addition to it. Thank goodness they got in ahead of this one or it would have cost the municipality a lot more money to add the large office on to the present one. It is going to cost the municipalities thousands and thousands of dollars that they do not have in their 1982 budgets.

"Classroom supplies" as well will be taxed. "Self-built solar heating systems" will be taxed. They were going to try to save fuel but now they have put a tax on that. The real killer will be June 14, when the people of Ontario realize what kind of budget we have.

Mr. Newman: There will be a revolt then.

Mr. Ruston: I am sure the member for Windsor-Walkerville is right, there will be a revolt. There will be taxes at drive-in restaurants, dining rooms and cafeterias, including schools and universities. That also includes hospitals, rest homes and nursing homes, where the food served for the meal itself will not be taxable but a person will pay the sales tax if he goes to a cafeteria to get anything.

Mr. Boudria: Taxing the elderly and the children; that is what they are doing.

Mr. Ruston: "Lunch counters, private or social clubs, pizzas" -- and travelling for delivering them too -- "coffee shops, coffee wagons, caterers..." What a thing that is going to be to administer. All these caterers drive their vehicles all over to work places: I wonder if they will charge tax on their gas while they are driving around delivering food in these vending trucks.

"Vending machines, lodging houses," as I mentioned, "Royal Canadian Legion halls, convention centres, snack bars" and "fairs, exhibitions, sporting events, cinemas, theatres, grocery stores, taverns, bars..." They have put tax on everything.

Mr. McLean: How would you raise it?

Mr. Ruston: The member asked me how I would raise the money.

Mr. Boudria: Sell Suncor.

Mr. Ruston: I am glad he mentioned that. Suncor cost $650 million. The Treasurer assumes he is going to get $560 million from his new sales taxes. He is probably going to collect more like $750 million from them. I think he is low in his estimate, unless we can do something here to have some of them taken off.

I have a feeling there will be some changes made by the Treasurer in the next month. I would not say what things they might be, but I feel that after his trip to Japan, he may have the time to think about things.

If we want to save money, a member mentioned the land assemblies the province owns; I understand they are valued at somewhere around $700 million. We are borrowing money. We could sell them and get the cash. Then we could take the sales tax off.

We could sell the jet. It is all fixed up now with leather toilet seats and everything. It was going to cost about $10 million or $11 million, but I suppose we could get $14 million for it now that it is all decked out with mirrors, blue carpet and all.

We are talking about $1.2 billion this government has wasted. The money is just sitting there and we are paying interest on it. The interest we pay on most of it is at 16 per cent, 15 per cent or 14.5 per cent depending on the rate.

5:50 p.m.

It would not be necessary to raise any taxes. In fact, we could have some money to put into industry to create new jobs if they would get rid of the jet, Suncor and all the land areas they have accumulated which they have been keeping for years where they were going to make some great towns. One of the former Treasurers had a dream that he was going to form towns in different places.

Mr. Boudria: A vision.

Mr. Ruston: Yes, that was a vision. I do not think it was the same minister, though, who was travelling in his --

Mr. Sweeney: The only vision this government has ever had.

Mr. Ruston: One of the ministers had a point of view a few years ago. He was travelling to London in one of his limousines and he stopped at one of the service centres. While the fellow was looking after the gas, checking the oil and one thing and another, he had to go for a walk into the building for certain personal reasons.

An hon. member: Personal hygienic reasons.

Mr. Sweeney: They weren't taxed then.

Mr. Ruston: Personal hygienic reasons which now we would have to pay tax on. Anyway, the driver got the car all gassed up, the oil checked and everything, jumped in and took off. He was about 35 miles from London when he realized he did not have the cabinet minister with him.

Mr. Sweeney: Who misses them anyway?

Mr. Ruston: The member for Kitchener-Wilmot says, "Who misses the cabinet ministers anyway?" There are about 27 over there and about 20 parliamentary assistants. I do not know what some of them do. I understand the driver of the limousine of one of the ministers without portfolio gives him a little rag once in a while to go and shine up the car; so I am glad he has something to do occasionally.

I could go on indefinitely about this budget, because there are so many bad things in it. With the mortgage interest rates we are facing in Canada today, there is no reason at all why the government could not bring in a mortgage assistance plan. The official opposition proposed one about two years ago. It was a good plan. At that time there was a minority government. When we brought it into the House, it was defeated by a combination of the left-wing part of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. Neither of those parties thought we should have a mortgage assistance plan at that time.

Mr. Blakeney in Saskatchewan did not think they should have a mortgage assistance plan either and he got defeated. Members will recall that was not part of his platform. It was the Conservatives who ran out there under Mr. Devine who had a platform of mortgage assistance and no gas tax. That looked pretty good and he won the election. Mr. Blakeney could not understand what happened. He had only been in power for 11 years.

I can recall when I was about 16, 17 or 18 years old, we would have some strong arguments around the big kitchen table in the farm home. We would get talking about politics a few days after an election, and some of my older brothers would be disappointed if our party had lost that election.

My dad said: "Don't worry. The sun will shine tomorrow morning. It will rise in the east and we will still be working and paying taxes. However, we will win the next time. I want to tell you one thing: you should never keep any party in power more than 12 years. Kick them out. Bring in a new broom and let somebody else try it for a while."

That is what happened out in Saskatchewan. Mr. Blakeney was well respected. I think most people in this House thought he was one of the best Premiers in Canada. He seemed reasonable. I think he and the present Premier of Ontario got along pretty well. They did not see eye to eye on the Constitution, but I understand from some news reports that they did see eye to eye on many other things. He is probably a reasonable politician, but in 11 years he lost touch with what was going on out there in the real world.

That is what happens with many political parties. I do not think there is any doubt that the people of Ontario, after seeing this budget and getting a chance to read it, will realize what a mistake they made a year ago on March 19 when the Premier came along and said: "Keep the promise. We will keep the promise." I do not know what he was promising. He was promising no tax increases. He was promising all these things.

Mr. Sweeney: Surely he did not say that.

Mr. Ruston: He kept saying that all the time. I heard him a number of times. He was not down in my area. The plane landed in the airports in my riding, but he really did not get off the plane. I think he had to wait there to get gas or something. I think he went on to Chatham, but he did not really come to my riding or any of the other ridings in Essex or Windsor.

Mr. Wrye: We would like to see him next time.

Mr. Ruston: Well, he came in one election, in 1975, I think.

Mr. Boudria: Is that when you doubled your majority?

Mr. Ruston: Well, we did not do too badly.

Anyway, he came down with his group of people, and he was going to the little town of Belle River. There is a secondary school there, so he sent word to the principal that he should release the school children so he would have a crowd when he got into town. Since my son was in grade 10 or 11, he went down.

The Premier stood up on his little platform in the little town of Belle River, and the mayor was there with him. The mayor is a very good Liberal, but he meets everybody and treats him well. He had the NDP fellow come down, Mr. Lewis. He walked down the street with him and introduced him to a few people. He is a very broad-minded mayor who has been in politics for 33 years.

The Premier said: "Well, Mr. Mayor, I understand you have a little problem here. You have built a new arena, and after you built it you forgot to get Ontario Municipal Board approval." Two of the adjoining municipalities would not go in on it; they voted against giving them any money, so they had a big debt. So he said, "I have a cheque for you, for $325,000, from Wintario."

That was nice. I was not there, but when I heard it that night I was really happy. There was our problem all solved. The Premier came down -- yes, it was in 1975. That little town was very nice to him on election day: he won it by about 15 votes. Of course, the two adjoining municipalities were very unhappy because of the way he did it; so he lost them by about 1,000, of course. However, we got $325,000, he got more votes and the people were all happy.

If the Premier wants to come down, write cheques and pass them out, I have no objection at all. Just bring on the cheques, and if I cannot pass them out I do not care. As long as he brings the money into my riding, we will look after it, we will spend it.

People cannot be bamboozled that much. That little town did go Conservative in that election, but that was the only time it went Conservative. It has not gone Conservative since.

Mr. Sweeney: The government needs to take another cheque down there.

Mr. Ruston: We are waiting for another cheque, if he wants to send another one down. With most of the cheques that have been coming, the province tries to deliver them or send them through with a nice letter, but the problem is that a lot of that money does not come through the Treasurer, it comes from the government of Canada; but they do not want to say that at all, they do not mention that.

Mr. G. I. Miller: The feds supply lots of money.

Mr. Ruston: Oh, the feds supply an awful lot of money.

Mr. Wrye: Thank goodness somebody does.

Mr. Ruston: In one provincial election the candidate for the Conservatives was pictured with the mayor of the town and this new senior citizens' apartment building. He said in his brochure what a nice thing it was. That mayor was a friend of mine. He said: "I did not know he was going to put my picture in his brochure. However, I am mayor; so I guess it doesn't matter. A little publicity does not matter wherever it goes."

In his brochure in the election the Conservative candidate said, "We have this nice senior citizens' apartment building, thanks to the province of Ontario." But he forgot to tell them that 90 per cent of the money came from the Treasury in Ottawa. Oh no, he did not say anything about that. Eugene Whelan was not invited.

There was another apartment building built in the town of Tilbury West. It is a 20-unit, geared-to-income apartment building where the tenants only have to pay two per cent interest as long as five families out of 20 are on rent-geared-to-income. It is all administered by the province, but not one damned dollar came out of the Treasury of Ontario; it all came from Ottawa. But not one thing was mentioned in all the paperwork they are having to put through about where that money came from until the reeve, who is a pretty sharp guy, started to question it, and after an hour and 10 minutes one of the civil servants admitted that all the money came from Ottawa.

As it is close to six o'clock, I will return at eight. Do not forget to come back at eight.

The Deputy Speaker: The member for Essex North (Mr. Ruston) has indicated continuation.

The House recessed at 6 p.m.

20 mai 1982